Originally posted by coder
View Post
Updated Ubuntu 24.10 Install Image Released For Snapdragon X1 Elite Laptops
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by coder View PostApple M3 vs. Lunar Lake shows that ARM cores can performance better on the same process node.
Not in anything I care about.
This is phoronix. Why the fuck do you think I give a shit about proprietary software? I don't play games and sure wouldn't buy a thin & light laptop for gaming, even if I did.
Originally posted by coder View PostTypical PC Master Race copium. No, look at Apple M3 vs. Lunar Lake. Exact same process node. Lunar Lake is the most power-efficient x86 and the M3 still beats it.
This is also a lie. Lunar Lake cores are much bigger than the M3's. Lunar Lake has significantly more total cache, as well.
The spot pricing on AWS Graviton 4 instances suggest that TCO of ARM is still lower than any x86 options.
Wishing for a thing and saying it doesn't make it so.
Apple has been losing sales year over year since the introduction of the M2's and the trend has been continuing with M3's. Who's to say with M4's because this time Apple wasn't going cheap with their products. M4's don't have half the SSD performance like the M2's had. The M4's don't have less cores like the M3's had, plus the M4 Pro even matches the M4 Max in CPU performance. M4's also don't nerf the bandwidth like Apple did with the M3 and M3 Pro. Also, the base ram is now 16GB which brings Apple products to the 2019 era of computers. Qualcomm Snapdragon X laptop sales don't exist. Lets not forget that ARM/SoftBank themselves have filed for bankruptcies and are now after Qualcomm to make them pay because they are probably ready for another bankruptcy. If ARM for desktop doesn't end up like PowerPC then I'd be shocked.
Lets also not forget that we here at Phoronix use Linux, at least I hope we do. You're not going to run Linux on M3, let alone M4 based products anytime soon. The people behind Asahi are too busy cosplaying as cute cat girls instead of getting Linux working on Apple products. Meanwhile the chads that AMD and Intel hired are busy getting Linux working on their hardware, day1.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostPerform in what way? Almost every reviewer is using Geekbench and Cinebench and that doesn't represent real world performance.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
If you strictly compare either on the basis of single-threaded tests or vs. something like Lunar Lake, that has the same number of cores & threads, Apple comes out well ahead. The other wildcard is the amount of optimization, like hand-coded AVX2 or AVX-512.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostAre you Phoronix? You seem to be talking for yourself and other people,
Latest Linux Hardware Reviews, Open-Source News & Benchmarks
Linux and Open-Source. So, a bad idea to assume someone on here gives a shit about proprietary software, because the site caters to the FOSS community. I'm not saying nobody does, but enough of us don't that you can't just assume someone does.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostWe know that Intel isn't exactly doing well right now, but Intel is hardly the only representative of PCMR.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostThat being said, I'd still rather have a Lunar Lake based laptop over anything Apple.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostThen again, I'd rather have AMD's Strix Point chips over Lunar Lake.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostLunar Lake's die size is 100mm² while the base M3 is 146 mm². Apple's M3 is significantly larger.
That's also a misleading comparison, because of things like iGPUs and NPUs dominating the dies (or the M3's at least) and we're just talking about CPU cores here, not GPU. If you compare the CPU cores, the M3's P-core is 2.49 mm^2, while Lunar Lake's is 4.53 mm^2. That puts the x86 core at 81.9% bigger!
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post<random Apple bashing and ARM FUD>Last edited by coder; 29 November 2024, 05:35 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by coder View PostApple M3 vs. Lunar Lake shows that ARM cores can provide performance better on the same process node.Originally posted by coder View PostTypical PC Master Race copium. No, look at Apple M3 vs. Lunar Lake. Exact same process node. Lunar Lake is the most power-efficient x86 and the M3 still beats it.Originally posted by coder View PostThis is also a lie. Lunar Lake cores are much bigger than the M3's. Lunar Lake has significantly more total cache, as well.Originally posted by coder View PostThe spot pricing on AWS Graviton 4 instances suggest that TCO of ARM is still lower than any x86 options.Originally posted by coder View Post> for the foreseeable x86 will remain the default in server.
Wishing for a thing and saying it doesn't make it so.
Originally posted by coder View Post> x86 is still miles ahead in software support,
Not in anything I care about.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by bernstein View PostNo it shows, that Apple either had a bigger engineering budget or made more out of the budget. Also it shows Qualcomm had a much smaller budget (or did worse engineering) than Apple.
Originally posted by bernstein View PostAWS is heavily subsidizing ARM because they want more competition in the server cpu space
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by coder View PostCinebench certainly represents real world performance, since it's based on a production renderer. Geekbench indeed has weird MT scaling, so I just look at the ST numbers.
