4 ms·

>The third possibility is that they just pick a different point on the efficiency curve. You can double power consumption in exchange for a few percent higher p

>The third possibility is that they just pick a different point on the efficiency curve. You can double power consumption in exchange for a few percent higher performance, double it again for an even smaller increase. This only makes sense if the Zen5 is actually faster in ST than the M3. In this case, the M3 is 1.24x faster and 3.4x more efficient in ST than Zen5. AMD's Zen5 chip is just straight up slower in any curve. >The max turbo on the i9 14900KS is 253 W. The power efficiency is bad. But it generally outperforms the M3, despite being on a significantly worse process node, because that's the trade off. It's not a trade off that Intel wants. The 14900KS runs at 253w (sometimes 400w+) because that's the only way Intel is able to stay remotely competitive at the very high end. An M3 Max will often match a 14900KS in performance using 5-10% of the power.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> This only makes sense if the Zen5 is actually faster in ST than the M3. In this case, the M3 is 1.24x faster and 3.4x more efficient in ST than Zen5. It makes sense if Zen5 is faster in MT, since that's when the CPUs will be power limited, and it is. For ST the performance generally isn't power-limited for either of them and then the M3 is on a newer process node. It also depends on the benchmark. For example, Zen5 is faster in ST on Cinebench R23. It's not obvious what's going on with R24, but it's a difference in the code rather than the hardware. The power numbers in that link also don't inspire a lot of confidence. They have two systems with the same CPU but one of them uses 119.3W and the other one uses 46.7W? Plausibly the OEMs could have configured them differently but that kind of throws out the entire premise of using the comparison to measure the efficiency of the CPUs. The number doesn't mean anything if the power consumption is being set as a configuration parameter by the OEM and the number of watts going to the display or a discrete GPU are an uncontrolled hidden variable. > It's not a trade off that Intel wants. It's the one they've always taken, even when they were unquestionably in the lead. They were selling up to 150W desktop processors in 2008, because people buy them, because they're faster. Now they have to do it just to be competitive because their process isn't as good, but the process is a different thing than the ISA or the design of the CPU.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  >It also depends on the benchmark. For example, Zen5 is faster in ST on Cinebench R23. It's not obvious what's going on with R24, but it's a difference in the code rather than the hardware. Cinebench R23 uses Intel Embree underneath. It's hand optimized for AVX instruction set and poorly translated to NEON. It's not even clear if it has any NEON optimization.
- dagmx 2y ago
  R23 doesn’t have the same SIMD optimizations available for ARM as it does for x86. Anyone using R23 instead of R24, is putting arm at a disadvantage. Notebookcheck is often called out for this and haven’t really addressed why they stick with R23 beyond not wanting to redo tests for older hardware. They are by far the outlier for performance numbers and why the discussion around performance gets muddied.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > R23 doesn’t have the same SIMD optimizations available for ARM as it does for x86. The single-thread benchmark is SIMD-heavy? Now it just sounds like Cinebench ST is a useless benchmark because it's putting a parallelizable SIMD workload on a single core. In real life you'd always be running those multi-threaded, whereas the reason people care about ST performance is for the serialized branch-heavy spaghetti code that inherently only runs on one core. "Run the SIMD code, but clamp it to a single thread" is a garbage proxy for that.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Yes, there’s no difference between the single and multi core benchmark other than how many threads get spun up. I’m not sure why you’re trying to equate simd with parallelization. Tbh, a lot of your response seems odd to me because it’s making several incorrect assumptions. You can’t really escape parallelization with how any modern core works, even on a single core. You may have certain operations process concurrently depending on how the cores resources are available at a given time and what is needed. Regardless, SIMD isn’t concurrency. It’s batching. There’s still significant benefit to having SIMD on a single threaded task. There’s a lot of thread overhead to using multiple cores to do something, whereas SIMD lets you effectively batch things on a single core.
Wytwwww 2y ago
> An M3 Max will often match a 14900KS in performance using 5-10% of the power. On Cinebench and Passmark CPU the 14900K is 50-60% faster so I'm not sure that's true.
merb 2y ago
The 14900ks and ryzen 7950 can basically turbo way over 253w as long as the chip stays cool. Both chips have two (or more?) eco modes. It’s actually super silly. Because the 125w mode is actually most often good enough

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> This only makes sense if the Zen5 is actually faster in ST than the M3. In this case, the M3 is 1.24x faster and 3.4x more efficient in ST than Zen5. It makes sense if Zen5 is faster in MT, since that's when the CPUs will be power limited, and it is. For ST the performance generally isn't power-limited for either of them and then the M3 is on a newer process node. It also depends on the benchmark. For example, Zen5 is faster in ST on Cinebench R23. It's not obvious what's going on with R24, but it's a difference in the code rather than the hardware. The power numbers in that link also don't inspire a lot of confidence. They have two systems with the same CPU but one of them uses 119.3W and the other one uses 46.7W? Plausibly the OEMs could have configured them differently but that kind of throws out the entire premise of using the comparison to measure the efficiency of the CPUs. The number doesn't mean anything if the power consumption is being set as a configuration parameter by the OEM and the number of watts going to the display or a discrete GPU are an uncontrolled hidden variable. > It's not a trade off that Intel wants. It's the one they've always taken, even when they were unquestionably in the lead. They were selling up to 150W desktop processors in 2008, because people buy them, because they're faster. Now they have to do it just to be competitive because their process isn't as good, but the process is a different thing than the ISA or the design of the CPU.

aurareturn 2y ago
>It also depends on the benchmark. For example, Zen5 is faster in ST on Cinebench R23. It's not obvious what's going on with R24, but it's a difference in the code rather than the hardware. Cinebench R23 uses Intel Embree underneath. It's hand optimized for AVX instruction set and poorly translated to NEON. It's not even clear if it has any NEON optimization.
dagmx 2y ago
R23 doesn’t have the same SIMD optimizations available for ARM as it does for x86. Anyone using R23 instead of R24, is putting arm at a disadvantage. Notebookcheck is often called out for this and haven’t really addressed why they stick with R23 beyond not wanting to redo tests for older hardware. They are by far the outlier for performance numbers and why the discussion around performance gets muddied.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > R23 doesn’t have the same SIMD optimizations available for ARM as it does for x86. The single-thread benchmark is SIMD-heavy? Now it just sounds like Cinebench ST is a useless benchmark because it's putting a parallelizable SIMD workload on a single core. In real life you'd always be running those multi-threaded, whereas the reason people care about ST performance is for the serialized branch-heavy spaghetti code that inherently only runs on one core. "Run the SIMD code, but clamp it to a single thread" is a garbage proxy for that.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yes, there’s no difference between the single and multi core benchmark other than how many threads get spun up. I’m not sure why you’re trying to equate simd with parallelization. Tbh, a lot of your response seems odd to me because it’s making several incorrect assumptions. You can’t really escape parallelization with how any modern core works, even on a single core. You may have certain operations process concurrently depending on how the cores resources are available at a given time and what is needed. Regardless, SIMD isn’t concurrency. It’s batching. There’s still significant benefit to having SIMD on a single threaded task. There’s a lot of thread overhead to using multiple cores to do something, whereas SIMD lets you effectively batch things on a single core.

Wytwwww 2y ago

> An M3 Max will often match a 14900KS in performance using 5-10% of the power. On Cinebench and Passmark CPU the 14900K is 50-60% faster so I'm not sure that's true.

merb 2y ago

The 14900ks and ryzen 7950 can basically turbo way over 253w as long as the chip stays cool. Both chips have two (or more?) eco modes. It’s actually super silly. Because the 125w mode is actually most often good enough