Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks(github.com) |
Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks(github.com) |
Nice benchmarks though.
As far as I know, other than Graviton and other very new N1 designs, there haven’t been many big ARM systems at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujitsu_A64FX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugaku_(supercomputer)
But this is an exception. Fujitsu has a long history building supercomputers, and before adopting ARM they were building their own high performance SPARC machines with their custom Tofu interconnect.
So do thermals and layout, which is not where Apple has experience (they don’t make any custom chip that requires a fan that I know of).
That said, they have had a looong time to think out this, so I have confidence they will make it work over the next two years.
Finally, in a core count war AMD has an easier task. They scale up their designs with multiple chips. A Zen 3 CCD is about 80mm^2 on 7nm, which is already much smaller than the M1 SoC on 5nm. If Apple adds 4 more cores, their chip size will increase. Meanwhile AMD can add more cores without increasing chip size like Apple's current integrated approach. This is why AMD is already shipping 64 core CPUs (EPYC 7763) using multiple of the Zen 3 CCD as these desktop CPUs.
By that logic could we not "just" double Ryzen cores to mop the floor with the M1? What kind of logic is this lol
But keep in mind that the author didn't even select AMD's top parts for this comparison. The Zen 3 series has 12 and 16 core parts as well.
And don't forget zen 2 goes all the way to 64 cores on threadripper, epyc to 128 cores (dual-socket).
Comparing single core performance between laptops and desktops is an apples to apples comparison. The Ryzen uses 20W on a turbo boosted core, it uses less when you utilize all cores. Same for Apple which needs 10W for a single core and the whole package is 35W. There is way enough headroom to turbo boost to 20W.
The reason why there is a 20W vs 10W difference between the Ryzen and Apple chip is that Apple uses 5nm and the Ryzen clocks way higher (and thereby performs better). There is no free lunch where Apple can double their performance and mop up anything because AMD can just manufacture with 5nm and reduce their clock boost to reach the same per core power consumption. And it turns out this is exactly what they do on their laptop chips. Just reduce the clock speed and watch the power efficiency pour in.
If anything it's Apple that is backed into a corner because they are in a local optimum from which they can only escape by sacrificing their primary competitive advantage. Ramping up the clock speed ruins power efficiency.
Honestly I expect the price and availability to suck big time for both. AMD can't manufacture half the volume they should to satisfy demand, while Apple is a poster child of $900 laptops costing €1000 when they finally cross the Atlantic long after release.
"Available at an Apple store" might be the biggest joke one could possibly say. There's only a handful of store worldwide.
https://github.com/clearlinux-pkgs/linux/blob/26bf1495e7aac0...
Well I suspect due to loyalty factor Apple as usually may be able to extract more money from the customers.
TBH with results like those its clear the company in case of tech is years ahead of competition.
This is a comparison of current beast desktop CPU which requires water cooling to maintain low temps vs air cooled CPU.
Those results are amazing.
I too am astonished that a high-end x86 desktop could possibly be faster than a Mac mini or a laptop without a fan. Now I will have to burn my Apple card (if I had one) in protest.
I call on Apple to immediately retract all of its marketing that says that the M1 is the fastest CPU in the universe.
> obscene power draw
Who cares about power in a desktop (or laptop for that matter)? These things aren't solar powered - just plug it in like a normal person! Duh.
I also note that a single Ryzen 5800X processor is actually cheaper than the Mac mini, and is readily available from many helpful and enterprising resellers on ebay at special holiday pricing.
;-)
Show me an x86 laptop in the same power envelope that can match the fanless MacBook Air with the m1. I’ll wait. Oh and do so at roughly 1k.
On the desktop the Mac mini is 699 USD in its base spec. The 5800X is 500 euros on its own before motherboard, case, ram etc etc.
Apples to apples benchmarks either controlling for power or price would make for a more relevant article.
The Mac Mini is $699 with only 8GB RAM, that runs out after a few browser tabs. So, for a work machine, you would need at least the 16GB model and add $200 to that. Though the build quality and the panel is excellent.
You could opt for the 5600X. The core count is not relevant in the article, as the benchmarks are mainly single-threaded.
Citation needed
You know swap exists right.
I just opened 30+ tabs on the MacBook Air without any issues.
As a desktop user, I certainly am interested in these numbers.
>Show me an x86 laptop in the same power envelope that can match the fanless MacBook Air with the m1. I’ll wait. Oh and do so at roughly 1k.
How does this prove that the title is lying?
>On the desktop the Mac mini is 699 USD in its base spec. The 5800X is 500 euros on its own before motherboard, case, ram etc etc.
Again, how is this relevant to whether the title is clickbait or not?
>Apples to apples benchmarks either controlling for power or price would make for a more relevant article.
Seriously, what does this have to do with clickbait?
Here is my perspective. I saw lots of articles that pretended that the M1 is better than all x86 CPUs including Ryzens (one of them is linked in the article). This was getting on my nerves because everyone is being dishonest. I clicked on this article because the title compared a Ryzen desktop CPU with the M1 with the expectation that these benchmarks disprove the garbage journalism and that's exactly what I got. The Ryzen 5800X performs better than the M1. x86 is still strong in single core performance. Those real "clickbait" articles were just lazy and trying to hype something up.