That's not a good comparison, since it included only one other laptop SoC and that was AMD's top-end Strix Point model that has more cores and used about double the power.
If you strictly compare either on the basis of single-threaded tests or vs. something like Lunar Lake, that has the same number of cores & threads, Apple comes out well ahead. The other wildcard is the amount of optimization, like hand-coded AVX2 or AVX-512.
Right at the top of the front page, it says:
Latest Linux Hardware Reviews, Open-Source News & Benchmarks
Linux and Open-Source. So, a bad idea to assume someone on here gives a shit about proprietary software, because the site caters to the FOSS community. I'm not saying nobody does, but enough of us don't that you can't just assume someone does.
Intel's Lunar Lake is the most efficient x86, at least in the ballpark of 4P + 4E cores and if you pick a mid-range, like the 256V (which Michael has and mysteriously omitted from that M4 comparison).
Same. That's because I don't like Apple as a company. However, I think their hardware is a good example of what's possible.
Depends on what for. Lunar Lake is held back by 8 cores / 8 threads. So, for a software development machine, I'd probably also prefer a HX 370. However, if I'm mainly using it for video calls, productivity apps, web, and remote access, then I'd go with Lunar Lake for sure.
Where the fuck did you get that number? Even just the compute tile of Lunar Lake is 140 mm^2! The I/O die adds another 80 mm^2, for a total of 219.7 mm^2.That's also a misleading comparison, because of things like iGPUs and NPUs dominating the dies (or the M3's at least) and we're just talking about CPU cores here, not GPU. If you compare the CPU cores, the M3's P-core is 2.49 mm^2, while Lunar Lake's is 4.53 mm^2. That puts the x86 core at 81.9% bigger!
I don't care about Apple, as a company, or even ARM, for that matter. I'm just interested in Apple as an example of what's technically possible and I'm interested in ARM because it has the maturity to be a practical alternative to x86. Even if there are a few benchmarks Michael can cherry-pick that run better on x86, it doesn't negate the fact that most software and tools have excellent ARM support, following from the decades of work that's gone into the mobile and then server software ecosystems on ARM.
Last edited by Dukenukemx; 30 November 2024, 09:49 AM.
Comment
-
-
I was gifted a MacBook Pro M3 max 2 weeks ago. When it comes to performance what people ignore is the horrendous throttling on it. I was running an av1 encode and sits on 118C. Speed after about 20 mins drops to about 1/3. On the Apple threads they always defend but the max beats 9950x. Benchmarks rarely factor throttling of real workloads. I so so so wish I could run Linux. It's like a glorified paper weight and the lack of a numpad, home, delete keys, lack of type A usb. My gosh it sucks.Last edited by dfyt; 30 November 2024, 01:12 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostThey're both synthetic tests, and that's easy to manipulate.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostAMD's Strix Point were sometimes more power efficient.
This is why Lunar Lake is perfect point of comparison. When comparing anything else vs. M3, if the goal is really to support detailed analysis, then the next best option is to use single-threaded benchmarks.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostYou do know that Apple doesn't cater to the FOSS community either?
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostYes but, Intel is still a mess. Look at their Arrow Lake chips and how bad the performance is and how little power savings there is compared to 14900K.
But, this discussion isn't really about Arrow Lake, anyhow.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostIntel's x86 is 82% bigger, but not AMD.
With their P-cores, AMD is more concerned about perf/area and perf/W than Intel. Because Intel has E-cores, they lean harder into just making their P-cores fast, yet they still struggle against Apple.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostAMD is even putting in V-Cache in their X3D chips that increases the size massively, but also doesn't show any performance increases in Cinebench. It does show up for games and certain applications.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostAMD also supports AVX-512 in all their cores, while Apple's M4's aren't even using SVE let alone SVE2.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostI don't think Michael is cherry picking anything.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostI think he just ran his usual tests and that's it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by coder View PostHow? There are 3rd party reviewers running these benchmarks, so how is Apple going to manipulate them?
This is a mismatched comparison, because obviously the thing with more cores & threads is going to be more efficient at scale. If you're comparing two products against each other to understand how things like ISA, manufacturing, and microarchitectural differences affect performance, then you need to use workloads that don't unfairly favor one vs. the other on the basis of thread or core count.
This is why Lunar Lake is perfect point of comparison. When comparing anything else vs. M3, if the goal is really to support detailed analysis, then the next best option is to use single-threaded benchmarks.
