7 ms·
[If you're a laptop user, scroll down the thread for laptop Rust compile times, M3 Pro looks great] You're misguided. Apple has excellent Notebook CPUs. Apple
by KingOfCoders 2y ago
[If you're a laptop user, scroll down the thread for laptop Rust compile times, M3 Pro looks great]
You're misguided.
Apple has excellent Notebook CPUs. Apple has great IPC.
But AMD and Intel have easily faster CPUs.
https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/query/?compute_type=CPU&group_by=device_name&blender_version=4.1.0 https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/query/?compute_type=...
Blender Benchmark
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (16 core) 560.8
Apple M2 Ultra (24 cores) 501.82
Apple M3 Max (12 cores) 408.27
Apple M3 Pro 226.46
Apple M3 160.58
It depends on what you're doing.
I'm a software developer using a compiler that 100%s all cores. I like fast multicore.
Apple Mac Pro, 64gb, M2 Ultra, $7000
Apple Mac mini, 32gb, M2 Pro, 2TB SSD, $2600
[Edit2] Compare to: 7950x is $500 and a very fast SSD is $400, fast 64gb is $200, very good board is $400 so I get a very fast dev machine for ~$1700 (0,329 p/$ vs. mini 0,077 p/$)
[Edit] Made a c&p mistake, the mini has no ultra.
- wtallis 2y ago> Blender Benchmark Maybe use a benchmark that actually makes sense for CPUs, rather than something that's always much faster on a GPU (eg. M3 Pro as any sane user would use it for Blender is 2.7x the performance of a Ryzen 7950X, not 0.4x). > Apple Mac mini, 32gb, M2 Ultra, 2TB SSD, $2600 Not a real thing. You meant M2 Pro, because the Max and Ultra chips aren't available in the Mac mini.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoI would love to quote a compiler comparison, but I don't know a good and accepted compiler benchmark. What would you use as a compiler benchmark? (Preferably Go, but I assume Rust would be better, as it is much slower, so the differences are bigger) (corrected my c&p mistake with the mini, thanks)
- codewithcheese 2y agoThink chromium compile is widely used
- KingOfCoders 2y agoCan you point me to a comparison site? Didn't find a M3/M2/7950/... comparison site for chromium compile times :-( (Even phoronix is scares and mostly focuses on laptops - I have no laptop)
- pquki4 2y agoThere probably isn't a site that just comparess chromium compilation time, but you can find the number in many YouTube and text reviews.
- phonon 2y agoYou can look at the Geekbench 6 component. https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals.pdf https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals... (page 18)
- KingOfCoders 2y agoThanks, Clang looks good, now I need to check how to sort CPUs/systems by the Clang benchmark, no success for now. "Randomly" picking 14900K 215.3 Klines/sec 7950x 230.3 Klines/sec M2 Ultra 233.9 Klines/sec M3 Max 196.5 Klines/sec
- aurareturn 2y agoSingle thread: M3 Max: 3898 7950x: 2951 The ST advantage of Apple Silicon is real. 7950x does do better in highly parallel tasks. To me, Apple Silicon is clearly leading clients over AMD/Intel. Hence, my original reason for why AMD's announcement isn't "exciting". Because Apple Silicon is so far ahead in client. Of course, AMD can crank up the core via Epyc/Threadripper and Apple has no answer. For that, you'd need to look into ARM chips from Ampere/Amazon for a competitor.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoYes, and is great if you are a gamer / have software that doesn't multi-core.
- hajile 2y agoOr if you don't want to blow out the power bill. A 7950x system at IDLE uses 50% more power than an M3 Max going all-out on a CPU workload. https://www.guru3d.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review/page-7/ https://www.guru3d.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review/page-...
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
- JonChesterfield 2y agoBuilding clang using itself is a reasonable approximation to a compiler benchmark, speaking as someone who spends a depressing fraction of his life doing that over and over for permutations of the source code. That's somewhere in the five to ten minutes range on a decent single socket system.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoDo you know of a benchmark site that compares clang compilations for different systems (CPU/RAM/SSD)?
- bee_rider 2y agoIs blender 100% GPU now? Last time I used it, there were multiple renderers available, and it wasn’t a 100% win to switch to GPU. IIRC the cpu did better in ray tracing(?). This was a couple years ago though so things may have changed or I might not be recalling correctly.
- wtallis 2y agoI think GPU rendering was always faster as long as you had a supported GPU. Now that the Cycles renderer has support for all the major GPU APIs/vendors, the only reasons to render on the CPU are if you don't have a half-decent GPU, or if your scene doesn't fit in your GPU's memory. Neither of those are a concern on Apple systems. At least on NVIDIA hardware, Blender can use the GPU's raytracing capabilities rather than just the general-purpose GPU compute capabilities. Which means it doesn't take a very expensive GPU at all to outperform high-end CPUs.
- aurareturn 2y agoThat seems wrong. Though Blender may have an optimization for avx512 but not for SME or Neon. But the vast majority will use GPUs to do rendering for Blender. Try SPEC or its close consumer counterpart, Geekbench. As an anecdote, all my Python and Node.js applications run faster on Apple Silicon than Zen4. Even my multithread Go apps seem to run better on Apple Silicon.
- arp242 2y agoNow you're just asserting things unencumbered by even the slightest evidence. On Passmark Apple CPUs are pretty far down the list. On Geekbench I gave up after scrolling a few pages. And "run faster on Apple Silicon than Zen4" means nothing. On the low end you have fairly cheap Ryzen 3 laptop chips, and on the high end you have Threadripper behemoths.
- aurareturn 2y agoPassmark is a pretty bad CPU benchmark. It generally has poor correlation. I would stick to SPEC and Geekbench. Even Cinebench 2024 isn't too bad nowadays though R23 was quite poor in correlation. In general, not only are Apple Silicon CPUs faster than AMD consumer CPUs, but they're 2-4x more power efficient as well.
- arp242 2y ago> I would stick to SPEC and Geekbench. I will repeat: "On Geekbench I gave up after scrolling a few pages." SPEC doesn't seem to have easily browsable results, but we can find the Cinebench 2024 ones easy and guess what? Apple isn't at the top. Not even close: https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/ https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/
- KingOfCoders 2y agoGeekbench has a seperate page for each "instruction set". For Apple you need to go to https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks Then compare numbers by hand I assume. Though what I would love is compile-time vs. $ (as mentioned, I'm a software developer). The 7950x is $500 and a very fast SSD is $400, fast 64gb is $200, very good board is $400 so I get a very fast dev machine for ~$1700.
- hajile 2y agoThere's something wrong with your M3 Max stuff. I believe it comes in 14 and 16-core variants while the M3 Pro comes in 11 and 12-core variants. In any case, M3 Max uses less than 55w of power in CPU-only workloads while a desktop 7950x peaked out at 332w of power according to Guru3D (without an OC). The fact that M2 Ultra hits so close while peaking out at only around 100w of CPU power is pretty crazy (M2 Ultra doesn't even hit 300w with all CPU and GPU cores maxed out).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- KingOfCoders 2y agoYes you're right the M3 Max has 14/16 and the M3 Pro 11/12 cores.