This article is not clickbait and you are just being dishonest.
There’s room for plenty of comparisons. It’s a big world.
I doubt that’s coming soon. The M1 is a HUGE chip. The decoders and pipelines take up a massive amount of space, and the L2 cache is apparently unwieldy, too. They’ve focused on making a limited number of cores perform very well, but there isn’t enough room. They need another die shrink to add any more.
I think the upcoming pro hardware will just be tweaks to the current formula.
Well I am double checking and I see they have shops in the top 5 cities now. Maybe things have changed for the better. Last time I tried to buy an Apple product there was simply no shop in a hundred miles radius.
Apple have 2 advantages here.
- They don’t play in the low-cost arena, people expect a Mac to be a bit more expensive, so they have a larger cost budget to work with
- They don’t have to make a profit on the CPU in particular, whereas Intel and AMD do.
Apple want a 38-40% margin on the whole shebang, and if it needs a more expensive chip, then that’s what’ll happen, maybe taking cost-savings from (2), and of necessary adding price because of (1).
I would be shocked if Platform Architecture at Apple didn’t already have 8, 16, and 32-core variants of the M series up and running, or at the very least in simulation. They’re coming, and the world will change. Again.
An interesting thing about the M1’s RAM limit, though, is that it literally can’t get any bigger. 16GB is pushing it, but fitting 32GB into a package-on-package simply can’t be done with our current tech. Apple is solely relying on Moore’s law for future advances because, with the way these processors are designed, external infrastructure would wreck performance.
Also there are diminishing returns as core count increases. I'm doubting that a 5950x is worth it over the 5900x for me.
I meant the latest Ryzen Threadrippers, whatever "generation" they are now. The 3970X would likely be a good example.
Ok, so what you’re saying is that AMD is wildly rumored to have a processor that you might be able to find as an option on a niche (term not used in a negative sense) brand laptop in Summer 2021 that directly competes with Apple’s M1 processor available in Fall 2020 on their highest sold models which are their lowest price point machines?
I wouldn't call all of those "niche". AMD has made a surprisingly quick move from the bargain basement laptops to the Thinkpad and Microsoft Surface lines in a single generation.
The nice thing is the new chips are pin compatible, so every current design win should move over to the new chips quickly. In fact half of the Ryzen 5000 laptop chips are renamed and slightly tweaked zen 2 chips from the previous gen. Based on the number of leaks, benchmarks, photos, etc it seems like the channel might well be full.
So I'm comparing laptops available in Nov (although people I know couldn't get theirs till Dec) to laptops I expect to be available in Feb, but that's speculative of course. Even the previous gen (zen 2) APUs are getting similar write ups to the M1. Things like benchmarking against the I9-9980KH and i7-1075H and winning. The zen3 is quite a bump vs the zen2 so I'm optimistic it will go well.
I'm hoping to get a few, maybe a mac mini like widget and another for a NAS. I don't expect them to crush a M1, but to be reasonably competitive, and while I contributed to the patreon to get linux on the M1, I expect the Zen 3 chips to have much better linux support.
I specifically called out niche as not a negative term for this reason. I didn’t mean to imply bargain basement, but more that high end processors like this would only be included on a few models. Things like gaming or developer focused machines vs something built for a wider audience (like the current M1 machines are).
> So I'm comparing laptops available in Nov (although people I know couldn't get theirs till Dec) to laptops I expect to be available in Feb, but that's speculative of course.
I walked into an Apple store in November and walked out (in under 3min I might add) and had an M1 13” MBP. I think them taking my temperature at the door took almost as long as checkout. Having closely followed CES announcements over the years, I respectfully disagree that there will be laptops in February available for delivery/pickup using the processor just announced the month before, but there is a slim chance so I won’t bet against it. Much more likely to be May/June/July based on past experience.
The M1 processor is extremely impressive for the price and power envelope. However, I'm noticing a lot of people have taken Apple's marketing material a bit too literally and assumed that it somehow beats any and every desktop CPU out there, which is clearly not the case.
Moreover, as the author mentions: A significant portion of Apple's lead came from buying exclusivity on TSMC's 5nm process through the end of the year. It will be interesting to see how AMD stacks up as they roll out 5nm parts in the future, compared to Apple's scaled up M1 successors.
Exciting times. It's good to have some progress in CPU technologies again after years of Intel stagnation.
> Geekbench 5 measures the performance of your device by performing tests that are representative of real-world tasks and applications.
http://support.primatelabs.com/kb/geekbench/interpreting-gee...
I'd rather rely on Geekbench score than some programmer's compilation pipeline. Not saying programming benchmarks aren't important. Just that you cannot blame the reviewers testing comprehensively because your use case is specific.
I find this disparity perplexing and the OP all the more refreshing for it.
It's hard to estimate how much of Apple's advantage came from the 5nm process, but we can get a guess by comparing the A13 and A14. One of the biggest differences between last year's A13 and this year's A14 is the 5nm process (vs 7nm+). The performance increase seems to be on the order of 15% [1], and Apple was able to fit in a lot more transistors- 11.8B vs. 8.5B, though we don't know how many of those transistors were spent on the CPU, and how many were spent in other areas like the GPU or ISP.
