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

251–260 of 318 posts

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#251

Post by imtringued »

fvv wrote: post #176

Those are single core benchmarks, the wow effect is because you are comparing on single core benchmarks 4 core against 24 core cpu , the 5800x with only 4 cores enabled would probably still beat the m1 , probably even with one

Yeah that's the impression I get every time. Just think about it. The most power hungry desktop core needs 20W and going all the way from 4Ghz to 4.8Ghz is easily the difference between 10W and 20W. Apple's TDP for the entire package is 30W. They can trivially just overclock their CPU to the same performance level of any desktop. Nothing surprising here but everyone sells this like some amazing thing. In practice they use less power because the SoC is fully integrated, they have the 5nm process advantage and there are special processes for mobile chips that consume less power below 4GHz.

Consider for one second that in theory the M1 is technologically superior because it can decode double the instructions per second and yet it still is only consuming 2x times less power but at the cost of delivering worse performance on a superior manufacturing process. A lot of hard work with very little to show for it.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#252

Post by imtringued »

adkadskhj wrote: post #45
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 other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen? By that logic could we not "just" double Ryzen cores to mop the floor with the M1? What kind of logic is this lol

Yeah and since Ryzen with 8 and 16 cores and Epyc with up to 64 exist it is an obvious loss because Apple has yet to release products in these categories.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#253

Post by speedgoose »

tonyhb wrote: post #246
speedgoose wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you have to assemble the pc and install an operating system on it. It's really not comparable.

You also have to unbox each component vs' just the macbook air, am I right? Sarcasm aside, I don't think assembling a PC has any factor in performance/price here...

My company doesn't really want to pay me to assemble a PC.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#254

Post by imtringued »

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.

How many times does it take for people to understand this...

Comparing single core performance between laptops and desktops is an apples to apples comparison. The Ryzen uses 20W on a turbo boosted core, it uses less when you utilize all cores. Same for Apple which needs 10W for a single core and the whole package is 35W. There is way enough headroom to turbo boost to 20W.

The reason why there is a 20W vs 10W difference between the Ryzen and Apple chip is that Apple uses 5nm and the Ryzen clocks way higher (and thereby performs better). There is no free lunch where Apple can double their performance and mop up anything because AMD can just manufacture with 5nm and reduce their clock boost to reach the same per core power consumption. And it turns out this is exactly what they do on their laptop chips. Just reduce the clock speed and watch the power efficiency pour in.

If anything it's Apple that is backed into a corner because they are in a local optimum from which they can only escape by sacrificing their primary competitive advantage. Ramping up the clock speed ruins power efficiency.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#256

Post by imtringued »

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…

How is it clickbait? The title says it compares a specific CPU model vs another specific CPU model and that is exactly what it does. Where do you see deception in the title?

>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.

How does this prove that the title is lying?

>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.

Again, how is this relevant to whether the title is clickbait or not?

>Apples to apples benchmarks either controlling for power or price would make for a more relevant article.

Seriously, what does this have to do with clickbait?

Here is my perspective. I saw lots of articles that pretended that the M1 is better than all x86 CPUs including Ryzens (one of them is linked in the article). This was getting on my nerves because everyone is being dishonest. I clicked on this article because the title compared a Ryzen desktop CPU with the M1 with the expectation that these benchmarks disprove the garbage journalism and that's exactly what I got. The Ryzen 5800X performs better than the M1. x86 is still strong in single core performance. Those real "clickbait" articles were just lazy and trying to hype something up.

This article is not clickbait and you are just being dishonest.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#257

Post by imtringued »

gigatexal wrote: post #41
tuhdo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many other clickbait articles claimed that M1 is better than the best desktop class CPUs. I only tested the water and found otherwise. The 5900HX is planned and should be within 90% performance of my 5800X within 45W TDP. Not close to the power consumption, but then zen 3 is only on 7nm, while M1 is on 5nm. The Mac Mini is $699 with only 8GB RAM, that runs out after a few browser tabs. So, for a work machine, you wou…

This is comparing the M1 which a mobile focused chip in a tiny power envelope to the pinnacle of AMD cpu design in a giant (relatively) power envelope. My point was that the article could have stood on its own without even benching against the M1. Just show the performance of the 5800X in tasks the M1 and the 5800X are not in the same league.

I don't know what you are talking about. The problem with fake information is that you have to spend more resources debunking it than it takes to create fake information in the first place.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#258

Post by matwood »

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…

I got an M1 MBA to use until the real pro machines come out. It's much faster than the 2017 MBP it replaced, and does it while staying completely silent. The no fan noise is uncanny...sort of like a 'is this thing working?'.

Not scientific at all, but one of my large java app test suites takes ~7 minutes to run on my 2017 MPB and ~3 minutes to run on the M1 MBA using the Azul ARM build.

I can't wait for the 16" MBP with Apple Silicon.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#259

Post by rfoo »

agloeregrets wrote: post #238
agloeregrets wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(I am wondering why that got downvoted, perhaps it upset someone.) the 4750u sits at around a 1050pt GB5 single threaded score while the 5800x (with tweaks detailed in the article) scores ~1800. The M1 is 1700 or so. The 4750U just isn’t there for things like Node and scores similarly to Intel’s best desktop CPUs which are real world 50% slower at these very tasks than the M1 (or I imagine, this 5800x)

Dunno, maybe because compared to Node.js developers, C/C++/Rust developers have more time to burn on HN (due to their multithreaded build still takes ages), so they are more likely to show up and make a downvote?

Joke aside, claiming "In most programming benchmarks, single core and RAM is the game" is far from truth.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#260

Post by imtringued »

admiralspoo wrote: post #44
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…

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. The M1 is ahead by 2-3x in performance per watt and highly competitive in performance/dollar. This result is indeed quite meaningless as Apple will have 16 high-performance core variants of the M1 soon.

I have mentioned this in several comments and no, it's not that simple and worse, there is zero money to be made even if they did release such a product because Apple would never sell their chips as an OEM.
Post reply on HN