6 ms·
This is likely more of a Windows filesystem benchmark than anything else: there are fundamental restrictions on how fast file access can be on Windows due to fi
by murderfs 8mo ago
This is likely more of a Windows filesystem benchmark than anything else: there are fundamental restrictions on how fast file access can be on Windows due to filesystem filter drivers. I would bet that if you tried again with Linux (or even in WSL2, as long as you stay in the WSL filesystem image), you'd see significantly improved results.
- philistine 8mo agoWhich still wouldn’t beat the Apple Silicon chips. Apple rules the roost.
- Kuinox 8mo agohttps://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
- philistine 8mo agoYou click on laptop and somehow that's a gotcha, I click on single thread and the M5 is at the very top. What is that?
- Kuinox 8mo agoYou are seeing basically the lithography node used to make the CPU. Since Apple books more capacity than anyone else, they have their chip 5-6 months ahead of the market, you'll see chips with similar performance by core.
- philistine 8mo agoAnd what about the M3 Ultra, that sits at number 3 and came out ten months ago? Why was it not beaten five months ago? Might I add that the M3 Ultra is on an older node than the M5. And what about the A19 Pro, which is better at single core than every desktop chip in the world, and happens to be inside a phone! Apple has the best silicon team in the world. They choose perf per watt over pure perf, which means they don't win on multi-core, but they're simply the best in the world in the most complicated, difficult, and impossible metric to game: single core perf.
- Kuinox 8mo agoIt's bench score on single thread is 0.6% better than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which have a lower TDP and was released 6 months before. Boths use the same lithography node. If you look at the chip by their lithography node, the Apple silicons are the same than the others...
- SR2Z 8mo agoApple's M-series chips are fantastic, but I do agree with you that it's mostly a combination of newer process and lots of cache. Even when they were new, they competed with AMD's high end desktop chips. Many years later, they're still excellent in the laptop power range - but not in the desktop power range, where chips with a lot of cache match it in single core performance and obliterate it in multicore. https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m4-vs-amd_ryzen_7_9800x3d https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m4-vs-amd_ry...
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- MindSpunk 8mo agoAlternatively, in the same socket and without the 3D stacked cache: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m4-vs-amd_ryzen_9_9950x https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m4-vs-amd_ry... with double the cores. And in laptop form compared with a m4 max: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m4_max_14_cpu_32_gpu-vs-amd_ryzen_ai_max_plus_395 https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m4_max_14_cp...
- philistine 8mo ago> Apple's M-series chips are fantastic, but I do agree with you that it's mostly a combination of newer process and lots of cache. Why does it matter how they achieved their thunderous performance? Why must it be diminished to just a boatload of cache? Does it matter from which implementation detail you got the best single-core performance in the world? If it's just way more cache, why isn't Intel just cranking up the cache?
- bitwize 8mo agoBut at the end of the day, the fact is the best gear is made by Apple.
- Kuinox 8mo agoIt depends at which point in time and what you consider is the best gear.
- hu3 8mo agomaybe. But then you have to use macOS which by far not the best OS
- seanmcdirmid 8mo agoMacOS is the worst OS, except when compared to all of the other ones.