Seems like the additional transistors and lower power consuption were used to increase performance in a bunch of ways- higher clock speeds, more cache, and a bigger reorder buffer being the obvious improvements. Perhaps AMD can pull off a similar improvement when they switch processes.
[1] Spec2006 numbers from https://www.anandtech.com/show/16192/the-iphone-12-review/2
So you'll probably see some variation but each time a process is scaled down to 0.7x of the previous size, you'll get smaller transistors that use less power individually and you could expect a "40% performance boost for the same amount of power and a 50% reduction in area" (according to https://semiengineering.com/5nm-vs-3nm/)
90 nm (2003) * 0.7 = 63 nm
65 nm (2005) * 0.7 = 45.5 nm
45 nm (2007) * 0.7 = 31.5 nm
32 nm (2009) * 0.7 = 22.4 nm
22 nm (2012) * 0.7 = 15.4 nm
14 nm (2014) * 0.7 = 9.8 nm
10 nm (2016) * 0.7 = 7 nm
7 nm (2018) * 0.7 = 4.9 nm
5 nm (2020) * 0.7 = 3.5 nm
To me, it's a bit of a miracle that Intel is still able to sort of compete on mostly 14 nm nodes, but maybe that's because "node size" basically just means "smallest feature size", and their 14 nm or new 10 nm process is a little better than e.g. competing 14/10 nm processes, or maybe their chip designs just prioritize different things that have a decent real world effect (e.g. Intel CPUs have AVX-512, but AMD CPUs don't).
The geekbench numbers comparing the iphone 12 pro to iphone 11 pro average to around 19% difference: https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks/.
A few caveats: A compiler change made made the libquantum uplift (a part of the spec benchmark) huge, and non-representative of hardware changes. Conversely, the geekbench 5 multicore results are actually worse for the iphone 12 pro vs. 12; hinting that they're over-boosting the iphone 12 pro, so peak perf is likely actually a little better (from the hardware's perspective, not that an app can do much about it).
In any case, let's call it a 20% uplift with the same amount of threads, very respectable.
Another caveat: AMD may not be able to get the same 20% uplift from 5nm that apple does. Without any expertise in this matter I can only repeat what others claim, but I've heard people say that it's hard to make x86 wider (i.e extract more ILP) because the instructions are variable length, making lookahead more difficult. I guess we'll see next year with zen4 if that's true!
So what's clear is that a lot of people are acting irrationally especially since the M1 is their low-end laptop CPU. At least wait for their mid-range laptop/desktop CPU scheduled for next year to make proper judgements.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-59...
"For the code compilation speed tests were compiking Apache, PHP, the Linux kernel, ImageMagick, GDB, LLVM, FFmpeg, and MPlayer."
I got my m1 MacBook Pro 16GB yesterday and was pretty confused to find that Rust compilation felt faster than the desktop. To go from recent Intel laptops taking two to three times longer to compile Rust than my budget desktop despite the laptops' whiny fans and extreme heat, to having my desktop be sightly outclassed by an ice cold laptop on battery (which got at least 15 hours of use, including said compiling, with no need to charge) is a world changer. I can’t remember the last time a laptop was this close to desktop performance for my everyday workflow.
Now that I think about it, I haven’t even tried optimising compile times on the MacBook like I usually do with Rust projects. My desktop would have been running lld at least to make its compilation significantly faster, and the MacBook more than kept up in spite of the handicap.
The M1 generally keeps up quite well, which blows my mind. The power use difference Is pretty big as well.
Yeah, it would be great if Apple was totally open source.
But this is going to push the entire industry to do way better.
Not scientific at all, but one of my large java app test suites takes ~7 minutes to run on my 2017 MPB and ~3 minutes to run on the M1 MBA using the Azul ARM build.
I can't wait for the 16" MBP with Apple Silicon.
The idea that the laptop-grade M1 is keeping pace in these tests with the processor in my desktop is mind blowing. Sure the 5800x was tuned for these tests. Sure the M1 is on 5nm. All of this is missing the point: Intel created a huge market opportunity and 2 of the best poised companies to take advantage of it have.
Computer consumers are winning big thanks to TSMC in 2020. Let's all hope intel can turn things around and keep the space competitive.
So I can sit and wait for the 5000x series to be available at which point the 2700X/2080 goes to the boy and the 5950X/3080 goes in my work machine.
Hopefully sometime in the first half of next year when stock levels stabilise.
I'm excited to try out the similar VM workloads (and gaming) that I currently run.
Although they have a lot of work to do, I can't help but think people writing off Intel are way too keen. Intel's annual dividend is still bigger than AMD's revenue IIRC, so at worst they should be able to buy themselves out of the hole they're in.
Most comparisons have been M1 vs the frankly dated Intel offerings with the previous Mac product line.
So things to remember would be that power/performance is not linear and so 5800 like CPU could be scaled back in power consumption without sacrificing the same proportion of it's performance. Also, 5800X is on TSMC 7nm process where as M1 is on the 5nm; this difference will have a measurable impact on performance and power consumption.
The 5800X is a beast of a CPU. The IPC improvements over the previous generation really are incredible. It's not surprising to me at all that it beats the M1 in several benchmarks. However, it's not the same class of device at all.
