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

291–300 of 318 posts

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#291

Post by Nullabillity »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #278
Dylan16807 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand how some of those words work.

> I only care about how it performs and how much it costs. > I honestly don't care if my CPU has 2 cores or 20 cores So first means: "my only concerns are performance and cost". What determines performance and cost? Primary answer: number of cores. If you care about performance, you care if the CPU has 2 or 20 cores. If you care about cost, you care if the CPU has 2 or 20 cores. You might not articulate your concerns…

> So what's your apparently more correct understanding of some of those words?

My guess would be "I care about results, not how you get them". Which is a completely acceptable policy if your workloads line up exactly with the benchmarks.

The benefit of trying to "peek behind the curtain" is mostly for trying to extrapolate anything else from the benchmark results (how would it perform on my different workload? which setups are worth benchmarking anyway? what could I change to improve the performance?).

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#292

Post by acdha »

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.

You might want to watch that video you’re spamming links to. Note the words immediately prior to what you quoted are: “when it comes to low power silicon”. Your entire narrative falls apart if you don’t quote like a creationist.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#293

Post by acdha »

sroussey wrote: post #64
amluto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

Core and cache organization gets more difficult, yes. So do thermals and layout, which is not where Apple has experience (they don’t make any custom chip that requires a fan that I know of). That said, they have had a looong time to think out this, so I have confidence they will make it work over the next two years.

Re: thermals, they’ve been pushing those limits since the PowerPC era and that includes high-TDP systems like the XServe and Mac Pro packed with CPUs, GPUs, and custom accelerator chips. The big problem was that Johnny Ives kept wanting to make ultra-thin showpieces - if they’ve learned from that debacle they’ll produce something 30% bigger with a robust safety margin.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#294

Post by acidbaseextract »

_huayra_ wrote: post #148
whatever1 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would highly recommend Emery Berger's talks [1] for anyone interested in benchmarking software. The alignment and code layout in memory that huayra mentions has shockingly large performance implications.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-TLSBdHe1A

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#295

Post by jeffbee »

user5994461 wrote: post #277
jeffbee wrote: post #171

The major difference between Ryzen 5000-series and Apple M1 is the former is sold out worldwide and the latter is on the shelf at every Apple Store in the world. Comparing the M1 to something that nobody can buy is dumb.

Just checked and I could see some Ryzen 5000 available on Amazon (not the 5900X though). Honestly I expect the price and availability to suck big time for both. AMD can't manufacture half the volume they should to satisfy demand, while Apple is a poster child of $900 laptops costing €1000 when they finally cross the Atlantic long after release. "Available at an Apple store" might be the biggest joke one could possibl…

I don't know if you're just being obtuse or what but there are over 500 Apple stores in 25 nations, that's not a handful. If you don't feel like visiting one, Apple offers same-day delivery for only $5 if you live near one. The product is readily available.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#296

Post by Dylan16807 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #278
Dylan16807 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand how some of those words work.

> I only care about how it performs and how much it costs. > I honestly don't care if my CPU has 2 cores or 20 cores So first means: "my only concerns are performance and cost". What determines performance and cost? Primary answer: number of cores. If you care about performance, you care if the CPU has 2 or 20 cores. If you care about cost, you care if the CPU has 2 or 20 cores. You might not articulate your concerns…

Correlations don't make it wrong to say "I only care about X, not correlated thing Y." Don't try to impress them with stats about cores, because cores can vary enough to make those numbers meaningless in a vacuum. You need to put them in the proper context, which... gives you performance and cost numbers.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#297

Post by scottlamb »

reissbaker wrote: post #106
jzelinskie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Zen, you actually want to run your memory clock at a multiple of the FCLK and not as high as possible. So making the RAM frequency the same as the M1 might have actually harmed performance.

I've read various theories about the right memory clock speed to use for Zen, but in all the gaming benchmarks I've seen, faster RAM clock speed ends up resulting in higher performance.

> I've read various theories about the right memory clock speed to use for Zen, but in all the gaming benchmarks I've seen, faster RAM clock speed ends up resulting in higher performance.

Got citations? Better yet if there are any developer-oriented benchmarks.

I'm building a Zen3 machine to use as a workstation. I just ordered DDR4-3600 RAM (but can still probably change the order if I made the wrong call). The specifications [1] only mention 3200 Mhz, so I think even that is overclocking the I/O chiplet to run at 1:1. I want a stable development machine rather than a toy so I wasn't planning to go further.

I also read an interview [2] (most interesting part quoted below) which suggests there's diminishing utility in going beyond 3600.

> Okay, so what’s the best price/performance?

> DDR4-3600 continues to be a “sweet spot.” The kits are inexpensive, widely available, perform well, and have good compatibility. Is it the best in every category? No, but that’s not what the sweet spot is. 3600 is a good bet because it’s a good value in perf/$ for someone who wants to plug and play. Is it the best possible performance? No. Is it close? Yes, and without tinkering.

> What’s the best memory, even if i have to overclock?

> Probably very tight timing 3600 or 3800, just like the Ryzen 3000 Series. The timings on these memory bins can be super aggressive versus higher memory speed grades, and that usually overpowers frequency.

My RAM is actually CL18 DDR4-3600. Maybe I should have gone with CL16...I'm not sure how much it really matters for development though, and I'm getting 64 GiB of RAM so the cost per byte adds up a bit more than it does for a gamer buying 16 GiB.

[1] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x

[2] https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-robert-hallock-promises-ryze...

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#298

Post by adambatkin »

agloeregrets wrote: post #172
darthrupert wrote: post #141

To summarise: Top-of-the-line desktop computer barely beats an ultraslim passively cooled laptop.

Also read the opening paragraph, they also massively overclocked the ram and underclocked the CPU. Out of the box the 5800 loses.

...which is entirely reasonable. Laptops are heavily customized/optimized for power/heat, whereas off-the-shelf CPUs (like the 5800x) are very much general-purpose devices but can absolutely be customized to be fit-for-purpose (and the entire hardware ecosystem is built around that).

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#299

Post by lliamander »

systemvoltage wrote: post #112
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…

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…

There's essentially no programming oriented benchmarks out there. There are plenty of benchmarks for other professional applications.

I find this disparity perplexing and the OP all the more refreshing for it.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#300

Post by user5994461 »

jeffbee wrote: post #295
user5994461 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just checked and I could see some Ryzen 5000 available on Amazon (not the 5900X though). Honestly I expect the price and availability to suck big time for both. AMD can't manufacture half the volume they should to satisfy demand, while Apple is a poster child of $900 laptops costing €1000 when they finally cross the Atlantic long after release. "Available at an Apple store" might be the biggest joke one could possibl…

I don't know if you're just being obtuse or what but there are over 500 Apple stores in 25 nations, that's not a handful. If you don't feel like visiting one, Apple offers same-day delivery for only $5 if you live near one. The product is readily available.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything, I'm just saying they have very few physical shops. There might be 10 in Paris for example but if you're in the rest of the country, tough luck!

Well I am double checking and I see they have shops in the top 5 cities now. Maybe things have changed for the better. Last time I tried to buy an Apple product there was simply no shop in a hundred miles radius.

Post reply on HN