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

41–50 of 318 posts

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#41

Post by gigatexal »

tuhdo wrote: post #4
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…

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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#42

Post by Jonnax »

eloff wrote: post #25
AdrianB1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#44

Post by admiralspoo »

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.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#45

Post by adkadskhj »

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

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#46

Post by new_realist »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #22
new_realist wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfo…

The first test listed is Renaissance, which, from https://renaissance.dev/resources/docs/renaissance-suite.pdf, is a concurrency benchmark. It likely benefits from multiple cores. All in all I'm not sure the author has the relevant expertise.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#47

Post by liquidise »

Last year i replaced my aging mac pro with a 3900x amd Hackintosh. The cpu upgrade was hard to believe. Everything felt fast in a way even my 2019 air failed to achieve.

The idea that the laptop-grade M1 is keeping pace in these tests with the processor in my desktop is mind blowing. Sure the 5800x was tuned for these tests. Sure the M1 is on 5nm. All of this is missing the point: Intel created a huge market opportunity and 2 of the best poised companies to take advantage of it have.

Computer consumers are winning big thanks to TSMC in 2020. Let's all hope intel can turn things around and keep the space competitive.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#48

Post by glasshead969 »

nominated1 wrote: post #39
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…

And directly above that graph says: > please keep in mind that for single-threaded tasks, a single core doesn’t consume all 95W TDP headroom of the CPU. Based on Anandtech’s analysis, a single 5800X core only consumes 17.3W at 4850 MHz Remember these are single-threaded benchmarks.

M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen.

Edit: In fact I just ran Cinebench R23 single thread test and package power barely crossed 5W.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#49

Post by scoopertrooper »

eloff wrote: post #33
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…

For desktop workloads it doesn't matter, so this is a relevant comparison to many.

But this device wasn't built for use cases where power consumption doesn't matter.

The M1 MacPro will give us a sense for how the M* design scales to those sorts of workloads.

Re: Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks

#50

Post by gzer0 »

nominated1 wrote: post #39
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…

And directly above that graph says: > please keep in mind that for single-threaded tasks, a single core doesn’t consume all 95W TDP headroom of the CPU. Based on Anandtech’s analysis, a single 5800X core only consumes 17.3W at 4850 MHz Remember these are single-threaded benchmarks.

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 all cores @ 100% is ~20W whereas the x86 ryzen was at 17.3W for 1 one core

> To conclude that it performs better than the existing x86 CPUs, is a mistake.

True, no denying that. Exciting times in this market; I wonder how much better gen 2 of Apple's chips will be if the lowest end can do this.

Post reply on HN