Not disappointed! The only time the fan even spun up was when I built nodejs from source (which took 10mins). And even then it ran at like ~10% fan speed or something.
I think people are thinking of the first i5/i7 from 2008 when they do the comparison, unfortunately AMD was out of the run before that.
Apple bought PA Semi in '08, for example.
Honestly, 2021 is going to be a good year for laptops and mini-pcs. I don't think any of the chip manufacturers have objectively bad silicon for those form factors anymore.
Consider for one second that in theory the M1 is technologically superior because it can decode double the instructions per second and yet it still is only consuming 2x times less power but at the cost of delivering worse performance on a superior manufacturing process. A lot of hard work with very little to show for it.
I have no regrets, but this gives me hope that a true Ryzen ultrabook might exist next year, now that the industry have to take AMD seriously. I will sell my MacBook in a heartbeat if that happens.
Why?
The M1 beats my Xeon E-2176M @2.7GHz with 64GB of memory in every test but Jython. (I'm on OpenJDK 15, which probably doesn't matter). Later tomorrow I'll try it on my 2700x based system.
45W vs 10W... Running these tests may have changed my mind on this little CPU!
I think the JVM tests should have been executed with the same amount of heap allocated for each platform in order to get the internal dynamics/heuristics of the JVM to be comparable. IMHO all JVM tests should have been executed with -Xmx 7G (8 Gigs maximum as per the M1 MacBook Air minus a little something for the OS and the system buffers)
Still, I'm impressed with the Apple silicone.
The reason why I'm suggesting to have the same heap size for the benchmarks is that the maximum heap size is the single most important (tuning) setting for the JVM. Based on this setting the VM sizes its internal data structures and adepts its behavior.
Also, garbage collection times are typically* dependent on the size of the heap. With most* garbage collectors collecting a 32gb heap takes longer than collecting a 8gb heap. If the workload of the benchmark allows for the heap to be used entirely, then garbage collection overhead is directly related to the heap size.
* unless a "big heap" garbage collector like ZGC or Shenandoah is used
[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tuhdo/tuhdo.github.io/mast...
OP, it may be worth downclocking the RAM to 3600MHz (while tightening timings) unless you have a golden chip with >1800MHz Infinity Fabric. Decoupling IF and memory speed can cause huge latency (90ns on my 3950x).
Obviously you want a baseline and benchmark from there, but you clearly know what you are doing.
vs
5800X : Eight high‑performance cores
In the real world, I only care about how it performs and how much it costs. The implementation details are interesting, but they don't matter when I'm trying to get work done as fast as possible.
The M1 comes in at a great price point for what it is and it's obviously your only option if you want to run macOS (hackintosh isn't an option for production use). Good to have options.
> I honestly don't care if my CPU has 2 cores or 20 cores
Both of these things cannot be true.
My 7 year old desktop goes toe-to-toe with my top of the line MacBook Pro from 2020 and in almost all benchmarks crushes it.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4930K-vs...
on the other hand, your mentioned 1065G7 is a 15w processor that doesn't really represent what a laptop processor can do in 2019/2020. laptop processors like i7-10875H would be a far better apple-to-apple comparison in case you still want to make your claims above. the reality here is that at much lower power draw and thermal envelope (45w vs 130w), laptop processor like 10875H would crush 4930k in both single core and multi core settings.
The much older CPU in the MBP has a much faster base clock of 2.4GHz vs 1.3GHz in the XPS. What I find frustrating is that the XPS will throttle down to base clocks for any workload sustaining about 10 seconds, even if the temperature is reasonable, e.g. 50C.
In Windows I can work around this a little using ThrottleStop but I'm primarily a Linux user and haven't found a reliable way to bypass Intel's turbo limits with my Ice Lake CPU. Linux also has annoying bugs where the CPU will limit itself to base clock when connected to AC but then turbo up to 4.1GHz when the AC is unplugged, baffling.
Glad to hear about your positive results with m1, it's for sure a purchase I'll be making in 2021.
I had got same issue with my dell before, it caused by trouble with charger(I have replaced it 3 times). I actually get a lot of power issue with dell laptop, my an other dell can't fall to deep sleep. I won't pick a dell anymore >:< .
Charging more in the premium segment is normal in any industry because you a smaller volume to spread fixed costs over.
The leaked Geekbench results of AMD's upcoming 5800H laptop parts are about 85% of the M1's single core score and matching the M1's multi-core score. TDP is still higher than the M1, obviously, but AMD is also using a 7nm process while Apple got the jump on 5nm by buying exclusivity on TMSC's 5nm process through the end of the year.
I'm extremely impressed with the M1 and I'll be buying an Apple Silicon device as soon as they have something with 32GB or more of RAM. However, the sentiment that the M1 chip obliterates any and every desktop part on the market is getting kind of silly at this point.
1. Nobody ever stated that. If anything, it was all of the Intel and AMD users who created that straw man. "See, it's slower than a 64-core Threadripper at 280 watts". No kidding.
2. The M1 is clearly not a desktop-class SoC nor was it intended to be. However, it's more than competitive with many desktop x86 processors that run faster and hotter while consuming much more power.
