Nothing wrong with anads spec2006 results - see the breakdown

By: Doug S (, May 27, 2022 9:59 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Heikki Kultala ( on May 27, 2022 3:23 pm wrote:
> Adrian ( on May 26, 2022 6:09 am wrote:
> > -.- ( on May 26, 2022 5:23 am wrote:
> > > Michael S ( on May 26, 2022 3:36 am wrote:
> > > > Sorry for may be naive question, in recent couple of years I was not following.
> > > > How the ST field at the fastest stock frequency (no overcloking) looks by now?
> > > > Say, Apple M1 (Pro/Max/Ultra) vs Zen3 with big cache vs regular
> > > > Zen3 vs Alder Lake vs Rocket/Tiger Lake vs Comet Lake?
> > > > Non-FP scores are of primary interest.
> > >
> > > Not sure why you bring up Intel's older processors, but again, depends on what you measure exactly.
> > >
> > > SPEC2006 is somewhat an industry standard, and you can find a ranking here:
> > > - ranking does include SPECfp,
> > > so you'd have to go to individual scores if you just want SPECInt results.
> > >
> > > The AMD 5800X3D and Intel 12900KS are missing from the list, though
> > > I'd still expect Alder Lake to come out on top for SPEC.
> >
> >
> > SPEC2006 might be an industry standard, but I do not trust at all that list of results from Anandtech.
> >
> > For benchmarks written in high-level languages, the compiler used and the compilation options
> > can be the cause of much higher differences in benchmark results, than the differences in
> > actual achievable CPU performance, which are very small for the top competitors.
> >
> > Only for a few of the CPUs listed by Anandtech it is possible to discover, by diving into the corresponding
> > Anandtech articles, the compiler versions and the compiler options. Even in those cases, the values used do
> > not appear to be optimal or uniform across the reviews separated by long times, of many months or years.
> >
> > It is pretty certain that Apple M1 has a performance that is overestimated on that list, by
> > using a clang version appropriate for it, while the x86 CPUs use also clang, with less appropriate
> > versions and options, instead of using a new enough gcc with the best options.
> No. On modern OoOE processors, compiler has huge effect only when something can be vectorized by another
> compiler but not vectorized by another compiler. It affect specFP much more than specINT.
> Breakdown of the individual subtests of specINT 2006 at anandtech:
> Apple CPU's do much better only in 456.hmmer.
> And that's a benchmark which prform LOTS of loads(almost 50% of
> all instructions) and very little amount(~7%) of branches.
> Apples huge 128 kiB L1D cache can easily explain the huge difference in this test.
> There is nothing in the results suggesting something is "unfair" or "broken by apples compiler".

Your point is correct (though I doubt it will stop those who want to believe M1 results are somehow fake, probably because they don't like Apple as a company) but you're arguing the wrong thing.

No one should be concerned with SPEC2006 results when SPEC2017 results are available and hasn't been broken in multiple tests like SPEC2006 was. The only reason Anandtech tested heavily with SPEC2006 was because SPEC2017 was too long running for phone SoCs when they started testing with SPEC, and iPhones didn't have enough RAM to run SPEC2017.

Not sure why they were still testing with SPEC2006 less than a year ago, other than maybe wanting to provide some points of comparisons to older tests that used only '06 and not '17.

