4 ms·

M4 raw performance compilation from the article for my future self. Sorted by result. Note: M4 wins by a landslide when it comes to perf/watt but performs poo

by hu3 2y ago

M4 raw performance compilation from the article for my future self. Sorted by result. Note: M4 wins by a landslide when it comes to perf/watt but performs poorly in terms of raw performance for these benchmarks. Note to self: Keep working with a beefy x86 workstation because time is valuable. FLAC encoding: best Compiling FFmpeg: average Compiling LLVM: average C-Ray 2.0 1080p: average C-Ray 2.0 4k: average Zstd compression: second worst Zstd decompression: second worst 7-Zip compression: worst 7-Zip decompression: worst Appleseed 2.0: worst V-RAY 6.0: worst IndigoBench: worst QuantLib: worst Apache HTTP Server: worst DuckDB: worst PyBench: worst x265: worst Kavazaar 2.2: worst AVIF encoding: worst JPEG-XL encoding: worst

thejazzman 2y ago
> Keep working with a beefy x86 workstation Instead of the cheapest, entry level alternative? How is this even remotely comparable?
attentive 2y ago
This compares laptop level power budget vs beefy desktops. They should include a picture of m4 mini and intel/amd desktops side-by-side. Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 285K CPU alone costs the same as m4 mini. Its base/turbo power is 125/250W while m4 seems to be 11/15W.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  You're not allowed to compare the M4 to anything that it loses to!
  - nullpoint420 2y ago
    Well to be fair they should've compared it to something price comparable for the whole package. Comparing $600 Mac mini vs $600 CPU doesn't make sense. I can get work done with the Mini, that can't be said with one CPU.
  - attentive 2y ago
    Throw in RTX 4090 into that desktop while at it or they might loose on CPU inference.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    Might just as well compare it with EPYC/Xeon.. would be about as meaningful. If we just ignore price and power usage entirely it’s pretty pointless. Of course Studio and the Mac Pro probably don’t really offer such great value as the Mini
    - nextos 2y ago
      The base M4 Mini offers great value per $ and per Watt. It'd be cool to compare to a similar PC alternative.
self_awareness 2y ago
"worst" in this list is still 2-4x faster than my main desktop PC

by hu3 2y ago

thejazzman 2y ago

> Keep working with a beefy x86 workstation Instead of the cheapest, entry level alternative? How is this even remotely comparable?

attentive 2y ago

This compares laptop level power budget vs beefy desktops. They should include a picture of m4 mini and intel/amd desktops side-by-side. Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 285K CPU alone costs the same as m4 mini. Its base/turbo power is 125/250W while m4 seems to be 11/15W.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
You're not allowed to compare the M4 to anything that it loses to!
- nullpoint420 2y ago
  Well to be fair they should've compared it to something price comparable for the whole package. Comparing $600 Mac mini vs $600 CPU doesn't make sense. I can get work done with the Mini, that can't be said with one CPU.
- attentive 2y ago
  Throw in RTX 4090 into that desktop while at it or they might loose on CPU inference.
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  Might just as well compare it with EPYC/Xeon.. would be about as meaningful. If we just ignore price and power usage entirely it’s pretty pointless. Of course Studio and the Mac Pro probably don’t really offer such great value as the Mini
  - nextos 2y ago
    The base M4 Mini offers great value per $ and per Watt. It'd be cool to compare to a similar PC alternative.

self_awareness 2y ago

"worst" in this list is still 2-4x faster than my main desktop PC