3 ms·

Lots of appeal to popularity, "most people accept" a lot of things. >Specint, on the other hand, is useful for assessing specific tasks if you plan to run iden

Lots of appeal to popularity, "most people accept" a lot of things. >Specint, on the other hand, is useful for assessing specific tasks if you plan to run identical workloads. [...] These tests focus on very narrow tasks that can highlight the unique strengths of certain instructions or system features but are not representative of overall real-world performance. What? First, SPECint is an aggregate of 12 benchmarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECint#Benchmarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECint#Benchmarks), none of them synthetic in any way. They're also ranging from low to high level, it's not just number crunching. Sure, it's missing stuff like browser benchmarks to better represent the average user, but it's certainly not as useless as what you seem to imply. Any "system wide" benchmark is aggregating too much into a single number to mean anything, in any case. And this subthread is about using benchmarks to compare HARDWARE, not whole systems, so this discussion is pretty much meaningless.

llm_nerd 2y ago
I never said SPECInt was synthetic though did I? What are you arguing against? Yet a benchmark of how Xalan-C++ transforms XML documents has shockingly little relevance to most of the things I do. And the M1 runs the 400.perlbench benchmark slower than the 5950X, yet it runs the 456.hmmer benchmark twice as quickly, both I guess mattering if I'm running those specific programs? As with the strawman that I said it was synthetic, I also didn't say it was useless. Not sure why you're making things. It's an interesting benchmark, but most people (yup, there's that appeal again) find Geekbench more informative. And, again, most people, including the vast majority of experts in this field, respect geekbench as a decent broad-spectrum benchmark. As with all things there are always contrarians. >And this subthread is about using benchmarks to compare HARDWARE, not whole system Bizarre. This submission is specifically about Geekbench, specifically about the M4 running, of course, macOS. This subthread is someone noting that they can't escape the negatron contrarians who always pipe up with the No True Benchmark noise.

llm_nerd 2y ago

I never said SPECInt was synthetic though did I? What are you arguing against? Yet a benchmark of how Xalan-C++ transforms XML documents has shockingly little relevance to most of the things I do. And the M1 runs the 400.perlbench benchmark slower than the 5950X, yet it runs the 456.hmmer benchmark twice as quickly, both I guess mattering if I'm running those specific programs? As with the strawman that I said it was synthetic, I also didn't say it was useless. Not sure why you're making things. It's an interesting benchmark, but most people (yup, there's that appeal again) find Geekbench more informative. And, again, most people, including the vast majority of experts in this field, respect geekbench as a decent broad-spectrum benchmark. As with all things there are always contrarians. >And this subthread is about using benchmarks to compare HARDWARE, not whole system Bizarre. This submission is specifically about Geekbench, specifically about the M4 running, of course, macOS. This subthread is someone noting that they can't escape the negatron contrarians who always pipe up with the No True Benchmark noise.