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

261–270 of 318 posts

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#261

Post by Xevi »

stickyricky wrote: post #135
Macha wrote: post #130

Earlier 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.

Neither does the Mac Mini, what's your point? If you're building your own desktop PC, then you're clearly not comparing it to a laptop.

On top of that, Apple charges $300 (in Sweden) for every 8GB of RAM, and $300 for every 500GB of SSD storage you add. The costs quickly even out. Unless you buy the absolute cheapest Mac Mini version, a self-built PC will be cheaper, at least according to the PCs I've built.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#262

Post by rfoo »

bhauer wrote: post #127

Can anyone explain the Redis numbers, specifically the 3900X versus 5800X [1]? The 5800X is showing numbers easily more than 2x the 3900X. I understand this is a single-threaded test, so the additional cores of the 3900X (12C/24T versus 8C/16T for the 5800X) do it no advantage. But I wouldn't expect the Zen 3 architecture to be that dramatically superior to Zen 2. [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tuhdo/tuhdo.git…

As the sibling comment said, this is most likely a methodology error. The difference is due to the 3900X benchmark goes plainly wrong. I guess the take home lesson is if someone is benchmarking a Zen-like CPU without mentioning "NUMA" at least once in their post, just don't trust it.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#263

Post by matwood »

p1necone wrote: post #58
gzer0 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, the conclusion states the following: > While M1 is indeed very powerful for its size, when comparing it to the high-end x86 desktop, it is still slower. Okay, great. I'm not sure what to expect when you compare the lowest end first generation processor from Apple to one of the more high-end of the spectrum x86. Edit: Forgot to mention how the power draw on the M1 is still significantly less; m1 with al…

The reason people are making these comparisons between CPUs that are basically in entirely separate market segments is because of apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything , rather than just other low power CPUs, and people taking said marketing at face value.

> The reason people are making these comparisons between CPUs that are basically in entirely separate market segments is because of apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything

I thought it was pretty clear they were talking about mobile with the m1.

I think we're seeing posts around desktop CPUs and AMDs upcoming chips because non-Apple people are concerned/annoyed, possible subconsciously, that Apple Silicon is within striking distance of being some of the best hardware out there. I'm not saying that Apple has earned that crown yet, but if they do, and it's only available on Apple machines, it will annoy a lot of power users who want the best.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#264

Post by dimitrios1 »

threeseed wrote: post #94
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #10

Thanks for sharing some programming-centric benchmarks using modern CPUs. I always wish that CPU reviewers would stop churning out pages of graphs with synthetic benchmark workloads and instead post things that actually matter, like compile times and other programming benchmarks. The M1 processor is extremely impressive for the price and power envelope. However, I'm noticing a lot of people have taken Apple's marketi…

The only part of Apple's marketing material that even references desktops are related to integrated graphics. So what's clear is that a lot of people are acting irrationally especially since the M1 is their low-end laptop CPU. At least wait for their mid-range laptop/desktop CPU scheduled for next year to make proper judgements.

Also let's not fail to mention the 5800x is a 600 dollar desktop CPU that consumes twice the maximum amount of power the M1 consumes....while idling

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#265

Post by emn13 »

leecb wrote: post #92
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #10

Thanks for sharing some programming-centric benchmarks using modern CPUs. I always wish that CPU reviewers would stop churning out pages of graphs with synthetic benchmark workloads and instead post things that actually matter, like compile times and other programming benchmarks. The M1 processor is extremely impressive for the price and power envelope. However, I'm noticing a lot of people have taken Apple's marketi…

> A significant portion of Apple's lead came from buying exclusivity on TSMC's 5nm process It's hard to estimate how much of Apple's advantage came from the 5nm process, but we can get a guess by comparing the A13 and A14. One of the biggest differences between last year's A13 and this year's A14 is the 5nm process (vs 7nm+). The performance increase seems to be on the order of 15% [1], and Apple was able to fit in a…

minor correction: the geometric mean of the uplift of the specfp and specint benchmarks is 21.3%, which is perhaps notably better than 15% (up to interpretation, that).

The geekbench numbers comparing the iphone 12 pro to iphone 11 pro average to around 19% difference: https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks/.

A few caveats: A compiler change made made the libquantum uplift (a part of the spec benchmark) huge, and non-representative of hardware changes. Conversely, the geekbench 5 multicore results are actually worse for the iphone 12 pro vs. 12; hinting that they're over-boosting the iphone 12 pro, so peak perf is likely actually a little better (from the hardware's perspective, not that an app can do much about it).

In any case, let's call it a 20% uplift with the same amount of threads, very respectable.

Another caveat: AMD may not be able to get the same 20% uplift from 5nm that apple does. Without any expertise in this matter I can only repeat what others claim, but I've heard people say that it's hard to make x86 wider (i.e extract more ILP) because the instructions are variable length, making lookahead more difficult. I guess we'll see next year with zen4 if that's true!

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#266

Post by ksec »

qiqitori wrote: post #168
leecb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A significant portion of Apple's lead came from buying exclusivity on TSMC's 5nm process It's hard to estimate how much of Apple's advantage came from the 5nm process, but we can get a guess by comparing the A13 and A14. One of the biggest differences between last year's A13 and this year's A14 is the 5nm process (vs 7nm+). The performance increase seems to be on the order of 15% [1], and Apple was able to fit in a…

How much of that added density is used for what kind of performance and how much is used to prioritize efficiency is up to the chip designers -- for the M1 you get a couple cores that focus on performance and a couple cores that focus on efficiency, plus a lot of area for the GPU and a not insignificant area for the mysterious (to me at least) 16-core neural engine (aside: I wonder if e.g. the graphics pipeline is ab…

In case anyone is wondering.

1. The 0.7x comes with 50% reduction in area. Where if you times 0.7 by 0.7 you get 0.49.

2. The original naming of Intel 14nm was actually 15nm. But Intel changed it which was part of the reason why it caused delays.

3. And Intel original 10nm naming was 11nm.

4. The node naming now mostly follows TSMC, the node after 3nm is 2nm, then 1.4nm, then 1nm, then 0.8nm.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#267

Post by ksec »

lr1970 wrote: post #244

Please note that M1 MBP with 16GB of RAM is being compared to Ryzen 5800X machine with 64GB of RAM. GC-driven memory management performance (I am looking at you Java) can tangibly affect the benchmarking results.

Not to mention Java and Go's VM / Runtime ( or in fact most of so called benchmarks ) doesn't have years of optimisation like they were on x86.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#268

Post by ksec »

alwillis wrote: post #82
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

>1. Nobody ever stated that.

Oh hell no. If you read through 10K comments sine M1 launch on HN alone, majority of them are stating exactly that. ( Which is rather annoying )

That why you see quite a few of these new benchmarks blog post trying to provide a balanced view.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#269

Post by db48x »

Toutouxc wrote: post #233
db48x wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a laptop screen for 10 hours a day is a waste of a day, and if you're at your desk with multiple monitors then you don't need a laptop.

What if I want to use the same machine both at my desk and at work? The ability to use the machine on-the-go is one thing, but the actual portability is second. But you already knew that, didn't you. Not saying I agree with the "One must be living under a rock to buy anything but Apple" part, that's nonsense.

Sure, having a laptop in that case is unavoidable, but you won't _require_ 10 hours of battery life either.

In the long term I don't think laptops are exactly the right answer for portability. I think the ideal would be that when we get up from our desks, all of our running programs (even the whole OS) would migrate to our phones. As soon as we open our laptop, they would all migrate there.

Post reply on HN