3 ms·

> specifically efficiency AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an a

> specifically efficiency AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an advantage

manuelabeledo 3y ago
By which metric?
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  Whatever metric apple uses. They freely admit that their chips are less powerful. Efficiency you can look up, e.g. whatever benchmark value per watt.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    I'm running Cinebench 24 right now on my M3 Max, because I'm genuinely curious about that. So far it is looking OK. In single core, it handily beats a 7900X3D at a fraction of the power draw.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    Apple currently has the fastest single core performance according to Cinebench, Geekbench, and PassMark benchmarks https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - tester756 3y ago
      What about price? it seems to be waay more expensive than competition check e.g those https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html AMD and Intel beat Apple hard in perf and price benchmarks.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        Price cannot be compared because we do not know the price of an Apple processor. In fact, Passmark does not include Apple processors in their "best value" listings [0] [0] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
        tester756 3y ago
        >Price cannot be compared because we do not know the price of an Apple processor It cannot be compared perfectly, but you can try to estimate its perf/$ I'm not saying this will be easy, but imagine if the whole laptop was e.g 10k usd instead of 4-5k, then you'd instantly feel that something is expensive
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > It cannot be compared perfectly, but you can try to estimate its perf/$ Hardly. I don't see how one would be able to identify and normalize all the required variables, e.g. median life expectancy, average performance across metrics per watt, average power usage, residual value, etc. For instance, I can sell my 2017 MacBook Pro for roughly twice as much as my 2017 Thinkpad, which has better specs. How do you factor that?
        tester756 3y ago
        >How do you factor that? I wouldn't because it makes no sense. Occurance of great deals aint relevant here, imo. Why would I care that customers do crazy stuff on 2nd hand market? >I don't see how one would be able to identify and normalize all the required variables, e.g. median life expectancy, average performance across metrics per watt, average power usage, residual value, etc. How about building system for similar price to Macbook and comparing their performance? It, of course won't be ideal, fair, whatever, but ain't it what gamers do? They find PC configurations and check how games run on them.
      - xcv123 3y ago
- FullyFunctional 3y ago
  Exactly. There are so many dimensions across which to evaluate it. What I care about the most is 1) ST thread (running my personal workload which is inherently single threaded), and 2) Rust compilation (MT compile/ST link). For 1) my fastest iron is i9-13700KS and Apple M2. They are very close. My Zen 3 is great and is notably more power efficient, but I'll evaluate 14700KS-Zen 5-M3 when possible. ADD: because of winter I'm loving my i9-13700KS (not kidding, my office would be freezing without it), but come summer I'll care about efficiency.
xcv123 3y ago
AMD is marginally slower per core. Practically the same performance. https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpus-hit-405-ghz-challenge-raptor-lake-in-geekbench https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpu...
- kramerger 3y ago
  The AMD Ryzen strategy has always been many but less powerful cores. Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks. And even there Apples lead is less than 2%.
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    Single core performance is the primary thing that determines responsiveness for many programs.
    - snvzz 3y ago
      Yet it won't matter at <2%, especially when multi-core is actually slower.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    > Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks That is nonsense that none of the CPU competitors would agree with. In most applications single core performance matters very much. Not every algorithm can be multi threaded and there is an unavoidable overhead with those that can be multi threaded. Only some parts of some applications can be multi threaded. For example, a 20 core 500 MHz CPU is much less capable and responsive for real world usage than a 5 core 2 GHz CPU, despite having the same instruction count per cycle. A 100 core 100 Mhz CPU would take forever to boot up and feel unusably slow.

> specifically efficiency AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an advantage

manuelabeledo 3y ago

By which metric?

diffeomorphism 3y ago
Whatever metric apple uses. They freely admit that their chips are less powerful. Efficiency you can look up, e.g. whatever benchmark value per watt.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  I'm running Cinebench 24 right now on my M3 Max, because I'm genuinely curious about that. So far it is looking OK. In single core, it handily beats a 7900X3D at a fraction of the power draw.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Apple currently has the fastest single core performance according to Cinebench, Geekbench, and PassMark benchmarks https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tester756 3y ago
    What about price? it seems to be waay more expensive than competition check e.g those https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html AMD and Intel beat Apple hard in perf and price benchmarks.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      Price cannot be compared because we do not know the price of an Apple processor. In fact, Passmark does not include Apple processors in their "best value" listings [0] [0] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
      - tester756 3y ago
        >Price cannot be compared because we do not know the price of an Apple processor It cannot be compared perfectly, but you can try to estimate its perf/$ I'm not saying this will be easy, but imagine if the whole laptop was e.g 10k usd instead of 4-5k, then you'd instantly feel that something is expensive
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > It cannot be compared perfectly, but you can try to estimate its perf/$ Hardly. I don't see how one would be able to identify and normalize all the required variables, e.g. median life expectancy, average performance across metrics per watt, average power usage, residual value, etc. For instance, I can sell my 2017 MacBook Pro for roughly twice as much as my 2017 Thinkpad, which has better specs. How do you factor that?
        tester756 3y ago
        >How do you factor that? I wouldn't because it makes no sense. Occurance of great deals aint relevant here, imo. Why would I care that customers do crazy stuff on 2nd hand market? >I don't see how one would be able to identify and normalize all the required variables, e.g. median life expectancy, average performance across metrics per watt, average power usage, residual value, etc. How about building system for similar price to Macbook and comparing their performance? It, of course won't be ideal, fair, whatever, but ain't it what gamers do? They find PC configurations and check how games run on them.
    - xcv123 3y ago
FullyFunctional 3y ago
Exactly. There are so many dimensions across which to evaluate it. What I care about the most is 1) ST thread (running my personal workload which is inherently single threaded), and 2) Rust compilation (MT compile/ST link). For 1) my fastest iron is i9-13700KS and Apple M2. They are very close. My Zen 3 is great and is notably more power efficient, but I'll evaluate 14700KS-Zen 5-M3 when possible. ADD: because of winter I'm loving my i9-13700KS (not kidding, my office would be freezing without it), but come summer I'll care about efficiency.

xcv123 3y ago

AMD is marginally slower per core. Practically the same performance. https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpus-hit-405-ghz-challenge-raptor-lake-in-geekbench https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpu...

kramerger 3y ago
The AMD Ryzen strategy has always been many but less powerful cores. Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks. And even there Apples lead is less than 2%.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  Single core performance is the primary thing that determines responsiveness for many programs.
  - snvzz 3y ago
    Yet it won't matter at <2%, especially when multi-core is actually slower.
- xcv123 3y ago
  > Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks That is nonsense that none of the CPU competitors would agree with. In most applications single core performance matters very much. Not every algorithm can be multi threaded and there is an unavoidable overhead with those that can be multi threaded. Only some parts of some applications can be multi threaded. For example, a 20 core 500 MHz CPU is much less capable and responsive for real world usage than a 5 core 2 GHz CPU, despite having the same instruction count per cycle. A 100 core 100 Mhz CPU would take forever to boot up and feel unusably slow.