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

21–30 of 318 posts

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#21

Post by sliken »

new_realist wrote: post #15
mping wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentioned faster, not cheaper. A performance-per-dollar and per watt is certainly valuable, but for a forum that always mentions that a couple hundred bucks are worth spending for shaving off time from a developer workflow (SSDs, RAM, etc, assuming they earn market rates) this benchmark is worth it. As a desktop user, I certainly am interested in these numbers.

Why would you buy a Mac mini for performance critical work? I could see being bound to a laptop for some workflows, but is that Ryzen available in laptops?

Yes, but only the zen 2 flavor which is significantly slower per core. The M1 competitor with similar thermals, close IPC per core, and on board GPU is widly rumored to be announced in Jan at CES.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#22

Post by AdrianB1 »

new_realist wrote: post #12
ivoras wrote: post #6

In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen?

Exactly. This is apples to oranges; laptop power envelope and budget to desktop power envelope and budget.

The original test linked at the beginning of the article is telling that multicore is not that relevant for the tested performance. The article is mentioning the power envelope and the fact that 5nm is temporary exclusive to Apple, but not for long - AMD will utilize it and that would be a closed test. In the end, if you want to compare performance before you buy, you care less about the internal and more about performance and price.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#23

Post by PragmaticPulp »

echlebek wrote: post #17

This 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…

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 process while Apple got the jump on 5nm by buying exclusivity on TMSC's 5nm process through the end of the year.

I'm extremely impressed with the M1 and I'll be buying an Apple Silicon device as soon as they have something with 32GB or more of RAM. However, the sentiment that the M1 chip obliterates any and every desktop part on the market is getting kind of silly at this point.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#24

Post by glasshead969 »

Regarding 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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#25

Post by eloff »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #14
foobarbazetc wrote: post #9

You’re undervolting the CPU and overclocking your RAM in a benchmark... Why?

It is explained in the article: undervolting the CPU allows it to run longer at higher frequency, otherwise it will be thermally throttled. RAM has no such problem, overclocking improved performance.

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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#27

Post by PragmaticPulp »

ivoras wrote: post #6

In 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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#29

Post by mmgutz »

gigatexal wrote: post #3

This is how-to-make-a-click-bait article-101. Show me an x86 laptop in the same power envelope that can match the fanless MacBook Air with the m1. I’ll wait. Oh and do so at roughly 1k. On the desktop the Mac mini is 699 USD in its base spec. The 5800X is 500 euros on its own before motherboard, case, ram etc etc. Apples to apples benchmarks either controlling for power or price would make for a more relevant article…

The M1 is certainly impressive but how much does the same configuration say with 16GB and 1TB SSD cost? Most enthusiasts aren't going to buy an AMD Ryzen 5800x and limit themselves to 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD. A mac mini 8GB + 512GB SSD configuration is 900USD. Can you imagine what a 16GB + 1TB SSD cost, which is not an uncommon configuration? My guess is in the 1300USD range.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#30

Post by amluto »

ivoras wrote: post #6

In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen?

You’re making a bit assumption that may or may not be true: that M1 will scale well to 8 performance cores. x86 vendors (and POWER) and Linux have put a lot of effort into multi core scaling in the last 15 years or so. Building a fast and efficient core is not the same thing as building one that scales well. I’m sure that Apple is capable of making an effective 8- or 16-core machine, but it may not be as simple as just adding cores. Look at the recent AMD machines’ complicated core organization for examples.

As far as I know, other than Graviton and other very new N1 designs, there haven’t been many big ARM systems at all.

Post reply on HN