4 ms·

Let's do the math on M1 Pro (10-core, N5, 2021) vs HX370 (12-core, N4P, 2024). Firestorm without L3 is 2.281mm2. Icestorm is 0.59mm2. M1 Pro has 8P+2E for a to

by hajile 2y ago

Let's do the math on M1 Pro (10-core, N5, 2021) vs HX370 (12-core, N4P, 2024). Firestorm without L3 is 2.281mm2. Icestorm is 0.59mm2. M1 Pro has 8P+2E for a total of 19.428mm2 of cores included. Zen4 without L3 is 3.84mm2. Zen4c reduces that down to 2.48mm2. Zen5 CCD is pretty much the same size as Zen4 (though with 27% more transistors), so core size should be similar. AMD has also stated that Zen5c has a similar shrink percent to Zen4c. We'll use their numbers. HX370 has 4P+8C for a total area of 35.2mm2. If being twice the size despite being on N4P instead of N5 like M1 seems like foreshadowing, it is. We'll use notebookcheck's Cinebench 2024 multithread power and performance numbers to calculate perf / power / area then multiply that by 100 to eliminate some decimals. M1 Pro scores 824 (10-core) and while they don't have a power value listed, they do list 33.6w package power running the prime95 power virus, so cinebench's power should be lower than that. HX370 scored 1213 (12-core) and averaged 119w (maxing at a massive 121.7w and that's without running a power virus). This gives the following perf/power/area*100 scores: M1 Pro — 126 PPA HX 379 — 29 PPA M1 is more than 4.3x better while being an entire node behind and being released years before.

