Intel Core i9-9980HK multi-threaded subtest performance, GeekBench 5. Intel’s scaling in the machine learning test is terrible, however, and Apple wins this test in multi-threading. Intel’s camera benchmark performance is narrowly higher than AMD or Apple, and it decisively wins the rigid body physics test. #Geekbench comparison pdfAMD narrowly wins PDF rendering while the M1 wins text rendering over both x86 competitors. AMD decisively wins the image compression test, 10,392 versus Intel at 9,524 and Apple at 7,213. The M1 wins AES-XTS compression by a country mile, but Intel is ahead in text compression, 8284 to 7162 (AMD) to 5528 (Apple). In multi-threading, it’s much more of a fight. In ST, the M1 swept both Intel and AMD, nearly across the board. Multi-threaded tests show some differences compared with the ST figures. Interestingly, Intel retains leadership in the machine learning subtest, with a score of 1332 versus 1169 on M1 and 965 on 4800U. Intel’s 9980HK scores 1218 in the N-body physics test compared with Ryzen’s 936, but the Apple M1 scores 1769. AMD’s Ryzen 7 4800U can hit 1318 faces/second compared to Intel’s 750, but the M1 reports 2209. Subtest performance against AMD’s 4800U is distinct from Intel in terms of which tests Apple wins by which margins, but they aren’t much different in overall outcome. The Gaussian blur, face detection, and horizon detection tests all dramatically favor the M1, as does the ray tracing test. In some cases, the gap is small in text compression the M1 scores 1292, compared with 1177 for the 9980HK. The Intel Core i9-9980HK loses almost every single-threaded sub-test to the Apple M1, but it doesn’t lose them evenly. Even if we make these very optimistic assumptions, the AMD mobile system would still be consuming far more electricity than its Apple counterpart. If we assume that AMD can improve single-threaded performance by 1.3x and 1.36x - meaning they can achieve the entirety of this uplift in exactly the same power envelope - our hypothetical Zen 3-based mobile CPU scores 1495 / 9248. Data from the comparison suggests Zen 3 will compare significantly more favorably than Zen 2, but data also indicates that AMD’s mobile performance in a 15W envelope is much lower than when allowed desktop power levels, which only makes sense. To summarize: AMD’s brand-new Zen 3 8-core matches the M1 in single-threaded performance and significantly exceeds it in multi-threaded performance, but it achieves both of these outcomes at desktop-level power consumption. That’s an average - we’ll be referring to this Lenovo system, specifically, when we compare performance. We don’t know how AMD’s Zen 3 mobile cores will compare to its desktop chips, but the Ryzen 4800U scores ~1130 in single-threaded GB5 and ~6800 in multi-threaded. Obviously, however, these CPUs are both desktop processors. That’s a 1.3x and 1.36x improvement, respectively, which is well above the gains AMD told us to expect from Zen 2 –> Zen 3 on average (1.19x IPC, and up to 1.25x with IPC and clock). GeekBench 5 clearly likes Zen 3 much more than Zen 2 the Ryzen 7 3700X scores a 1281 / 8220 in GeekBench 5 according to LegitReviews, while the Ryzen 7 5800X scores a 1673 / 11,246. Since folks will be curious about AMD, here’s how things compare. While Apple is only tying the Core i9-9980HK in multi-threaded, the M1’s Geekbench scores cleanly beat everything below that point, including the Core i9-9880H. Apple is therefore leading in single-threaded performance even against Intel’s Sunny Cove architecture from 2019, and it’s leading in multi-threaded against the highest performing CPU cores that Intel ships in mobile. Intel doesn’t currently ship an eight-core Ice Lake mobile CPU, but Apple also ships Intel’s quad-core, ICL-derived Core i7-1068NG7. Measured performance for this CPU is 1149 / 7329 in GB5. #Geekbench comparison proThe highest-end MacBook Pro 16-inch that Apple has ever sold features a Core i9-9980HK, an 8C/16T CPU with a base clock of 2.4GHz and a 5GHz boost. Synthetics are useful for low-level feature analysis and they can shed light on interesting microarchitectural differences, but we don’t rely on them as our primary means of evaluating hardware. As always, I recommend caution when extrapolating from synthetic tests to real-world performance. These scores compare extremely well with existing Intel and AMD CPUs on the market.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |