Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Apple Announces Its New M2 Processor
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by torsionbar28 View PostI don't think that's exactly the case, as the AMD and intel products are certainly capable of this behavior. It's just that it isn't their default configuration. AMD and intel are going for maximum processing power within the available TDP envelope. So long as there is thermal headroom available, they ramp up the clocks to consume it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
What about idle? Majority of desktop/server/workstation x86 motherboards idle at 5-25W, whereas M1 and Raspberry Pi idle at <5W.
It looks like idle could come down a bit for Zen 4 chiplet-based designs, because of the move from a 14nm to 6nm I/O die. Motherboard will depend on the chipset layout. X670/X670E will use dual chipsets which will improve signal integrity for PCIe 5.0 but presumably double power consumption in comparison to B650/A620 (+5-7 Watts?).
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17399...m5-coming-fall
The new IOD also affords AMD the opportunity for some significant platform power savings. Not only is TSMC's 6nm process well ahead of GlobalFoundries' old 14nm process, but the design process has allowed AMD to incorporate many of the power-saving technologies that were first developed for the Ryzen 6000 Mobile series, such as additional low power states and active power management capabilities. As a result, Ryzen 7000 should fare much better at idle and low utilization workloads, and it's a reasonable assumption to see the IOD drawing less power at load, as well (at least with graphics disabled). Though at full load, with up to 16 cores running at over 5GHz, the CCDs are still going to draw a lot of power.On the power delivery front, AMD has confirmed that AM5 will support AMD's Serial Voltage 3 (SVI3) standard. First introduced as part of the Ryzen 6000 Mobile series, SVI3 allows for finer grained power control and significantly faster voltage response capabilities. And for desktop boards in particular, SVI3 also supports a larger number of power phases, which will be especially useful for high-end X670E motherboards.Last edited by jaxa; 07 June 2022, 05:03 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View Post
It can decode AV1 4K@120fps in software without breaking a sweat.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by qarium View Post
this all has a logical error: linux on apple M1 is faster on CPU tasks than MACOS...
apple can compensate the inferior product "macos" with their good hardware.
but just think about this: what if apple switch to the linux kernel ?...
Comment
-
Originally posted by benjiro View Post
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ry....623763.0.html
People still believe that stories or what...Its barely a difference of a few percentage when comparing the power vs performance on MT load. Alder Lake is a power drainer, not AMD.Asus ZenBook S 13 Ryzen 7 6800U 28W 25.5W 10468 374 / 411 Apple MacBook Pro 14 M1 Pro (8 Cores) 25W 21W 9581 383 / 456
Apple their benefits are that they hide a lot of their performance under their ( oa media ) encoding engine for a lot of tasks. When the CPU is put pure on CPU tasks, that famous power efficiency scales very close. Notice how a 6nm vs 5nm are pulling very close the same power in MT tasks.
Apple gains are mostly in the ST tasks where its reporting better performance on single core tasks. We see 4W * 4 + Efficiency cores (21W) result in 9581 in MT. But why can AMD deliver 10468 on a 25W power budget because X86 when not turbo boosted to hell, is actually very efficient.Asus ZenBook S 13 Ryzen 7 6800U 28W 25.5W 10468 374 / 411 Apple MacBook Pro 14 M1 Pro (8 Cores) 25W 21W 9581 383 / 456 Take a look at the 10W result in MT for AMD resulting in 6725. How is it possible for AMD to use only 10W and still deliver 70% of the performance that took Apple M1 21W?? Its funny these results are they not. And that is on 6nm, a process that is not supposed to deliver a increase in power efficiency, compared to 7nm. Unlike 5nm that gives Apple a 20% gain.Asus Zenbook S 13 Flüstermodus Ryzen 7 6800U 12W 10W 6725 560 / 672
Its been clear for YEARS that AMD and Intel have been turbo boosting their CPU way too much for ST tasks. So why is AMD so efficient in MT tasks? Because CPU are not designed for laptop first, or desktop first. Its server first. Where you want great MT performance at the best possible power usage ( most server CPUs that use the exact same cores are sold with very conservative clock speeds for that reason ).
Then those CPUs get filtered down to desktop, where they need to show great benchmark/gaming results, so there goes the clock speed up because that is the most easy way to reuse the same design. That CPU then needs to conform to laptops and well, your just trying to shoehorn server / desktop designed CPUs into laptops. And that becomes harder and harder but when you really analyse the result on a more equal playing field, ARM is not that special.
We already see how Smartphone are becoming hotboxes because of that same drive for more performance at any cost, despite it also being ARM technology.