3. As a first attempt, the M1’s performance per watt is very impressive. Obviously the 5nm process helps but it's never one thing with Apple: it's the unified memory, the 8 instruction decoders (AMD and Intel max out at 4), and the integration of the 16-core Neural Engine, among other features.
I have a 15 inch 2018 i9 MBP that's objectively a terrible device (throttling/keyboard).
With corona and WFH I'm weighing my options - right now everything is out of stock but early next year I'd be interested in building a desktop. My problem is the M1 is so good that if they do a 8 performance cores version for 16 inch MBP in spring there would literally be no point in having a desktop - I could have a single device that outperforms the desktop machine. Frankly I don't see why they couldn't offer a 13 inch varian with more cores - thermals are not a constraint.
> please keep in mind that for single-threaded tasks, a single core doesn’t consume all 95W TDP headroom of the CPU. Based on Anandtech’s analysis, a single 5800X core only consumes 17.3W at 4850 MHz
Remember these are single-threaded benchmarks.
Look at the chart again. One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package.
> While M1 is indeed very powerful for its size, when comparing it to the high-end x86 desktop, it is still slower.
Okay, great. I'm not sure what to expect when you compare the lowest end first generation processor from Apple to one of the more high-end of the spectrum x86.
Edit: Forgot to mention how the power draw on the M1 is still significantly less; m1 with all cores @ 100% is ~20W whereas the x86 ryzen was at 17.3W for 1 one core
> To conclude that it performs better than the existing x86 CPUs, is a mistake.
True, no denying that. Exciting times in this market; I wonder how much better gen 2 of Apple's chips will be if the lowest end can do this.
Edit: In fact I just ran Cinebench R23 single thread test and package power barely crossed 5W.
I mean how could it be. It's AMD to Apple's :-P
The M1 MacPro will give us a sense for how the M* design scales to those sorts of workloads.
So, everybody knows a little laptop CPU and a desktop Ryzen are not the same class but it's still useful to compare.
I have a new laptop with the Ryzen 4800H, I would surely like a direct comparison with the M1.
> Java Renaissance: Ryzen 5800x is faster than M1 in most tasks by a large margin.
> Java SciMark 2.0: In the SOR benchmark, the 5800X is more than twice as fast. For others, the 5800X is slightly faster, with the exception of Monte Carlo Integraton scored 2.7% lower than M1.
> Java DaCapo: 5800X is mostly faster by a significant margin, except for the H2O benchmark which is more than twice slower.
> Python PyPerformance: Overall, the execution time is roughly the same, with the 5800X slightly faster. Probably a faster Python implementation like PyPy can highlight the differences better.
> golang.org/x/benchmarks: The 5800X performs significantly better in all benchmarks, around 30% faster in most benchmarks and some are twice as fast.
> Redis: The 5800X performs significantly better in all benchmarks
> JavaScript Web Tooling Benchmark (v8): The 5800X is significatnly faster in most benchmarks
> JavaScript Octane 2.0: Same story as above
I'd like to think my parent is a troll.
You can also write some thing like following
- In 6 of 24 cases M1 is faster than 5800X
- In 7 of 24 cases 5800X is faster by a margin
- Rest are toe to toe and 5800X is slightly faster
5800X and M1 are different class of CPUs with different constraints. M1 is designed for low-end notebooks and this comparison is enough to show us that M1 is fast enough.
----
I think that M1 Mac Mini is released for using as CI workstation on servers by developers to improve porting situation to Apple Silicon. Lot's of open source projects can't add Apple Silicon support because CI/CD services don't support Apple silicon and unit tests don't run for arm64-darwin.
There's also a major question about what happens with Intel. If they ever get their process advantage back then it's not clear what Apple's response is. But if they implode then AMD takes over the PC market and probably becomes TSMC's biggest customer, which could put them in a position to get on newer nodes at the same time as Apple.
Well I guess once AMD whooped Intel that was not longer going to be an option. Not only would Intel not be able to deliver their "World's fastest blah blah" marketing claim, but Intel couldn't afford to hold anything back from the general market. I guess their little deal with TSMC letting them clear the cobwebs off this strategy and continue it for a bit longer going forward..
What's wrong with using price-power-performance ratio benchmarks on what's available on the market?
