First 96-Core AMD Zen 4 Threadripper Tests Show Utter Domination over Intel

it's not sloppy, it's required!

you want to max out memory channels on all devices to test max performance

but you also want to use RAM DIMs which are equally good, if possible the same

as AMD has more memory channels this means it will get more "equally good"(1) RAM DIMs and in turn have more memory

and as long as you make sure that no of your benchmarks perform pressure wrt. RAM capacity (e.g. max RAM usage 64GiB) you now have a fair benchmark wrt. max performance

naturally if you don't plan to max out your RAM channels on AMD you do need a different benchmark for non-max performance

(1): "equally good" is also a bit tricky as different vendors have slightly subtle differences in access patterns and DDR5 ram training also can make the same RAM run with different settings on different systems which can make the same ram dim not equally good, but there probably is some RAM which doesn't have such issues

While technically correct for longer time frames, setting a performance governor on both windows and linux basically means that it comes out of idle at the max allowable frequency. In order to achieve this it basically means that idle isn't adjusting the clock rates (to avoid the transition latencies) for idle times less than 2x those latencies. Depending on the core/firmware/etc it may be gating the clock, or clock skipping, which can save some power

And yes it can waste energy you can measure with the your battery monitor (or UPS/PDU) but its also possible to measure the interrupt handling latency/etc, and for some cores it can make a very noticeable difference to desktop latency if you happen to be sensitive to such things.

While I've posted elsewhere about clamping the clock rate to save power, I also do the converse when plugged in by cutting off the bottom 2/3rds of the frequency range. This results in a far more responsive desktop in linux and even windows to a lesser extent.

Surprisingly haven't found great comparisons. A 7840U vs M2/Pro test would be pretty interesting.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/R7-7840U-vs-M2_15023_14521.247...

The last benchmark is interesting but unfair given that's an ancient application with Rosetta.

> I'd guess this wins in absolute performance

No need to guess: An M2 Ultra will get around 27,000 in Cinebench R23 while this Threadripper will get around 100,000.

The M2 Ultra has a TDP around 90 watts (~ish according to a couple reviews) and this Threadripper has a TDP of 350 watts.

>Has anyone done a perf / watt scatterplot of the current AMD and Apple offerings?

Tl;dr, if you want the absolute performance on Desktop, get the Threadripper Pro.

AMD Zen 4 7800X3D, 5nm 5.04Ghz, Single Core GB6 Score @ 2833

Apple A17 Pro, 3nm 3.80Ghz, Single Core GB6 Score @ 2914

Well you can find that with Geekbench but it is very likely worst to publish it as it leads to a wrong conclusion without the basic understanding of Hardware or CPU.

The node and design whether it was tuned for Clockspeed ( Desktop ) or SoC ( Apple ). There are measurable percentage difference in the same core for Risen on desktop and Ryzen SoC. And then you have to factor in Wattage difference in Clockspeed they are operating at. You are expected to know all these basics before the scatterplot would even make sense.

The Desktop 7800X3D will likely use 20W+ in the test, while the Smartphone A17 uses at best 5W.

You will then also have to factor it a lot of these performance test are not sustainable without adequate cooling. i.e You can sustain the above performance for a very long time on 7800X3D, dont expect that on A17 inside a phone.

Many of these are pointing out the obvious. But it seems on HN we are increasingly required to do so otherwise it leads to some sort of flamewar.