Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 318 posts

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#191

Post by Rapzid »

eloff wrote: post #98
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want the fastest compiles money can buy, wouldn't you be looking at a massive, 3rd gen threadripper?

If you mean the 3rd gen server chips, they're not released yet. Also there are diminishing returns as core count increases. I'm doubting that a 5950x is worth it over the 5900x for me.

I'm opting for the 5950x. Yeah it's 33% more cores for 45% more money, but in for a penny.. The 5900x is already split across 2 core complexes and the 5950 will just add 2 more cores to each. Cinebench multi-core does shows exactly what you would hope adding the extra cores: 5900x is 75% the score with 75% the cores vs the 5950.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#192

Post by fmajid »

bosswipe wrote: post #154
woah wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They haven't bought themselves out in 10 years, how much longer is it going to take?

What do you mean 10 years? TSMC didn't really start beating Intel until 2016-18.

And now their market cap is 3x Intel's.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#193

Post by socialdemocrat »

fvv wrote: post #181
iseanstevens wrote: post #97

I come away from this way more impressed by the M1 than I was going in. It's a comparison of a ~$700 stock, low end full computer Vs. $700 for high end CPU only. And the high end CPU has overclocking tweaks enabled, and overclocked memory. 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 goi…

Why ? Comparison on single core bench is at disadvantage of the bigger cpu not the opposite , the m1 would have seemed even better against a 128 core epic of 7k$.. Wait some weeks and see how it compares to a 5x00u , also consider that apple is 'cheaper' now because are trying to bring more people fast to help transition to arm .. then everyone will be locked in in the ecosystem happy to pay the 30% apple tax for the…

That is kind of conspiratorial sounding. Apple has to charge more than a PC maker which spends almost nothing on build, quality, design, developing and maintaining their own OS and software.

Charging more in the premium segment is normal in any industry because you a smaller volume to spread fixed costs over.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#194

Post by gambiting »

tartrate wrote: post #161
alwillis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's amazing. I usually read in 16 GB of image data into memory for analysis. I'm guessing that will work fine on the 8GB ram macbook then. /s

Look, it doesn't have to work for everyone. Of course there are workloads where it's not going to be enough. That's fine. My personal workload requires 128GB of ram but I don't go around telling people 8GB laptops are pointless.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#195

Post by fulafel »

agloeregrets wrote: post #177
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of 8 core/16 thread Ryzen 4750U laptops for around the same price that outclass the M1 in multicore benchmarks.

In most programming benchmarks, single core and RAM is the game. That’s why the machine in this post has overclocked ram and an undervolted CPU. In that area the 4750u loses badly. In Node for example you will see nearly 60% better performance on M1.

Also benchmarks are biased towards multicore use cases, probably because slow things that feel like heavy computation are more commonly had parallelization efforts put into them, and are fun to benchmark.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#196

Post by fmajid »

p1necone wrote: post #156
threeseed wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a link where they say it beats everything ? 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.

Here's the initial announcement video with a timestamp where they called it the "worlds fastest CPU core". They've very quickly stopped using that as the tagline, but it was part of their initial marketing push. https://youtu.be/5AwdkGKmZ0I?t=529

They're talking about single-thread performance.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#197

Post by fvv »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #193
fvv wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ? Comparison on single core bench is at disadvantage of the bigger cpu not the opposite , the m1 would have seemed even better against a 128 core epic of 7k$.. Wait some weeks and see how it compares to a 5x00u , also consider that apple is 'cheaper' now because are trying to bring more people fast to help transition to arm .. then everyone will be locked in in the ecosystem happy to pay the 30% apple tax for the…

That is kind of conspiratorial sounding. Apple has to charge more than a PC maker which spends almost nothing on build, quality, design, developing and maintaining their own OS and software. Charging more in the premium segment is normal in any industry because you a smaller volume to spread fixed costs over.

I was saying the opposite.. apple could charge even more imo but then leave the hardware free like others do , if you solder everything, firmware lock everything , sell upgrades at 5x the price (and compare the price of the baseline to say.. wow it's cheap ) then apply a tax on all software, now when we compare prices we should account for that also

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#198

Post by fvv »

fvv wrote: post #197
socialdemocrat wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is kind of conspiratorial sounding. Apple has to charge more than a PC maker which spends almost nothing on build, quality, design, developing and maintaining their own OS and software. Charging more in the premium segment is normal in any industry because you a smaller volume to spread fixed costs over.

I was saying the opposite.. apple could charge even more imo but then leave the hardware free like others do , if you solder everything, firmware lock everything , sell upgrades at 5x the price (and compare the price of the baseline to say.. wow it's cheap ) then apply a tax on all software, now when we compare prices we should account for that also

The entry level is cheap so apple can win some price bench comparison ..also in general I can understand what is marketed like that but I don't have appreciate that btw. why we don't compare the 16gb ram 1tb ssd Mac 2.5kusd against a 700usd 4800u with same spec ? If you are comparing programmers productivity.. or for a better monitor monitor .. ok let's use a 900usd 4800u then.. ok 80% of perf in single core and 140% on multi for less than half the price.. and wait the 5800u and see.. when you compare you have to be fair between the components.. single core bench from 12core 24th vs 4core it's the start of every biased bench

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#199

Post by em500 »

Jonnax wrote: post #42
eloff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but is that fair in a benchmark? The RAM maybe because all high end RAM speeds are technically out of spec and are overclocking. But messing with the CPU voltage to juice the benchmark results seems like cheating to me.

Apple's chip has 4200Mhz RAM. Wouldn't it be fair to have both ram speeds the same? 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.

> Apple's chip has 4200Mhz RAM. Wouldn't it be fair to have both ram speeds the same?

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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#200

Post by alwillis »

p1necone wrote: post #157
alwillis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything 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 No…

https://youtu.be/5AwdkGKmZ0I?t=529 "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.

"Worlds fastest CPU core"

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."

Post reply on HN