It is funny seeing people here and other places like Anandtech's forums argue for/against SPEC, for/against Geekbench, for/against Cinebench, holding either ST or MT as more important, wanting to hold compilers consist or allow them free reign even "benchmark specials" like dedicated malloc libraries, with/without SIMD, with/without GPU, and so forth - cherry picking the benchmarks they choose to believe in based on which one shows whatever CPU/company/system they hold in esteem the best and/or denigrating the ones that make for a less favorable comparison for their favorite.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Zen 4 is really badKara2022/05/26 01:52 AM
  Zen 4 is really bad-.-2022/05/26 02:13 AM
    who is the champ right now?Michael S2022/05/26 03:36 AM
      who is the champ right now?Kara2022/05/26 04:16 AM
        Alder lake better than zen4!Kara2022/05/26 04:24 AM
          Alder lake better than zen4!Adrian2022/05/26 05:40 AM
            Alder lake better than zen4!anon22022/05/26 06:14 PM
              Alder lake better than zen4!Adrian2022/05/27 04:18 AM
                Alder lake better than zen4!Matt Hughes2022/05/28 11:15 PM
      who is the champ right now?-.-2022/05/26 05:23 AM
        who is the champ right now?Adrian2022/05/26 06:09 AM
          who is the champ right now?Andrei F2022/05/26 06:16 AM
            who is the champ right now?Adrian2022/05/26 07:10 AM
              who is the champ right now?Andrei F2022/05/26 07:37 AM
                who is the champ right now?Andrei F2022/05/26 07:59 AM
              who is the champ right now?Eric Fink2022/05/27 12:17 AM
                who is the champ right now?Adrian2022/05/27 05:41 AM
            Optimally?Anon2022/05/26 09:43 AM
              Optimally?Andrei F2022/05/26 12:10 PM
          who is the champ right now?-.-2022/05/26 06:43 PM
            who is the champ right now?Adrian2022/05/27 05:24 AM
          Nothing wrong with anads spec2006 results - see the breakdownHeikki Kultala2022/05/27 03:23 PM
            Nothing wrong with anads spec2006 results - see the breakdownDoug S2022/05/27 09:59 PM
              Nothing wrong with anads spec2006 results - see the breakdownMatt Hughes2022/05/28 06:32 PM
                Nothing wrong with anads spec2006 results - see the breakdownMichael S2022/05/29 01:44 AM
                  Nothing wrong with anads spec2006 results - see the breakdownAdrian2022/05/29 03:53 AM
    Zen 4 is really badAdrian2022/05/26 05:16 AM
      Zen 4 is really bad-.-2022/05/26 05:58 AM
        Zen 4 test conditionsAdrian2022/05/26 06:14 AM
          Zen 4 test conditionsGroo2022/05/26 06:01 PM
        Zen 4 ECCAdrian2022/05/26 06:33 AM
          Zen 4 ECC-.-2022/05/26 06:38 PM
            Zen 4 ECCAdrian2022/05/27 05:11 AM
              Zen 4 ECC-.-2022/05/27 08:30 PM
                Zen 4 ECCMichael S2022/05/28 11:19 AM
          Zen 4 ECCdrAgonear2022/05/26 11:58 PM
            Zen 4 ECCDavid Hess2022/05/30 07:29 PM
      Zen 4 is really badgoose2022/05/26 08:14 PM
        Zen 4 is really badAdrian2022/05/27 04:44 AM
          Zen 4 is really badJames2022/05/27 06:13 AM
  Zen 4 is really badJohn H2022/05/26 05:45 AM
  Zen 4 is really badDoug S2022/05/26 10:50 AM
    Zen 4 is really badDummond D. Slow2022/05/28 09:14 PM
      Zen 4 is really badDoug S2022/05/29 09:49 AM
  Please check the faxts instead of posting crap like thisHeikki Kultala2022/05/26 11:05 AM
    Zen 4 IPC2022/05/26 11:24 AM
      Zen 4 IPC and AVX-512Per Hesselgren2022/05/27 01:07 AM
        Zen 4 IPC and AVX-512Per Hesselgren2022/05/27 03:44 AM
        Zen 4 IPC and AVX-512Adrian2022/05/27 04:57 AM
          Zen 4 IPC and AVX-512anon2022/05/27 08:22 AM
  Zen 4 is really badParsnip2022/05/29 04:20 AM
    What do you mean by 3-wide desing?Heikki Kultala2022/05/29 01:05 PM
      What do you mean by 3-wide desing?Doug S2022/05/29 02:32 PM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell tangerine? 🍊