4 ms·

> 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 result

by 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 ago
Geekbench 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.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  I compiled a few previously. Sorry for the formatting: ASUS ROG Zephyrus G16 (2024) Processor: Intel Core Ultra 9 185 Memory: 32GB Cargo Build: 31.85 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 1 minute 4 seconds ASUS ROG Zephyrus G14 (2024) Processor: AMD Ryzen 8945HS / Radeon 780M Memory: 32GB Cargo Build: 29.48 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 34.78 seconds ASUS ROG Strix Scar 18 (2024) Processor: Intel Core i9 14900HX Memory: 64GB Cargo Build: 21.27 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 28.69 seconds Apple MacBook Pro (M3 Pro 11 core) Processor: M3 Pro 11 core Cargo Build: 13.70 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 21.65 seconds Apple MacBook Pro 16 (M3 Max) Processor: M3 Max Cargo Build: 12.70 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 15.90 seconds Firefox Mobile build: M1 Air: 95 seconds AMD 5900hx: 138 seconds Source: https://youtu.be/QSPFx9R99-o?si=oG_nuV4oiMxjv4F-&t=505 https://youtu.be/QSPFx9R99-o?si=oG_nuV4oiMxjv4F-&t=505 Javascript builds Here, Alex compares the M1 Air running Parallels emulating Linux vs native Linux on AMD Zen2 mobile. The M1 is still significantly faster. https://youtu.be/tgS1P5bP7dA?si=Xz2JQmgoYp3IQGCX&t=183 https://youtu.be/tgS1P5bP7dA?si=Xz2JQmgoYp3IQGCX&t=183 Docker builds Here, Alex runs Docker ARM64 vs AMD x86 images and the M1 Air built the image 2x faster than an AMD Zen2 mobile. https://youtu.be/sWav0WuNMNs?si=IgxeMoJqpQaZv2nc&t=366 https://youtu.be/sWav0WuNMNs?si=IgxeMoJqpQaZv2nc&t=366 Anyways, Alex has a ton more videos on coding performance between Apple, Intel and AMD. Lastly, this is not M1 vs Zen2 but it's M2 vs Zen4. LLVM build test M2 Max: 377 seconds Ryzen 9 7940S: 826 seconds
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    @aurareturn really appreciate the comparison and your effort (upvoted). As I no longer use a laptop (don't need it, too expensive, breaks, no upgrades, but that is just me), browsing through that channel looks like he focuses on laptops. Would love to see a 7950x/64gb/SSD5 comparison, perhaps (see https://www.octobench.com/ https://www.octobench.com/ for SSD impact on Go compilation) he will create one in the future (channel bookmarked). But would I still need to use a laptop, I would probably switch back to Apple (have an iMac Pro as decoration standing in the shelf, was my last Apple dev machine). The $5000 16 Pro looks great as a machine. When still working at eBay, the nice thing was one always got the max specced machine as a developer back in the days - so that would probably be it. Real nice one. [Edit] Someone suggested looking at Geekbench Clang, which brought some insights for my desktop usage: (it looks like top CPUs are more or less the same, ~15% difference) "Randomly" picking M2 Ultra 233.9 Klines/sec 7950x 230.3 Klines/sec 14900K 215.3 Klines/sec M3 Max 196.5 Klines/sec
- arp242 2y ago
  Ah right; that's confusing! Seems that the AMD and Intel chips are much faster though, consistent with other benchmarks. Speed vs. $ is of course a different story than pure speed; kinda hard to capture in a number I guess. Most Go projects compile more than fast enough even on my 7 year old i5, although there are exceptions (mostly crummy hyper-overengineered projects).
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    I think it depends on what you do. If you write a database in Go, there is no problem with 5min compile time. If you write a web app, 10 sec compile times are already annoying.
    - cwbriscoe 2y ago
      5 minute compile time is annoying no matter what project you are trying to compile. Thankfully most every golang package I compile, takes less than 2-3 seconds.
    - arp242 2y ago
      "go test" compiles your package. Would not want a 5 minute feedback loop!
aurareturn 2y ago
Here's GB6: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6339005?baseline=6362242 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6339005?baselin... Note: M3 Max is a 40w CPU maximum, while 7950x is a 230w CPU maximum. The stated 170w max is usually deceptive from AMD. Source for 7950x power consumption: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x#:~:text=So%20taking%20the%20Ryzen%209,both%20AMD%20and%20Intel%20platforms https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power.... Note that the M3 Max leads in ST in Cinebench 2024 and 2-3x better in perf/watt. It does lose in MT in Cinebench 2024 but wins in GB6 MT. Cinebench is usually x86 favored as it favors AVX over NEON as well as having extremely long dependency chains, bottlenecked by caches and partly memory. This is why you get a huge SMT yield from it and why it scales very highly if you throw lots of "weak" cores at it. This is why Cinebench is a poor CPU benchmark in general as the vast majority of applications do not behave like Cinebench. Geekbench and SPEC are more predictive of CPU speed.
- zigzag312 2y ago
  It the end, what matters is real-world performance and different workloads have different bottlenecks. For people who use Cinema 4D, Cinebench is the most accurate measurement of hardware capabilities they can get. It's very hard to generalize what will matter for the vast majority of people. I find it's best to look at benchmarks for the same applications or similar workloads to what you'll be doing. Single score benchmark like Geekbench are fun and quick way to get some general idea about CPU capabilities, but most of the time they don't match specifics of real-world workloads. Here's a content creation benchmark (note that for some tasks a GPU is also used): https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/mac-vs-pc-for-content-creation-2024/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/mac-vs-pc-for-con...
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    Cinebench is being used like a general purpose CPU benchmark when, like you said, it should only be used to judge the performance of Cinema 4D. Cinema 4D is a niche software in a niche. Why is a niche in a niche software application being used to judge overall CPU performance? It doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, Geekbench does run real world workloads using real world libraries. You can look at subtest scores to to see "real world" results. Pugetsystem benchmarks are pretty good. It shows how Apple SoCs punch above their weight in real world applications over benchmarks. Regardless, they are comparing desktop machines using as much as 1500 watts vs a laptop that maxes out at 80 watts and Apple is still competing well. The wins in the PC world are usually due to beefy Nvidia GPUs that are applications have historically optimized for. That's why I originally said ARM is leading AMD - specifically Apple ARM chips.

