3 ms·

There still aren't ARM chips that can compete with the processing power of the highest-end x86 chips, if power consumption isn't an issue. It's nice that your i

There still aren't ARM chips that can compete with the processing power of the highest-end x86 chips, if power consumption isn't an issue. It's nice that your iPad has an ARM chip in it, but nobody is going to be using an iPad for real workloads. And when it comes to available software, x86 just laughs at ARM.

FeepingCreature 2y ago
This is outdated. The M3 Max is right there with Intel i9 on singlethreaded PassMark, and does so while pulling a lot less power.
- bhouston 2y ago
  And M4 is even faster. Intel i9: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-13900ks https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-13900... M4: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8224953 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8224953
  - leptons 2y ago
    M4 isn't even close to the highest performing x86 CPUs. Apple doesn't have anything close. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Search for "M4", it's not anywhere near the top of the list.
    - bhouston 2y ago
      You are showing multi-core benchmarks and it is correct the M4 does not have many cores. I was referring primarily to single-threaded performance. And remember that the only scores you see for M4 CPUs in the CPUBenchmark website from iPads which are definitely thermal constrained. The MacBook benchmarks are not yet available on this benchmark - they will exceed the performance then of the M3 scores I suspect: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
      - leptons 2y ago
        That's nice and all but my original comment was specifically about "processing power of the highest-end x86 chips" far exceeding that of any ARM CPU.
        bhouston 2y ago
        > That's nice and all but my original comment was specifically about "processing power of the highest-end x86 chips" far exceeding that of any ARM CPU. That wasn't the direction I was thinking of going in, but if you want to go in multi-threaded benchmarks, you need to include the Ampere and Graviton CPUs. Those are designed for hyperscalers and then you can make a fair comparison. They are not listed on your cpubenchmark website. For example this multithreaded score from Graviton 4, https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7980680 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7980680, is better than all of the consumer Intel and AMD CPUs listed on Geekbench in their chart here: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks. And better than AMD's latest hyperscaler CPU's multicore benchmark: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-epyc-9654 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-epyc-9654 It is too bad that these Graviton CPUs are not listed on cpubenchmarks. It is true that CPUBenchmarks and Geekbench test CPUs differently so it would be nice to see both benchmark results.
- leptons 2y ago
  You're the one who is mistaken. I was not talking about i9s, I specifically stated I'm talking about "the highest-end x86 chips", like Threadripper. Nothing Apple has can compete on that scale, M3 and M4 are not even close to the top. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    Yes correct, the Apple chips are not close to a uh data center CPU with 192 threads. (But neither is whatever you have under your desk.)
    - leptons 2y ago
      You don't have any idea what computing resources I have, so don't act like you do.
      - FeepingCreature 2y ago
        Ah yes the two types of computers, "ipad" and "rack mount".
Moto7451 2y ago
You’re comparing the wrong computer to the high end of x86. Apple is doing it with Desktop M2 Ultra/M3 Max series chips and AWS with Graviton vs server chips. Apple has already caught Intel in single core. If power didn’t matter to Apple they could surely optimize for pure performance, but they’re not competitive in the spaces where power does not matter and we will never see them being that chip to market. There are always trade offs at the exotic tier and someone will always win one benchmark over the other, but you can’t say that ARM is being laughed at by Intel. If they were laughing they wouldn’t be partnering with AMD. While I don’t think Intel is super worried about Apple since it’s an Apples to Windows/Linux comparison, I do think they’re worried about Qualcomm and AWS catching Apple and actually eating into their market share.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > Apple has already caught Intel in single core. If power didn’t matter to Apple they could surely optimize for pure performance But that's Apple, not ARM. AFAIK Neoverse/Gravitron's main advantage is price (not having to pay Intel/AMD "inflated" duopoly prices) rather than actual performance.
- leptons 2y ago
  >You’re comparing the wrong computer to the high end of x86. Apple has nothing that comes close to the top-tier x86 CPUs. It just doesn't. Not in the ipad, not in any of their hardware. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Go ahead and search for an ARM CPU... they are nowhere near close to the top. >Apple has already caught Intel in single core. I don't care. If your workload runs fine a single core, then good for you. The fact is that Apple doesn't have a chip that can compete with the top x86 CPUs overall performance, simply because Apple doesn't care about that market at all. All they care about is selling the cheapest made computer to people who won't notice that their computer isn't all that fast - the average consumer. They don't care about power users. You'll never, ever see Apple silicon beating the top chips from AMD or Intel in total processing power. Nothing wrong with that, but my point still stands, ARM is nowhere near x86 in terms of processing power. > you can’t say that ARM is being laughed at by Intel. Yes I absolutely can, and I specifically said that about available software. ARM has nowhere near the available software that x86 does. x86 absolutely laughs at ARM where available software is the concern.

