31–40 of 63 posts
how good is the M5 Max in comparison to a 96-core threadripper? what's the tl;dr, where are the broader assortments of benchmarks
I just want to see some bargraphs that say "lower is better" or "higher is better"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, in practice, despite nonspecific marketing language, people do use the multicore benchmark to measure multicore performance. Including for things like Threadripper, which is not exactly an exotic science project CPU or non-personal or non-desktop.
> Including for things like Threadripper, which is not exactly an exotic science project CPU or non-personal or non-desktop. We're talking about a CPU with a list price over $10000. Geekbench 6 is a bad test to use to assess the suitability of a 96-core Threadripper for the kinds of use cases where buying a 96-core Threadripper might make sense. But Geekbench 6 does a very good job of illustrating the point that buyi…
I'm really confused by the self-aggrandizing here, muddying up the discussion how good is the M5 Max in comparison to a 96-core threadripper? what's the tl;dr, where are the broader assortments of benchmarks I just want to see some bargraphs that say "lower is better" or "higher is better"
GeekBench probably made the right choice to optimize for more realistic real-world workloads than for the more specific workloads that benefit from really high core counts. GeekBench is supposed to be a proxy for common use case performance. High core count CPUs are only useful for specific workloads and should not be purchased as general purpose fast CPUs. Unless you’re doing specific tasks that scale by core count,…
I design multithreaded backends that benefit from as many cores as possible while not being a champion in a single core task. I think this is very common use case.
GeekBench probably made the right choice to optimize for more realistic real-world workloads than for the more specific workloads that benefit from really high core counts. GeekBench is supposed to be a proxy for common use case performance. High core count CPUs are only useful for specific workloads and should not be purchased as general purpose fast CPUs. Unless you’re doing specific tasks that scale by core count,…
I've personally found that Apple's Pro/Max chips have already too many CPU cores for Geekbench.
GeekBench probably made the right choice to optimize for more realistic real-world workloads than for the more specific workloads that benefit from really high core counts. GeekBench is supposed to be a proxy for common use case performance. High core count CPUs are only useful for specific workloads and should not be purchased as general purpose fast CPUs. Unless you’re doing specific tasks that scale by core count,…
>"High core count CPUs are only useful for specific workloads and should not be purchased as general purpose fast CPUs. Unless you’re doing specific tasks that scale by core count, a CPU with fewer cores and higher single threaded throughput would be faster for normal use cases." I design multithreaded backends that benefit from as many cores as possible while not being a champion in a single core task. I think this…
Most computer use cases don’t involve software development at all.
GeekBench probably made the right choice to optimize for more realistic real-world workloads than for the more specific workloads that benefit from really high core counts. GeekBench is supposed to be a proxy for common use case performance. High core count CPUs are only useful for specific workloads and should not be purchased as general purpose fast CPUs. Unless you’re doing specific tasks that scale by core count,…
> Furthermore, many of the suite’s multi-threaded subtests scale efficiently only to roughly 8 – 32 threads, which leaves much of such CPUs' parallel capacity idle, but which creates an almost perfect environment for Apple's CPUs that feature a relatively modest number of cores
Invalidates the entire comparison really, and should have canned the article if they had any integrity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phoronix is terrible in terms of clickbait and deliberate ragebait, and its comment section is a toxic cesspool, but its benchmarks generally seem sound. What issues have you observed with their benchmark suite?
Given the username of the account you're replying to, and the implausibility of a Phoronix reader being unaware of Tom's Hardware, I think you may have been baited by a troll.