Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 6:27 pm wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 6:23 pm wrote:
> > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 16, 2020 6:22 pm wrote:
> > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 5:51 pm wrote:
> > > > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 16, 2020 4:51 pm wrote:
> > > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 4:29 pm wrote:
> > > > > > Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 16, 2020 4:06 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > Will (anon.delete@this.anon.anon) on November 16, 2020 3:30 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 2:58 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 1:45 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > RType (Bigly.delete.delete@this.this.orangeface.com) on November 16, 2020 1:06 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 12:46 pm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Against GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not exactly state of the art, but not exactly ridiculous.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, these cards are around let's say 75W.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The state of the art is now about twice their performance at about 85W.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So bottom line is Apple's iGPU at, what, 10W? is half the current state of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > art for "mid-range, not insane power". Would that be a reasonable summary?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My guess is that next year (beginning of Q2?) we get an
> > > > > > > > > > > > 8-large core M1X, for the iMac and MBP/mini pro, with
> > > > > > > > > > > > double the GPU resources, and so a credible match for the (reasonable power level) state of the art at ~20W.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/16/m1-beats-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-and-radeon-rx-560/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Polaris (rx 560) is very old now though.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Old. Not very old!
> > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you can at least eyeball the newer cards here:
> > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_RX_5000_series#Desktop
> > > > > > > > > > I looked at the 85W desktop model as a reasonable successor.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You can see the Apple capabilities here:
> > > > > > > > > > https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16233/2020-11-10%2019_12_29.jpg
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Single TFlops and pixel rate are comparable, texture slightly behind. But, just like CPU,
> > > > > > > > > > these numbers conceal as much as they tell us because so much depends on the HW algorithms
> > > > > > > > > > that utilize them. ATI and nV have the advantage of longer experience in those algorithms,
> > > > > > > > > > Apple has the advantage of starting from a cleaner slate and (apparently) very little NIH
> > > > > > > > > > and a willingness to change large parts of the design substantially every year.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I guess over the next week many more comparisons of this sort across a range of functionality will appear.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/mnloona48_/status/1328427807987302400
> > > > > > > > > 1500 ST
> > > > > > > > > 7500 MT
> > > > > > > > > MBP (so active cooling)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > comparison page:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_single_core-15
> > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure how to interpret that. Does HT on each device mean HT
> > > > > > > > > was used? As far as I can tell it does, giving about a 25% boost.
> > > > > > > > > In which case only fair would be to allow each large Apple core to get a small core to help it :-) )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > More seriously the MT page is here
> > > > > > > > > https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_multi_core-16
> > > > > > > > > and M1 slots in with the 6 core HT devices. Which is nice enough,
> > > > > > > > > but more remarkable is just how well M1 seems to scale.
> > > > > > > > > MT is giving us essentially 5x ST, so each small core is giving us the full one quarter.
> > > > > > > > > The x86 devices don't seem to scale as well, getting about 5x worth of performance for their 6 (core+SMT)'s.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As always, one result, preliminary, blah blah. We'll probably (slightly) better results
> > > > > > > > > and (somewhat) worse results, especially on passive cooled MBA over the next few days.
> > > > > > > > > Also still waiting on a VirtualApple result.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Computerbase.de has a good list as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.computerbase.de/2020-11/cinebench-r23-community-benchmarks/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One notable result is the 6/6 4600u which gets 5.7x MT speedup. There are slower
> > > > > > > > results for the 4600u but this one is the only one with a screenshot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is not scaling at all, that is artifact of how x86 processors run at much
> > > > > > > higher clock in single-thread boost mode compared to all-core (all-thread rather)
> > > > > > > load. The difference is going to be massive for an U-line processor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you want to evaluate "scaling", you gotta lock the frequency to a constant value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well it depends what you're looking for as to what "scaling" means.
> > > > > > If you know a priori that the problem is trivially parallelizable, the only
> > > > > > interesting scaling number is what happens when a constraint kicks in - either
> > > > > > thermal or (in a particularly badly unbalanced system) memory bandwidth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thermal scaling is especially interesting precisely because the second pillar of the "ARM
> > > > > > will conquer the world over the next few years" is precisely that it gives you this much better
> > > > > > "practical" scaling in most of the cases that matter, most obviously data warehouses.
> > > > >
> > > > > This "thermal scaling" is just really "performance per watt while running
> > > > > at all-core boost clocks in the envelope of the sustained power limit".
> > > > >
> > > > > And there is no point in even discussing that until we know
> > > > > what is M1's TDP. Or what is its power consumption
> > > > > for single-core task, for that matter. The TDP is the single most important factor in this: see 15W mobile
> > > > > Ryzen with Zen 2 core versus 45W mobile Ryzen also with Zen 2 cores running the multithread Cinebench
> > > > > test. ST should be quite close (4.2 versus 4.4 GHz boost), but MT score will vary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or has Apple released the numbers for that?
> > > >
> > > > Apple is not going to release a TDP for the M1 or its laptops. Thats just life.
> > > > The best you are ever going to get is backing out that number from results like how fast the battery
> > > > goes down while executing Cinebench. Everything we've seen suggests that's somewhere between 10 and
> > > > 20W (though it's still unclear what will happen when you also crank the GPU [and NPU?] up to 11).
> > > > I'm unclear what results you think can't be understood today but will
> > > > become clear once you have an exact TDP for the MBA or the MBP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Uh? Whether the MT score is good or bad, that absolutely depyends on the power consumed.
> > > If it does better then say the octocore Ryzen 4800U (probably most efficient laptop chip for this task on
> > > x86 side, ATM) in the particular power envelope, be it 10W or 15W or whatever, that is a good result.
> > > If it does worse but at proportionally lower power, also good result.
> > >
> > > If the AMD beats M1 at the same or even better power = bad result for Apple.
> > > And that could all happen with the exact same 7500 points score the M1 achieves. What
> > > that number means absolutely depends on the power consumed... Not sure what is not
> > > to understand, performance-per-watt is ultimately the name of the game in these multithreaded
> > > tasks. It's like with GPUs, ultimately your performance is TDP-limited.
>
> What's not to understand is why you are pretending that the TDP is some
> great mystery that could be, who knows, 28W?, 45W?, maybe 65W?.
>
> The TDP will be below 20W, probably around 15W for MBP, 10W for MBA.
> That's as certain as anything can be when you're extrapolating based on common sense.
>

That's too broad of a guess to be useful. 20W is 33% more than 15W. As said, more specific data needed before the MT score can be judged. The ST seems decent - not a win but it is almost surely at much lower power than what competitors take (20-25W).