3 ms·
Absolute performance and absolute performance per watt - given a specific set of tasks - are the only metrics that matter in practice (for desktop and mobile/da
by zamalek 3y ago
Absolute performance and absolute performance per watt - given a specific set of tasks - are the only metrics that matter in practice (for desktop and mobile/data center respectively). nm (which actually has had no meaningful correlation to size for at least a decade), IPC, or whatever other metrics are only actually useful to two audiences: the people designing and fabbing the chip.
"Apple would be faster than AMD/Intel if it ran at 5.5GHz," well it doesn't, does it? Even on the desktop SKUs. The high IPC is a specific trade-off that the designers made in order to hit targets that they care about. We aren't yet at the point where one chip is good at everything (well, not entirely true, Epyc does hit an unreasonable amount of targets).
- bee_rider 3y agoIn this case it looks like they weren’t talking about what matters “in practice,” but whether the improvement would indicate that some aspect of the design must have improved to an implausible degree. So, which type of benchmark you think is best seems slightly tangential to the issue.
- zamalek 3y ago"per clock" is IPC, which was the entire point of my comment. If AMD were running at 4GHz they might have had comparable IPC, or they might not because they could use the headroom to target something else. But they aren't at 4GHz. Nor are they ARM. It's all Apple marketing speak (others aren't innocent of this nonsense either). Comparing IPC across the same chip line does make sense, to get a rough idea if how far the envelope is being pushed. Even comparing M3 to A17 would be extremely questionable.