If your argument is that specifically at 10W AMD is faster well yeah, the firestorm cores which is what apples use for the M1 aren't designed for such high efficiency at such low TDP and the Apple laptops contain both firestorm and icestorm cores (icestorm cores are designed for maximum power at such low TDP's).
This makes sense though because its very rare that laptops need to run at such low TDP when doing compute intensive tasks, the Apple engineers did a tradeoff and optimizing for 10W (at the cost of the 50-70W sweet spot). The problem here can simply be put that Apple M1 cannot be set to "only" use icestorm cores since thats a very typical contrived scenario. Unless you can somehow trick the Apple M1 into only running icestorm cores for whatever you are benchmarking its not surprising you will get these results.Last edited by mdedetrich; 07 June 2022, 05:20 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by qarium View Postyou say modern systems does not "does a good job of parallelization" and this is right if you consider the fact that there are single socket 128core systems and if you use todays software stack on these 128core cpus then the result on every day tasks is that it can not utilize the 128cores. but thats not the point at all because it is pointless the big part of the market do not buy 128core cpus.
Seriously, take a breath, read what I write, then respond, because I'm not contradicting the main thesis at all.
Originally posted by qarium View Postyou want these numbers: "but statistics about multicore applications and how they scale." you already have it without you know it.
the same reason why the main part of the market is not buy 128core cpus is the same reason why they buy 8core cpus.
they buy 8core cpus because the today software stack is scaling on these 8 core cpus. they do not even buy 12core or 16core cpus because this does not """scale"""
Originally posted by qarium View Post"Kernel calls are not multicore from the POV of Python:"
whatever python calls from the kernel the kernel does multicore internally.Originally posted by qarium View Post"Essentially, pure Python can only parallelize IO."
yeah right first you say python can not do multicore and now you claim python can do multicore for IQ
Originally posted by qarium View Postyour system run multible python programms in parallel... just in case you miss this point.
Originally posted by qarium View Post"Sorry, but what do you suppose my theory is, exactly?"
in my point of view your theory is single core performance is all you need because of this you buy "overpowered single core cpu" well because this is no longer in the market you buy any cpu with the highest single core performance in the market.
Originally posted by qarium View Post"in fact I asserted, that multicore performance is by today's standards absolutely more important than single core performance."
you say this yes but you claim otherwise you claim your python app is only singlecore...
so how can multicore performance be more important if your python app is only single core ?
The only reason Python is a part of the discussion is that you asked for a counterexample to your claim about individual applications, so Python counts for individual applications.
There's a thing called implication in logic. A => B means that if A is true, then B is true. A being false doesn't mean B is false. B being false means A is false.
Now, let's say we have three assertions and two implications between those:
A: most applications (as individual entities) make good use of multiple cores.
B: most systems (as aggregates of applications) have many processes running at a time.
C: optimizing hardware for multicore performance will have more impact than optimizing it for single core performance.
Now, it's easy to see that A => C. B => C is not really valid by itself, but another reasonable assertion we can use is:
B': processes that are not part of the same program tend to not need synchronization so a set of processes make good use of multiple cores.
And then, it obviously follows that B&B' => C.
I left implicit that system performance is what one cares about, because I think that's obvious enough for everyone. Nobody cares if your video decodes at 260fps if in the meantime you can't even move the mouse and your mic is not working and what not.
So, see. I may disagree that A is true in opinion, and be pretty sure in fact that even if it's true, you need really good data to backup the claim. That doesn't mean that I disagree with C. In fact, I claimed B and B' which are quite obviously true to prove C.
Is that clear enough?
Originally posted by qarium View Postin reality it is nonesense then as soon as your system runs 2 different python tasks who do not need to sync you are already in the multicore world
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
What about idle? Majority of desktop/server/workstation x86 motherboards idle at 5-25W, whereas M1 and Raspberry Pi idle at <5W.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Developer12 View Post
X86 chips still pay the price despite all the instruction caching they claim. There's no free lunch for having a bad ISA. That caching is of limited size, consumes massive amounts of die area in addition to the decoding circuitry, and the ISA still imposes a low limit on how quickly you can decode *new* code while following program execution. Since the dawn of pentium, x86 has always spent more than double the number of transistors to achieve the same performance.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
What about idle? Majority of desktop/server/workstation x86 motherboards idle at 5-25W, whereas M1 and Raspberry Pi idle at <5W.Last edited by carewolf; 07 June 2022, 06:01 AM.
- Likes 4
Comment
Comment