cyp0633 2y ago
Power efficiency is a curve, and Apple may have its own reason not to make M1 Pro run at 110W as well
- sm_1024 2y ago
  I think the OC might have mis-read the power numbers, 110 W is well into desktop CPU power range. Here is a excerpt from Anand Tech: > In our peak power test, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 ramped up and peaked at 33 W. https://www.anandtech.com/show/21485/the-amd-ryzen-ai-hx-370-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/21485/the-amd-ryzen-ai-hx-370...
  - hajile 2y ago
    You can read the notebookcheck review for yourself. https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-analysis-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370-versus-Intel-Core-Ultra-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite.868641.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
    - ac29 2y ago
      Those 100W+ numbers are total system power. And that system has the CPU TDP set to 80W (far above AMD's official max of 54W). It also has a discrete 4070 GPU that can use over 100W on its own.
      - paulmd 2y ago
        if x86 laptops have 90w of platform power, that’s a thing that’s concerning in itself, not a reasonable defense. Remember, apple laptops have screens too, etc, and that shows up in the average system power measurements the same way. What's the difference in an x86 laptop? I really doubt it's actually platform power, the problem is that x86 is boosting up to 35W average/60W peak per thread. 120W package power isn't unexpected, if you're boosting 3-4 cores to maximum! And that's the problem. x86 is far far worse at race-to-sleep. It's not just "macos has better scheduling"... you can see from the 1T power measurements that x86 is simply drawing 2-3x the power while it's racing-to-sleep, for performance that's roughly equivalent to ARM. Whatever the cause, whether it's just bad design from AMD and Intel, or legacy x86 cruft (I don't get how this applies to actual computational load though, as opposed to situations like idle power), or what... there is no getting around the fact that M2 tops out at 10W per core and a 8840HS or HX370 or Intel Meteor Lake are boosting to 30-35W at 1T loads.
- hajile 2y ago
  I stacked the deck in AMD's favor using a 3-year-old chip on an older node. Why is AMD using 3.6x more power than M1 to get just 32% higher performance while having 17% more cores? Why are AMD's cores nearly 2x the size despite being on a better node and having 3 more years to work on them? Why are Apple's scores the same on battery while AMD's scores drop dramatically? Apple does have a reason not to run at 120w -- it doesn't need to. Meanwhile, if AMD used the same 33w, nobody would buy their chips because performance would be so incredibly bad.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pickledish 2y ago
    You should try not to talk so confidently about things you don't know about -- this statement > if AMD used the same 33w, nobody would buy their chips because performance would be so incredibly bad Is completely incorrect, as another commenter (and I think the notebookcheck article?) point out -- 30w is about the sweet spot for these processors, and the reason that 110w laptop seems so inefficient is because it's giving the APU 80w of TDP, which is a bit silly since it only performs marginally better than if you gave it e.g. 30 watts. It's not a good idea to take that example as a benchmark for the APU's efficiency, it varies depending on how much TDP you give the processor, and 80w is not a good TDP for these
    - hajile 2y ago
      Halo products with high scores sell chips. This isn’t a new idea. So you lower the wattage down. Now you’re at M1 Pro levels of performance with 17% more cores and nearly double the die area and barely competing with a chip 3 years older while on a newer, more expensive node too. That’s not selling me on your product (and that’s without mentioning the worst core latency I’ve seen in years when going between P and C cores).
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
sm_1024 2y ago
119W for hx370 looks extremely sus, seems to me more like the system level power consumption and not CPU-only. According to phoronix [1,2], in their blender CPU test, they measured a peak of 33W. Here max power numbers from some other tests that I know are multi-threaded: -- Linux 6.8 Compilation: 33.13 W LLVM Compilation: 33.25 W -- If I plug in 33W into your equation, that would give us score of HX 370: 104 PPA This supports the HX 370 being pretty power efficient, although still not as power efficient as M3. [1] https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/3 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/3 [2] https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/4 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/4
- hajile 2y ago
  https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-analysis-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370-versus-Intel-Core-Ultra-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite.868641.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal... They got those kinds of numbers across multiple systems. You can take it up with them I guess. I didn't even mention one of these systems was peaking at 59w on single-core workloads.
  - sm_1024 2y ago
    I see what's going on, they have two HX370 laptops: Laptop MC score Avg Power P16 1213 113 W S16 921 29 W M3 Pro 1059 (30 W?) They don't have M3 Pro power numbers, but I assume it is somewhere around 30W, seems like S16 has similar power efficiency as HX 370 at 30 W. Any more power, and the CPU is much less power efficient, 300% increase in power for 30% increase in performance.
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      This is true for every CPU. Past a certain point power consumption scales quadratically with performance.
- moonfern 2y ago
  About cinebench-geekbench-spec: https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_cinebench_is_now_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6/eli5_why_d... That's about Cinebench 20, an overview of Cinebench 24 cpu&gpu(!): https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/ https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/
jeswin 2y ago
Even with the M3 the difference is marginal in multi-threaded benchmarks, from the Cinebench link [1] someone posted earlier on the thread. Apple M3 Pro 11-Core - 394 Points per Watt AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 - 354 Points per Watt Apple M3 Max 16-Core - 306 Points per Watt And the Ryzen in on TSMC 4nm while the M3 is on 3nm. As parent is saying, a lot of the Apple Silicon hype was due to the massive upgrade it was over the Intel CPUs Apple was using previously. [1]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-analysis-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370-versus-Intel-Core-Ultra-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite.868641.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
- dagmx 2y ago
  Their efficiency tests use Cinebench R23 (as called out explicitly). R23 is not optimized for Apple silicon but is for x86. The R24 numbers are actually what you need for a fair comparison, otherwise you put the Arm numbers at a significant handicap.
- merb 2y ago
  That the max should be worse than the m3 pro is a little bit shady.
janwas 2y ago
Cinebench might not be the most relevant benchmark, it uses lots of scalar instructions with fairly high branch mispredictions and low IPC: https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/02/22/analyzing-zen-2s-cinebench-r15-lead/ https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/02/22/analyzing-zen-2s-cineb....

by hajile 2y ago

cyp0633 2y ago

Power efficiency is a curve, and Apple may have its own reason not to make M1 Pro run at 110W as well