$ taskset -c 1 redis-server
$ taskset -c 2 redis-benchmark -p 6379 -P 8 -q -c 1 -n 100000
PING_INLINE: 775193.81 requests per second
PING_BULK: 869565.19 requests per second
SET: 724637.69 requests per second
GET: 787401.56 requests per second
INCR: 775193.81 requests per second
LPUSH: 684931.50 requests per second
RPUSH: 699300.69 requests per second
LPOP: 680272.12 requests per second
RPOP: 704225.31 requests per second
SADD: 769230.81 requests per second
HSET: 675675.69 requests per second
SPOP: 819672.12 requests per second
LPUSH (needed to benchmark LRANGE): 680272.12 requests per second
LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements): 107758.62 requests per second
LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements): 30721.96 requests per second
LRANGE_500 (first 450 elements): 20040.08 requests per second
LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements): 14658.46 requests per second
MSET (10 keys): 317460.31 requests per second
$ taskset -c 20 redis-server
$ taskset -c 2 redis-benchmark -p 6379 -P 8 -q -c 1 -n 100000
PING_INLINE: 469483.56 requests per second
PING_BULK: 505050.50 requests per second
SET: 446428.56 requests per second
GET: 465116.28 requests per second
INCR: 458715.59 requests per second
LPUSH: 425531.91 requests per second
RPUSH: 438596.50 requests per second
LPOP: 429184.56 requests per second
RPOP: 434782.59 requests per second
SADD: 460829.50 requests per second
HSET: 421940.94 requests per second
SPOP: 478468.88 requests per second
LPUSH (needed to benchmark LRANGE): 425531.91 requests per second
LRANGE_100 (first 100 elements): 96899.23 requests per second
LRANGE_300 (first 300 elements): 29019.15 requests per second
LRANGE_500 (first 450 elements): 19109.50 requests per second
LRANGE_600 (first 600 elements): 14035.09 requests per second
MSET (10 keys): 253807.11 requests per second1. The 0.7x comes with 50% reduction in area. Where if you times 0.7 by 0.7 you get 0.49.
2. The original naming of Intel 14nm was actually 15nm. But Intel changed it which was part of the reason why it caused delays.
3. And Intel original 10nm naming was 11nm.
4. The node naming now mostly follows TSMC, the node after 3nm is 2nm, then 1.4nm, then 1nm, then 0.8nm.
Also the MSRP is $450. It may be a bit more expensive now, but in a month or two the price will drop.
Some higher-end RAM even gets above 5100MHz / 10200MT/s https://www.crucial.de/memory/ddr4/blm2k8g51c19u4b, so I had expected Apple to get somewhere around 7600-8400MT/s at 16-19-19-36 or better timings.
And no, we can't imagine what would happen if M1 was overclocked because it's Apple. It doesn't allow you to do that on it's locked down system.
Heap resizing has a much bigger impact on performance than garbage collection.
This is the desktop Zen 3 which is still using the 12nm I/O die. It uses more power as a result, which nobody really cares about on the desktop. The Ryzen laptops use a single die which is entirely 7nm and thereby less power with no corresponding reduction in performance.
Also, if you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the 5800X package handles vastly more I/O.
I'm not sure where people are pulling all these Apple silicon timelines from, but I can guess :)
GPU: $150 (1650 super)
Storage: $60 (samsung 970 evo 250gb)
PSU: $90 (silverstone sfx 500w 80 plus gold - there's probably cheaper options but most PSUs seem sold out on amazon)
RAM: $70 (16gb 3200mhz CL16, gskill or team group)
Case: $70 (Silverstone tek)
Motherboard: $120 (asrock b550-m itx)
There's your $1000 mac killer. I wouldn't call it a sensible build, but it should outperform the mac across the board. Notably the GPU is significantly better but the closest gpu the m1 is to trading blows with is the Radeon 560 which is only $30 cheaper. Also the mac comes with 8gb ram in the base model, and 16gb is a $200 upgrade but I could not find a decent speed 2x4gb ddr4 kit as nobody wants that little ram anymore in a custom build. I could save $40 by going with a 1x8gb kit for $30, but single channel will hurt performance.
I'd also consider $30 to go from the 250gb ssd to a 1tb variant, something apple charges $400 for.
The reason I wouldn't call it sensible is that the 1650 super is a budget gaming card while the 5800x a higher tier cpu. If you were actually planning to build this for gaming I'd suggest dropping down to the 5600x and putting the extra $100. actually for gaming I'd even suggest squeezing the budget for a 2060 (or even better wait for the standard 3060) by dropping to basic ddr4-2133, and going for standard sized case/psu rather than the small form factor to chase the mac.
On the other hand, if you're not gaming and just need a video output, save like 120 bucks and just get a gt 1030. Use that to buy some nicer RAM or more cores via a 5900x depending on what suits your workload better. Sadly you have to get _a gpu_ as Intel is falling behind and AMD won't give us high end APUs in the individual market.
It also isn't a portable, fanless laptop which has its perks.
On top of that, Apple charges $300 (in Sweden) for every 8GB of RAM, and $300 for every 500GB of SSD storage you add. The costs quickly even out. Unless you buy the absolute cheapest Mac Mini version, a self-built PC will be cheaper, at least according to the PCs I've built.
Let us not pretend that you don't need to also buy a keyboard, monitor, speakers, and mouse for the Macbook Air to be in anyway usable.
Don't forget to include your windows license ;-)
[1] https://techreport.com/review/3089/how-atis-drivers-optimize...
Consumer grade CPUs are driven by a variety of things - marketing, brand loyalty, gaming benchmarks, reviewers such as Anantech and Extremetech, and yes, Geekbench scores. Datacenter processors are a whole another beast and driven by proprietary benchmarks by vendors.
Geekbench runs so many different tests, atleast a couple of dozens of tests. So, if CPU manufacturers are optimizing to those tests, its hard to believe that that's not a good thing and would apply to pretty much what an average user does in the first place.
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/oneplus-5-benchmark-cheating-...