by arp242 2y ago

KingOfCoders 2y ago

Geekbench 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.

aurareturn 2y ago
I compiled a few previously. Sorry for the formatting: ASUS ROG Zephyrus G16 (2024) Processor: Intel Core Ultra 9 185 Memory: 32GB Cargo Build: 31.85 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 1 minute 4 seconds ASUS ROG Zephyrus G14 (2024) Processor: AMD Ryzen 8945HS / Radeon 780M Memory: 32GB Cargo Build: 29.48 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 34.78 seconds ASUS ROG Strix Scar 18 (2024) Processor: Intel Core i9 14900HX Memory: 64GB Cargo Build: 21.27 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 28.69 seconds Apple MacBook Pro (M3 Pro 11 core) Processor: M3 Pro 11 core Cargo Build: 13.70 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 21.65 seconds Apple MacBook Pro 16 (M3 Max) Processor: M3 Max Cargo Build: 12.70 seconds Cargo Build --Release: 15.90 seconds Firefox Mobile build: M1 Air: 95 seconds AMD 5900hx: 138 seconds Source: https://youtu.be/QSPFx9R99-o?si=oG_nuV4oiMxjv4F-&t=505 https://youtu.be/QSPFx9R99-o?si=oG_nuV4oiMxjv4F-&t=505 Javascript builds Here, Alex compares the M1 Air running Parallels emulating Linux vs native Linux on AMD Zen2 mobile. The M1 is still significantly faster. https://youtu.be/tgS1P5bP7dA?si=Xz2JQmgoYp3IQGCX&t=183 https://youtu.be/tgS1P5bP7dA?si=Xz2JQmgoYp3IQGCX&t=183 Docker builds Here, Alex runs Docker ARM64 vs AMD x86 images and the M1 Air built the image 2x faster than an AMD Zen2 mobile. https://youtu.be/sWav0WuNMNs?si=IgxeMoJqpQaZv2nc&t=366 https://youtu.be/sWav0WuNMNs?si=IgxeMoJqpQaZv2nc&t=366 Anyways, Alex has a ton more videos on coding performance between Apple, Intel and AMD. Lastly, this is not M1 vs Zen2 but it's M2 vs Zen4. LLVM build test M2 Max: 377 seconds Ryzen 9 7940S: 826 seconds
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  @aurareturn really appreciate the comparison and your effort (upvoted). As I no longer use a laptop (don't need it, too expensive, breaks, no upgrades, but that is just me), browsing through that channel looks like he focuses on laptops. Would love to see a 7950x/64gb/SSD5 comparison, perhaps (see https://www.octobench.com/ https://www.octobench.com/ for SSD impact on Go compilation) he will create one in the future (channel bookmarked). But would I still need to use a laptop, I would probably switch back to Apple (have an iMac Pro as decoration standing in the shelf, was my last Apple dev machine). The $5000 16 Pro looks great as a machine. When still working at eBay, the nice thing was one always got the max specced machine as a developer back in the days - so that would probably be it. Real nice one. [Edit] Someone suggested looking at Geekbench Clang, which brought some insights for my desktop usage: (it looks like top CPUs are more or less the same, ~15% difference) "Randomly" picking M2 Ultra 233.9 Klines/sec 7950x 230.3 Klines/sec 14900K 215.3 Klines/sec M3 Max 196.5 Klines/sec
arp242 2y ago
Ah right; that's confusing! Seems that the AMD and Intel chips are much faster though, consistent with other benchmarks. Speed vs. $ is of course a different story than pure speed; kinda hard to capture in a number I guess. Most Go projects compile more than fast enough even on my 7 year old i5, although there are exceptions (mostly crummy hyper-overengineered projects).
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  I think it depends on what you do. If you write a database in Go, there is no problem with 5min compile time. If you write a web app, 10 sec compile times are already annoying.
  - cwbriscoe 2y ago
    5 minute compile time is annoying no matter what project you are trying to compile. Thankfully most every golang package I compile, takes less than 2-3 seconds.
  - arp242 2y ago
    "go test" compiles your package. Would not want a 5 minute feedback loop!

