41–50 of 63 posts
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?
What clickbait and ragebait? Example?
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,…
[flagged]
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?
My favourites were the comparisons of FreeBSD and Linux coming to the conclusion that FreeBSD is slower. Until you look under the hood and see that both are tested in a configuration with a desktop environment.
Or the good old ZFS tests that were coming up with nonsensical results because of gross misconfiguration and/or total lack of understanding how the FS works...
But hey, the click/ragebait is on point in both these cases!
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,…
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,…
Buried in the middle of that article: > 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.
(I'm not counting high-end workstation/server CPUs because, as others in this thread have explained, Geekbench isn't intended for them.)
You're seriously posting to HN a link to your Slashdot post linking to your year-old blog post complaining about Geekbench 6's multi-threaded test without ever mentioning Amdahl's Law? Pretending that everything a CPU does is an embarrassingly parallel problem is heinous benchmarking malpractice. Yes, Geekbench 6 has its flaws, and limitations. All benchmarks do. Geekbench 6 has valid uses, and its limitations are de…
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?
What clickbait and ragebait? Example?
> sudo-rs Breaks Historical Norms With Now Enabling Password Feedback By Default
"Let's tell you exactly how to feel about this, commenters"
> Linux 7.0 Officially Concluding The Rust Experiment
"...by declaring it successful, but if we said that in the headline it wouldn't be clickbait"
(In fairness, LWN did this too, but by accident rather than to provoke clicks.)
> GNOME Mutter Now "Completely Drops The Whole X11 Backend"
> systemd 260 Dropping System V Service Script Support
"And has dozens of other features and improvements, but let's cherry-pick the one we want you to yell about in our comments section."
> The Linux Kernel Looks To 'Bite The Bullet' In Enabling Microsoft C Extensions
"Oh no, look at the poor kernel developers reluctantly dealing with Microsoft extensions...that they deliberately sought out and used because they prefer them over standard C, not being forced by any external factor."
They know their comments section, they know what gets them posting, and they optimize for provoking comment.
You're seriously posting to HN a link to your Slashdot post linking to your year-old blog post complaining about Geekbench 6's multi-threaded test without ever mentioning Amdahl's Law? Pretending that everything a CPU does is an embarrassingly parallel problem is heinous benchmarking malpractice. Yes, Geekbench 6 has its flaws, and limitations. All benchmarks do. Geekbench 6 has valid uses, and its limitations are de…
Anyone who treats Geekbench as a meaningful benchmark (i.e. not without a huge disclaimer or with other more meaningful datapoints) is not to be trusted. You can only really trust it for inter-generational comparisons within a single architecture.
And like the other poster mentioned, it correlates well with SPEC, so it's basically a easily accessible SPEC. These days the only benchmark I use to quickly judge some CPU is geekbench.