(This is not something that should be taken literally, but rather seriously; a lot of money was hanging on these particular benchmarks at some point - when enterprises were buying serious enterprise hardware - so it made sense to invest in compiler tech to make sure you’re not wasting all the hard work done by hardware designers on stupid code generation.)
This makes less difference than you'd think, because power consumption matters all over. If you use too much power you get high temperatures and have to clock down to avoid overheating.
The core designs for desktops and laptops are basically the same. The desktops use more power because it allows them to hold higher clock speeds -- the base clock of the 4800U (8C, 10W) is 1.8GHz, the base clock of the 3945WX (12C, 280W) is 4.0GHz.
This is also why desktops and laptops have about the same single thread performance. Running a single core at full speed is within the laptop power budget.
What's actually reached is https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1328777888213110793?s=21
6.6W CPU power, 9.3W package power (including DRAM)
That being said, at the same config, the 5800X system would indeed only barely be cheaper.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
So do Ryzen CPUs. The 16 core Ryzen only needs 5W per core. It's purely a matter of frequency management.
These comparisons are meaningless because you can say stupid things like "Ryzens are more power efficient than Ryzens" and still be right.
(20W per core is what it reaches on ST tests, with 17W more for the I/O die on desktop Ryzen, an overhead that'll be much lower on Cezanne hopefully)
Having worked on Mac laptops for the last 8 years without external keyboard, monitor, speakers or mouse, I beg to differ.
> I honestly don't care if my CPU has 2 cores or 20 cores
So first means: "my only concerns are performance and cost". What determines performance and cost? Primary answer: number of cores. If you care about performance, you care if the CPU has 2 or 20 cores. If you care about cost, you care if the CPU has 2 or 20 cores. You might not articulate your concerns in this way, but they are intimately bound together.
If you only care about "good enough" performance and "in my range" cost, then your concerns are still bound up with core count.
So what's your apparently more correct understanding of some of those words?
My guess would be "I care about results, not how you get them". Which is a completely acceptable policy if your workloads line up exactly with the benchmarks.
The benefit of trying to "peek behind the curtain" is mostly for trying to extrapolate anything else from the benchmark results (how would it perform on my different workload? which setups are worth benchmarking anyway? what could I change to improve the performance?).
Also it's a set of benchmarks some random person did.
It's interesting and useful information. They aren't a publication doing a comparison.
No it wouldn't, because Apple is selling that as their supported configuration. If that crashes due to ram / chip instability you can take it back to Apple to get a new one with the expected performance. That's completely different from your homebrew ram overclock, if that config doesn't stay stable, tough luck.
If anything underclocking the desktop CPU is making the benchmark more meaningful.
Oh hell no. If you read through 10K comments sine M1 launch on HN alone, majority of them are stating exactly that. ( Which is rather annoying )
That why you see quite a few of these new benchmarks blog post trying to provide a balanced view.
Castrated by a paltry 8GB of RAM in stock configuration!
Probably not.
macOS has had RAM compression since 2009; by now, it's probably implemented in the M1 SoC, so it's really really fast.
8 GB on an M1 is closer to 16 GB on most other processor/operating system combinations.
It's helpful, but it's nowhere near doubling your memory. Especially when you have an SSD to swap inactive data to, the benefit of compression is equivalent to adding something like 0-2GB of RAM.
Got citations? Better yet if there are any developer-oriented benchmarks.
I'm building a Zen3 machine to use as a workstation. I just ordered DDR4-3600 RAM (but can still probably change the order if I made the wrong call). The specifications [1] only mention 3200 Mhz, so I think even that is overclocking the I/O chiplet to run at 1:1. I want a stable development machine rather than a toy so I wasn't planning to go further.
I also read an interview [2] (most interesting part quoted below) which suggests there's diminishing utility in going beyond 3600.
> Okay, so what’s the best price/performance?
> DDR4-3600 continues to be a “sweet spot.” The kits are inexpensive, widely available, perform well, and have good compatibility. Is it the best in every category? No, but that’s not what the sweet spot is. 3600 is a good bet because it’s a good value in perf/$ for someone who wants to plug and play. Is it the best possible performance? No. Is it close? Yes, and without tinkering.
> What’s the best memory, even if i have to overclock?
> Probably very tight timing 3600 or 3800, just like the Ryzen 3000 Series. The timings on these memory bins can be super aggressive versus higher memory speed grades, and that usually overpowers frequency.
My RAM is actually CL18 DDR4-3600. Maybe I should have gone with CL16...I'm not sure how much it really matters for development though, and I'm getting 64 GiB of RAM so the cost per byte adds up a bit more than it does for a gamer buying 16 GiB.
[1] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x
[2] https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-robert-hallock-promises-ryze...
I'm having trouble finding it now, but IIRC I also once saw a side-by-side comparing different RAM latencies, and the differences were not enough to outweigh clock speeds; i.e. overclocking with worse latencies was better than lower latency but lower clock.
That being said I've seen non-gaming benchmarks that imply that there is a 3600mhz sweet spot. So it may vary based on workload. I haven't looked into that closely though — I was looking at benchmarks when building a gaming PC, so I had a specific focus :)
Because on their marketing page they specifically compare it to laptops and refer to low-power use cases. I have never seen them compare it against HEDT platforms.
