To summarise: Top-of-the-line desktop computer barely beats an ultraslim passively cooled laptop.
Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
141–150 of 318 posts
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
CPU: $450 (5800x) 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…
Doesn't include monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, webcam, microphone, battery backup, and fingerprint scanner which would be necessary to make it "comparable" to a base model Macbook Air. It also isn't a portable, fanless laptop which has its perks.
And you have to assemble the pc and install an operating system on it. It's really not comparable.
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#143Regarding the 5nm vs 7nm thing, I expect apple to be at least 1 node or intra-node improvement (eg: 5nm vs 5nm+ or 4nm) ahead for foreseeable future. They pay TSMC pretty penny to have access to cutting edge nodes. Not much different from how Intel had node advantage over others albeit here apple paying for it so at-least others aren't locked out of it for too long.
So now each year we can't do proper benchmarks anymore because there will always be the (X)nm vs (X-1)nm argument. What's wrong with using price-power-performance ratio benchmarks on what's available on the market?
Yea I think this argument about node size comes up because in this case you couldn't buy just the soc but the whole Mac computer. People didn't care that some of advantage Intel had was from their process superiority because you didn't have to make any choices other than the CPU itself.
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the real world, there aren't many people making purchasing decision between an M1 Apple laptop or Mac Mini and an AMD 5800X desktop machine anyway. Still interesting to see the comparisons. 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 proce…
Absolutely, the M1 is extremely impressive and the best performer in its class by a long shot.
Yep it's probably the first at this size and packaging that you can just hook up to a TV and replace a decent desktop computer with (like I did; goodbye late 2015 iMac 5K...).
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
CPU: $450 (5800x) 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…
Doesn't include monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, webcam, microphone, battery backup, and fingerprint scanner which would be necessary to make it "comparable" to a base model Macbook Air. It also isn't a portable, fanless laptop which has its perks.
There are plenty of 8 core/16 thread Ryzen 4750U laptops for around the same price that outclass the M1 in multicore benchmarks.
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#146In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen?
In the real world, no one is debating between an Apple Mac Mini with an M1 chip and an AMD Windows/Linux desktop box in the first place. 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.
> 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).
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they could just get even or ahead on EUV, which they skipped on 10nm, I think they will be just fine.
They will surrender and buy from TSMC.
TSMC doesn’t have enough capacity for that. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung are the only players in the game, and they’re basically all churning at capacity.
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone is a programmer though. Synthetic benchmarks don't just compute prime number or run mandelbrots. They test things like video compression, image processing, zip compression and decompression, etc. - things that most people do. > 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/i…
And CPU/GPU companies have been caught multiple times in the past optimizing for these particular benchmarks. To the point where if you changed the name of the executable, the performance would drop significantly.
Emery Berger [0] at UMass Amherst does great work in this, and it made me very wary of a lot of performance benchmarks. A big source no one considers is alignment, wherein things like the executable name as you mentioned or the username or anything else in the shell environment (which iirc is copied into the first few pages of a process). I think in one of the cases, one of Emery's students with a very long username ran the same application significantly slower because the username pushed the pages of code over a boundary.
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#149This isn't an apples to apples comparison like the author says, because the package power (37W) of the Ryzen is still quite a bit higher than the M1's. You can see it right there in the graph from Anandtech. 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 clas…
What’s crazy is the 5800X destroys my ThreadRipper 1950X, with 35% better performance even on highly parallelized workloads! On the other hand, my Skylake 2600k CPU still trades blows with 2020 so-called “10nm” desktop processors.
Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the real world, there aren't many people making purchasing decision between an M1 Apple laptop or Mac Mini and an AMD 5800X desktop machine anyway. Still interesting to see the comparisons. 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 proce…
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…
> the unified memory
Castrated by a paltry 8GB of RAM in stock configuration!