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.
>

It seems Intel's architecture is capable of much more than the 1550-1600 scores show, too. Apparently desktop Rocket Lake can hit north of 1800 on 5.0 GHz (with faster SKUs possible, 11700K is probably second-best SKU), and that is still not on Linux. Of course, might be skewed by crypto results a bit, would have to compare subscores.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=11700k

>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>