While obviously neither of us can predict exactly what they’re planning for the rest of the product line, I think it would be naive to assume they haven’t at least internally validated that they can improve performance above these entry level offerings. Otherwise they just axed almost their entire Mac brand, and quite likely the rest would falter before too long.
It's likely that no-one has validated anything when it comes to future tense comparisons.
Read all, believe nothing, especially don't believe the future predictions of someone trying to sell you a laptop today.
Apple has future M1 samples for sure, but they don't have future AMD samples to benchmark against, unless somehow Apple has done some industrial espionage...
In car terms, it's like Tesla trying to persuade someone not to buy a Porsche Taycan. Of course Tesla's going to say their battery lasts longer, even longer than the second generation Taycan no-one has seen that's coming out in a few more years.
I thought it was pretty clear they were talking about mobile with the m1.
I think we're seeing posts around desktop CPUs and AMDs upcoming chips because non-Apple people are concerned/annoyed, possible subconsciously, that Apple Silicon is within striking distance of being some of the best hardware out there. I'm not saying that Apple has earned that crown yet, but if they do, and it's only available on Apple machines, it will annoy a lot of power users who want the best.
Nope—Apple’s marketing never said that. Everything they said in their November 10, 2020 press release has been backed up by reviewers and testers. It's you guys that blew their claims out of proportion.
For example, there's no reason to disbelieve that the M1 13-inch MacBook Pro is up to 3x faster than the best-selling laptops (of the 9 months leading up to November 10, 2020) in it's class—13″ to 14″ laptops that cost around $1200.
Is there a popular PC desktop that cost $600-$699 that's faster than the Mac mini? I've already seen the M1 Mac mini discounted to $625…
From the Apple press release [0]:
And in MacBook Air, M1 is faster than the chips in 98 percent of PC laptops sold in the past year. [1]
And with M1, the 13-inch MacBook Pro is up to 3x faster than the best-selling Windows laptop in its class. [2]
And when compared to the best-selling Windows desktop in its price range, the Mac mini is just one-tenth the size, yet delivers up to 5x faster performance. [3]
[0]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/introducing-the-next-...
[1]: Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M1 chip and 16GB of RAM. Performance measured using select industry-standard benchmarks. PC configurations from publicly available sales data over the last 12 months. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.
[2]: Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M1 chip, as well as production Intel Core i7-based PC systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics and the latest version of Windows 10 available at the time of testing. Best-selling system based on publicly available sales data over the last nine months. Tested with graphics-intensive workloads in commercial applications. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.
[3]: Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction Mac mini systems with Apple M1 chip, as well as production Intel Core i5-based PC systems with Intel UHD Graphics 630 and the latest version of Windows 10 available at the time of testing. Best-selling system based on publicly available sales data over the last nine months. Tested with select industry-standard graphics benchmarks. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of Mac mini.
"Worlds fastest CPU core"
Of course it's more reasonable to compare it with other low power CPUs in laptops, and not desktop CPUs with 5x the TDP that cost as much as the mac mini before you even buy the rest of the PC, I agree with you on that - I'm just pointing out that people are making these comparisons because Apple themselves did it first.
That's an interesting way of describing Apple's highest performing, late model CPU.
Huh? I was just saying the claim (whether it turns out to be true or not) wasn’t about only the M1, and that it’s more reasonable to assume that Apple is confident they can release something above their lowest range offerings.
Joke aside, claiming "In most programming benchmarks, single core and RAM is the game" is far from truth.
Not saying I agree with the "One must be living under a rock to buy anything but Apple" part, that's nonsense.
In the long term I don't think laptops are exactly the right answer for portability. I think the ideal would be that when we get up from our desks, all of our running programs (even the whole OS) would migrate to our phones. As soon as we open our laptop, they would all migrate there.
I'm just pointing out that people are making these comparisons because Apple themselves did it first.
This is slightly disingenuous—I think most people know they meant the design of their cores are faster than any other core, GHz for GHz. They didn't say "the M1 is faster than any other processor out there".
The 5800X runs at 3.7 GHz, peaking at 4.8 GHz with all 8 cores.
The M1 runs at 3.2 GHz and 4 of the cores are low-power cores. Of course the 5800X is faster; this shouldn't be a surprise.
However, as the AnandTech review has pointed out with their benchmarks, if the M1 ran at the same speed as AMD's processors, the M1 would be faster. That's what Apple implied with the "world's fastest core" thing. Even now, the M1 has 8 vs. AMD's 4 instruction decoders, allowing it to process more instructions per clock cycle, with faster RAM.
They have cranked-up M1's in the lab running at faster speeds that they've benchmarked, so they know what they said is true--even if they can't say how they know yet.
The proper way to understand Apple-speak is "even though the M1 is an entry-level chip, it's more than competitive with Intel and AMD's newest chips at a fraction of the power and heat. Wait until we crank up the speed and add more performance cores in future products to see what they can really do."
That's a ridiculous claim. If the AMD cpu ran at 10Gz it would be even faster. Neither does because neither CPU is designed to run at those frequencies.
The M1 is an amazing CPU and it is extremely fast given its power consumption and the frequency it runs at, but a lot of the claims that run around are straight out of Apple Reality Distortion Field.