sm_1024 2y ago
I think the OC might have mis-read the power numbers, 110 W is well into desktop CPU power range. Here is a excerpt from Anand Tech: > In our peak power test, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 ramped up and peaked at 33 W. https://www.anandtech.com/show/21485/the-amd-ryzen-ai-hx-370-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/21485/the-amd-ryzen-ai-hx-370...
- hajile 2y ago
  You can read the notebookcheck review for yourself. https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-analysis-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370-versus-Intel-Core-Ultra-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite.868641.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
  - ac29 2y ago
    Those 100W+ numbers are total system power. And that system has the CPU TDP set to 80W (far above AMD's official max of 54W). It also has a discrete 4070 GPU that can use over 100W on its own.
    - paulmd 2y ago
      if x86 laptops have 90w of platform power, that’s a thing that’s concerning in itself, not a reasonable defense. Remember, apple laptops have screens too, etc, and that shows up in the average system power measurements the same way. What's the difference in an x86 laptop? I really doubt it's actually platform power, the problem is that x86 is boosting up to 35W average/60W peak per thread. 120W package power isn't unexpected, if you're boosting 3-4 cores to maximum! And that's the problem. x86 is far far worse at race-to-sleep. It's not just "macos has better scheduling"... you can see from the 1T power measurements that x86 is simply drawing 2-3x the power while it's racing-to-sleep, for performance that's roughly equivalent to ARM. Whatever the cause, whether it's just bad design from AMD and Intel, or legacy x86 cruft (I don't get how this applies to actual computational load though, as opposed to situations like idle power), or what... there is no getting around the fact that M2 tops out at 10W per core and a 8840HS or HX370 or Intel Meteor Lake are boosting to 30-35W at 1T loads.
hajile 2y ago
I stacked the deck in AMD's favor using a 3-year-old chip on an older node. Why is AMD using 3.6x more power than M1 to get just 32% higher performance while having 17% more cores? Why are AMD's cores nearly 2x the size despite being on a better node and having 3 more years to work on them? Why are Apple's scores the same on battery while AMD's scores drop dramatically? Apple does have a reason not to run at 120w -- it doesn't need to. Meanwhile, if AMD used the same 33w, nobody would buy their chips because performance would be so incredibly bad.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pickledish 2y ago
  You should try not to talk so confidently about things you don't know about -- this statement > if AMD used the same 33w, nobody would buy their chips because performance would be so incredibly bad Is completely incorrect, as another commenter (and I think the notebookcheck article?) point out -- 30w is about the sweet spot for these processors, and the reason that 110w laptop seems so inefficient is because it's giving the APU 80w of TDP, which is a bit silly since it only performs marginally better than if you gave it e.g. 30 watts. It's not a good idea to take that example as a benchmark for the APU's efficiency, it varies depending on how much TDP you give the processor, and 80w is not a good TDP for these
  - hajile 2y ago
    Halo products with high scores sell chips. This isn’t a new idea. So you lower the wattage down. Now you’re at M1 Pro levels of performance with 17% more cores and nearly double the die area and barely competing with a chip 3 years older while on a newer, more expensive node too. That’s not selling me on your product (and that’s without mentioning the worst core latency I’ve seen in years when going between P and C cores).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

sm_1024 2y ago

119W for hx370 looks extremely sus, seems to me more like the system level power consumption and not CPU-only. According to phoronix [1,2], in their blender CPU test, they measured a peak of 33W. Here max power numbers from some other tests that I know are multi-threaded: -- Linux 6.8 Compilation: 33.13 W LLVM Compilation: 33.25 W -- If I plug in 33W into your equation, that would give us score of HX 370: 104 PPA This supports the HX 370 being pretty power efficient, although still not as power efficient as M3. [1] https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/3 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/3 [2] https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/4 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/4

hajile 2y ago
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-analysis-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370-versus-Intel-Core-Ultra-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite.868641.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal... They got those kinds of numbers across multiple systems. You can take it up with them I guess. I didn't even mention one of these systems was peaking at 59w on single-core workloads.
- sm_1024 2y ago
  I see what's going on, they have two HX370 laptops: Laptop MC score Avg Power P16 1213 113 W S16 921 29 W M3 Pro 1059 (30 W?) They don't have M3 Pro power numbers, but I assume it is somewhere around 30W, seems like S16 has similar power efficiency as HX 370 at 30 W. Any more power, and the CPU is much less power efficient, 300% increase in power for 30% increase in performance.
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    This is true for every CPU. Past a certain point power consumption scales quadratically with performance.
moonfern 2y ago
About cinebench-geekbench-spec: https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_cinebench_is_now_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6/eli5_why_d... That's about Cinebench 20, an overview of Cinebench 24 cpu&gpu(!): https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/ https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/

jeswin 2y ago

Even with the M3 the difference is marginal in multi-threaded benchmarks, from the Cinebench link [1] someone posted earlier on the thread. Apple M3 Pro 11-Core - 394 Points per Watt AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 - 354 Points per Watt Apple M3 Max 16-Core - 306 Points per Watt And the Ryzen in on TSMC 4nm while the M3 is on 3nm. As parent is saying, a lot of the Apple Silicon hype was due to the massive upgrade it was over the Intel CPUs Apple was using previously. [1]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-analysis-Ryzen-AI-9-HX-370-versus-Intel-Core-Ultra-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite.868641.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...

dagmx 2y ago
Their efficiency tests use Cinebench R23 (as called out explicitly). R23 is not optimized for Apple silicon but is for x86. The R24 numbers are actually what you need for a fair comparison, otherwise you put the Arm numbers at a significant handicap.
merb 2y ago
That the max should be worse than the m3 pro is a little bit shady.

janwas 2y ago

Cinebench might not be the most relevant benchmark, it uses lots of scalar instructions with fairly high branch mispredictions and low IPC: https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/02/22/analyzing-zen-2s-cinebench-r15-lead/ https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/02/22/analyzing-zen-2s-cineb....