This is a more interesting subject, for me. Where initial benchmarks showed the weakest results on Arrow Lake, I think it had a lot to do with P-core vs. E-core scheduling. Because it reuses the problematic I/O tile of Meteor Lake, things like memory latency seem to be an issue for it. For these reasons, I plan to skip Arrow Lake.
But, this discussion isn't really about Arrow Lake, anyhow.
But Zen 5's single-threaded performance generally lags both the M3's and Arrow Lake's.
With their P-cores, AMD is more concerned about perf/area and perf/W than Intel. Because Intel has E-cores, they lean harder into just making their P-cores fast, yet they still struggle against Apple.
Yeah? That just underscores that you need a diversity of benchmarks to fully characterize a CPU. It doesn't tell us that Cinebench is worthless. If one benchmark could tell us everything about a CPU, then Michael wouldn't need thousands of them in PTS.
That just makes the M4's vector/FP performance that much more impressive!
From left to right: SSE2, SSE4.1, AVX2/FMA, and Icelake tier AVX-512.
Of-fucking-course he is! He knows which tests tend to favor which types of CPUs and he knows how to play to his audience and/or sponsors. He bought this Mac on his own dime, which means he's under no obligation or pressure to show it in a good light. He provides virtually no transparency into his benchmark selection and it varies quite a lot, from one article to the next!
This just shows you haven't been paying attention.Last edited by Dukenukemx; 01 December 2024, 02:36 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostIt's not the reviewers so much as companies catering their hardware and software to maximize them.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostIt's much easier to spot this with Qualcomm's Snapdragon X chips where they do perform well in 3D Mark, but are horrible at 3D outside of it. This is why the PCMR frowns upon synthetic tests because they are easy to if not cheat then optimize specifically for those tests.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostThis is why doing lots of tests will give you a better idea of the performance, compared to Geekbench and Cinebench. Lets be honest here, but the tests done by Michael are more realistic than anything you could get from Geekbench and Cinebench.
However, I've found some SPECint2017 rate-1 benchmarks that include a nice diversity of CPUs:
Probably the first thing you're going to point out is how the Zen 5 desktop CPUs beat M3 Pro. That's a laptop CPU, however. If you compare it to the HX 370, Zen 5 ain't looking so good.
He also went to the trouble of computing perf/MHz, which is a rough estimate of IPC. I think this is highly enlightening:
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostThe best single threaded benchmarks are games as games heavily depend on good single-threaded performance.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostBecause Cinebench says so? There's a reason why I mentioned that AMD's V-Cache has no benefits in Cinebench. Here we see that the 9800X3D is slower than then 9700X in Cinebench. It makes no sense since the level 3 cache is meant to boost single threaded performance?
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Posteven the ARM CPU manufacturers are starting to lean away from efficiency cores.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostCinebench is worthless because it doesn't take advantage of modern CPU designs like AMD's Zen5. Since tech reviewers are lazy, especially Apple reviewers, they tend to just run it and analyze it for 30 minutes while declaring a winner.
Furthermore, Maxon releases new versions of Cinema4D every couple years. Perhaps the next release will make better use of AVX-512 & AVX10.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
More to the point, if you just look at the speedup gained by the other hand-coded versions, you can see that most of the benefits are gained simply by going to SSSE3. The actual improvements between AVX2 and AVX-512 were: -3.2%, 15.2%, 96.6%, and 40.2%. Except for the first one, which was actually a regression, those aren't small improvements. However, these were micro-benchmarks that measured basically a single loop. The overall benefit to AV1 decoding performance would be much smaller.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostThis is why distros like CachyOS are using a V4 repository to boost performance, because V4 tries to make use of AVX-512. Like I said, AVX-512 is just hardly used and this includes games. I don't think there's a single game that uses it.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostVariety is how you do benchmarks. Would you have preferred that he was sponsored? I personally avoid benchmarks that involve sponsorships. What would you recommend then? Please don't say Cinebench.
Now, we can only guess at his methodology for picking which benchmarks to run and how many cases of each, because there's rarely any transparency, there. As for sponsorship, most of the hardware used for his benchmarks is donated by the manufacturers. While he sometimes buys laptops, mini-PCs, or GPUs, he cannot possibly afford to buy big server CPUs or systems on his own dime.
He's also not transparent about who donates to the site, or how much. So, we can't even say there are no financial ties either directly to the companies or their employees.
With all that said, I still appreciate Phoronix. I just mention it because you have to be circumspect and thoughtful about what it's showing.
Originally posted by Dukenukemx View PostDo me a favor and tell me what I should be paying attention too?
Comment
-
Comment