aurareturn 2y ago

Here's GB6: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6339005?baseline=6362242 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6339005?baselin... Note: M3 Max is a 40w CPU maximum, while 7950x is a 230w CPU maximum. The stated 170w max is usually deceptive from AMD. Source for 7950x power consumption: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x#:~:text=So%20taking%20the%20Ryzen%209,both%20AMD%20and%20Intel%20platforms https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power.... Note that the M3 Max leads in ST in Cinebench 2024 and 2-3x better in perf/watt. It does lose in MT in Cinebench 2024 but wins in GB6 MT. Cinebench is usually x86 favored as it favors AVX over NEON as well as having extremely long dependency chains, bottlenecked by caches and partly memory. This is why you get a huge SMT yield from it and why it scales very highly if you throw lots of "weak" cores at it. This is why Cinebench is a poor CPU benchmark in general as the vast majority of applications do not behave like Cinebench. Geekbench and SPEC are more predictive of CPU speed.

zigzag312 2y ago
It the end, what matters is real-world performance and different workloads have different bottlenecks. For people who use Cinema 4D, Cinebench is the most accurate measurement of hardware capabilities they can get. It's very hard to generalize what will matter for the vast majority of people. I find it's best to look at benchmarks for the same applications or similar workloads to what you'll be doing. Single score benchmark like Geekbench are fun and quick way to get some general idea about CPU capabilities, but most of the time they don't match specifics of real-world workloads. Here's a content creation benchmark (note that for some tasks a GPU is also used): https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/mac-vs-pc-for-content-creation-2024/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/mac-vs-pc-for-con...
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Cinebench is being used like a general purpose CPU benchmark when, like you said, it should only be used to judge the performance of Cinema 4D. Cinema 4D is a niche software in a niche. Why is a niche in a niche software application being used to judge overall CPU performance? It doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, Geekbench does run real world workloads using real world libraries. You can look at subtest scores to to see "real world" results. Pugetsystem benchmarks are pretty good. It shows how Apple SoCs punch above their weight in real world applications over benchmarks. Regardless, they are comparing desktop machines using as much as 1500 watts vs a laptop that maxes out at 80 watts and Apple is still competing well. The wins in the PC world are usually due to beefy Nvidia GPUs that are applications have historically optimized for. That's why I originally said ARM is leading AMD - specifically Apple ARM chips.