FeepingCreature 2y ago

This is outdated. The M3 Max is right there with Intel i9 on singlethreaded PassMark, and does so while pulling a lot less power.

bhouston 2y ago
And M4 is even faster. Intel i9: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-13900ks https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-13900... M4: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8224953 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8224953
- leptons 2y ago
  M4 isn't even close to the highest performing x86 CPUs. Apple doesn't have anything close. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Search for "M4", it's not anywhere near the top of the list.
  - bhouston 2y ago
    You are showing multi-core benchmarks and it is correct the M4 does not have many cores. I was referring primarily to single-threaded performance. And remember that the only scores you see for M4 CPUs in the CPUBenchmark website from iPads which are definitely thermal constrained. The MacBook benchmarks are not yet available on this benchmark - they will exceed the performance then of the M3 scores I suspect: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
    - leptons 2y ago
      That's nice and all but my original comment was specifically about "processing power of the highest-end x86 chips" far exceeding that of any ARM CPU.
      - bhouston 2y ago
        > That's nice and all but my original comment was specifically about "processing power of the highest-end x86 chips" far exceeding that of any ARM CPU. That wasn't the direction I was thinking of going in, but if you want to go in multi-threaded benchmarks, you need to include the Ampere and Graviton CPUs. Those are designed for hyperscalers and then you can make a fair comparison. They are not listed on your cpubenchmark website. For example this multithreaded score from Graviton 4, https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7980680 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7980680, is better than all of the consumer Intel and AMD CPUs listed on Geekbench in their chart here: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks. And better than AMD's latest hyperscaler CPU's multicore benchmark: https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-epyc-9654 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-epyc-9654 It is too bad that these Graviton CPUs are not listed on cpubenchmarks. It is true that CPUBenchmarks and Geekbench test CPUs differently so it would be nice to see both benchmark results.
leptons 2y ago
You're the one who is mistaken. I was not talking about i9s, I specifically stated I'm talking about "the highest-end x86 chips", like Threadripper. Nothing Apple has can compete on that scale, M3 and M4 are not even close to the top. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  Yes correct, the Apple chips are not close to a uh data center CPU with 192 threads. (But neither is whatever you have under your desk.)
  - leptons 2y ago
    You don't have any idea what computing resources I have, so don't act like you do.
    - FeepingCreature 2y ago
      Ah yes the two types of computers, "ipad" and "rack mount".

Moto7451 2y ago

You’re comparing the wrong computer to the high end of x86. Apple is doing it with Desktop M2 Ultra/M3 Max series chips and AWS with Graviton vs server chips. Apple has already caught Intel in single core. If power didn’t matter to Apple they could surely optimize for pure performance, but they’re not competitive in the spaces where power does not matter and we will never see them being that chip to market. There are always trade offs at the exotic tier and someone will always win one benchmark over the other, but you can’t say that ARM is being laughed at by Intel. If they were laughing they wouldn’t be partnering with AMD. While I don’t think Intel is super worried about Apple since it’s an Apples to Windows/Linux comparison, I do think they’re worried about Qualcomm and AWS catching Apple and actually eating into their market share.

Wytwwww 2y ago
> Apple has already caught Intel in single core. If power didn’t matter to Apple they could surely optimize for pure performance But that's Apple, not ARM. AFAIK Neoverse/Gravitron's main advantage is price (not having to pay Intel/AMD "inflated" duopoly prices) rather than actual performance.
leptons 2y ago
>You’re comparing the wrong computer to the high end of x86. Apple has nothing that comes close to the top-tier x86 CPUs. It just doesn't. Not in the ipad, not in any of their hardware. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Go ahead and search for an ARM CPU... they are nowhere near close to the top. >Apple has already caught Intel in single core. I don't care. If your workload runs fine a single core, then good for you. The fact is that Apple doesn't have a chip that can compete with the top x86 CPUs overall performance, simply because Apple doesn't care about that market at all. All they care about is selling the cheapest made computer to people who won't notice that their computer isn't all that fast - the average consumer. They don't care about power users. You'll never, ever see Apple silicon beating the top chips from AMD or Intel in total processing power. Nothing wrong with that, but my point still stands, ARM is nowhere near x86 in terms of processing power. > you can’t say that ARM is being laughed at by Intel. Yes I absolutely can, and I specifically said that about available software. ARM has nowhere near the available software that x86 does. x86 absolutely laughs at ARM where available software is the concern.