Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on January 2, 2021 2:45 am wrote:
> Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on January 1, 2021 1:28 pm wrote:
> >
> > Now I have just replaced the 3700X with a 5900X, and ECC
> > seems to work OK starting with the Linux kernel 5.10.
> >
> > However, I have not repeated yet the memory overclocking test with the new CPU, to see if the
> > errors are really reported, but I intend to do it again when I will have some spare time.
>
>
>
> I think that it is interesting to mention that after finally having direct access
> to a Zen 3 CPU, I have verified that is faster in single-thread than Apple M1.
>
> The Apple M1 was advantaged at launch, because the available benchmarks that could be compared with it
> at that time were done poorly on Tiger Lake and Zen 3, making Apple M1 to appear better than it is.
>
> For example, Tiger Lake @ 4.8 GHz should reach a Geekbench 5 single-thread score
> of around 1750, exactly the same as Apple M1 @ 3.2 GHz (up to 1752, many close to
> 1750), if we extrapolate from the good scores recorded for Tiger Lake @ 4.7 GHz.
>
> However all the i7-1185G7 scores from the GB5 database are much lower, lower than the good scores of the slower
> i7-1165G7, so I believe that all the few existing laptop models that have i7-1185G7 suck badly and we will
> see the actual speed of Tiger Lake @ 4.8 GHz only when the Intel NUC with it will be available, in a few months
> (even Intel is expected to launch first an Intel NUC with i7-1165G7, unlike in the past when they used only
> the top speed for themselves; so they must still have serious yield problems with the top SKU).
>
>
> So for Intel Tiger Lake there is no direct proof yet, about how exactly it is positioned against Apple M1.
>
> On the other hand, at the Apple M1 launch there were only poor benchmarks
> done on Zen 3, so it seemed slower in single-thread than M1.
>
> Meanwhile many better benchmarks have accumulated for Zen 3 (a lot of GB5 ST
> scores over 1800 at the nominal clock frequencies) and I now have my own sample,
> so I could verify that the high Zen 3 scores are the correct scores.
>

Did you run on Linux? (I assume yes).
Also, how good was your RAM? I wonder how much that influences the GB5 result, given how absurdly variable they are for the same CPUs.

IRRC GB5 scores way higher on MacOS and it is also scoring higher on the same hardware under Linux compared to Windows. The reviews of M1 generally compared MacOS result to AMD/Intel result under Windows - a mistake arguably, making M1 looking faster than it really is.


> Therefore now it is clear that a desktop Zen 3 is faster in single-thread
> than Apple M1 (obviously at a much greater power per core, of over 20 W).
>
>
> For example, in GB5 ST, Zen 3 is faster by about 2% @ 4.8 GHz (e.g. 1790
> vs. 1752) and up to about 7% @ 5.05 GHz (over 1850, up to 1876).
>
> In computational benchmarks where the number and speed of the available execution resources matter
> most, unlike in GB5 or SPEC, where the higher *average* IPC of Apple shines, the advantage of Zen
> 3 over Apple M1 increases, being e.g. of over 14% @ 4.9 GHz for gmpbench (7337 vs. 6422).
>
>