Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
With the advent of Zen 4 we can finally have a comparison between these two architectures as they are both based on TSMC 5nm.

We can see how they compare in perf/w and clock freq and also the power consumption per core and under load.

Zen 4 analysis is limited to desktop and laptop CPUs. Since Zen 4 is not launched yet I am keep on updating this post

M1 Ultra 16P and 4E cores:
Cinebench R23 - Single Core: 1536 , Multi Core: 24190
Geekbench 5 - Single Core: 1795 , Multi Core: 24038

M2 4P and 4E cores:
Cinebench R23 - Single Core: 1585 , Multi Core: 8745
Geekbench 5 - Single Core: 1937 , Multi Core: 8991

Ryzen 9 5950X(TSMC 7nm) 16 cores:
Cinebench R23 - Single Core: 1684, Multi Core: 24835
Geekbench 5 - Single Core: 1725, Multi Core: 17106



I added the last gen AMD desktop flagship to also compare how AMD improved from Zen 3 to Zen 4.
The best comparsion to M2 will be the 7800U and for the M1/M2 Ultra it would the Ryzen 9 7950X.

Zen 4 line up:

7950X:

7900X:

7800X:

7600X:
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,951
Cinebench should not be used to gauge general CPU performance for Apple Silicon (and for any CPU really): https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6
Look Cinebench is also unoptimised for AMD cpus. We use every CPU benchmark there is. Feel free to suggest your own. The more points of data the better.

I did also add Geekbench. Later I will add Blender CPU tests, handbrake and also linux kernel complie times.
and gaming later on.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AlexMac89

jav6454

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
22,303
6,258
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Whats the alternative ?

Geekbench uses NPU for machine learning tests, which makes it not pure CPU benchmark at all.

Till then Cinebench R23 is the only real cross-platform CPU-only test.
Real world testing is the alternative. Opening apps, measuring efficiencies over each generation. For example, encoding a video, doing something on the CPU akin to what a user would do.

Synthetics just gauge a specific overview and should never be used for black and white CPU to CPU comparison.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,360
19,433
Geekbench uses NPU for machine learning tests, which makes it not pure CPU benchmark at all.

Are you sure about that? From what I understand they use a tensorflow model (MobileNet) running on the CPU.

Real world testing is the alternative. Opening apps, measuring efficiencies over each generation. For example, encoding a video, doing something on the CPU akin to what a user would do.

How are you going to do it in a way that allows systematic, consistent performance comparison? And video encoding is just one specific domain that is only relevant for very few users and hardly a predictor of overall CPU performance in an age of dedicated hardware video encoders.

Synthetics just gauge a specific overview and should never be used for black and white CPU to CPU comparison.

Synthetic benchmarks have been out of fashion for many years — for reasons you mention. Modern benchmarks like Geekbench or SPEC are not synthetic benchmarks: they are derived from real-world workloads that aim to capture different kind of tasks a user might run.

It's more optimised for Intel CPUs. Cinebench uses a lot of Intel frameworks

Cinebench works just fine on AMD. It's just not a general-purpose benchmark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert

EntropyQ3

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2009
716
824
Real world testing is the alternative. Opening apps, measuring efficiencies over each generation. For example, encoding a video, doing something on the CPU akin to what a user would do.

Synthetics just gauge a specific overview and should never be used for black and white CPU to CPU comparison.
Black and white CPU comparisons are a fools game anyway.
The problem with application tests is that the results aren’t transferable. Even if you look at performance in a single app, lets say Photoshop, you will find that relative performance varies depending on what specific tasks you use it for. Not only that, but it will also vary with for instance the size of the problem set, et cetera.

We simply cannot measure ”general performance” with a degree of precision that is adequate for the small increments in performance that todays lithographic and architectural engineers struggle hard to eke out. It can’t be done.
 

theorist9

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2015
3,755
2,892
What about PassMark's CPU Mark? Is it problematic to use this in comparing AS with AMD/Intel x86?

1660553951938.png

 
Last edited:

theorist9

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2015
3,755
2,892
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: exoticSpice

senttoschool

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2017
2,596
5,400
Look Cinebench is also unoptimised for AMD cpus.
This is just simply not true. In fact, AMD brought Cinebench into the mainstream as a benchmark during Zen2's product announcement. Cinebench is disproportionately kind to the Zen architecture.
 
Last edited:

Gerdi

macrumors 6502
Apr 25, 2020
449
301
It's more optimised for Intel CPUs. Cinebench uses a lot of Intel frameworks

Intel frameworks like Embree are not a problem per se, when you compare x86 architectures - as both AMD and Intel support SSE4.2/AVX2. However on ARM architectures the AVX instructions are simply mapped to NEON - which is highly inefficient.
 

jav6454

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
22,303
6,258
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Black and white CPU comparisons are a fools game anyway.
The problem with application tests is that the results aren’t transferable. Even if you look at performance in a single app, lets say Photoshop, you will find that relative performance varies depending on what specific tasks you use it for. Not only that, but it will also vary with for instance the size of the problem set, et cetera.

We simply cannot measure ”general performance” with a degree of precision that is adequate for the small increments in performance that todays lithographic and architectural engineers struggle hard to eke out. It can’t be done.
That is also true. I for one just look at efficiencies based of a combined result of real world against prior gen and synthetics.
 

theorist9

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2015
3,755
2,892
Black and white CPU comparisons are a fools game anyway.
The problem with application tests is that the results aren’t transferable. Even if you look at performance in a single app, lets say Photoshop, you will find that relative performance varies depending on what specific tasks you use it for. Not only that, but it will also vary with for instance the size of the problem set, et cetera.

We simply cannot measure ”general performance” with a degree of precision that is adequate for the small increments in performance that todays lithographic and architectural engineers struggle hard to eke out. It can’t be done.
I recommend simply following the standard industry practice of using whichever benchmarks make your favored processor look better than the others. 😄
 

EntropyQ3

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2009
716
824
I recommend simply following the standard industry practice of using whichever benchmarks make your favored processor look better than the others. 😄
Indeed, that is the forum war approach. 😀
Or for that matter what benchmarketing is, note how the manufacturers (=advertising revenue) supply helpful ”guidelines” for how to benchmark their products.

Luckily, the engineers working on improving the products aren’t stupid, and do as best they can in terms of weighing gains vs. cost while trying to avoid corner case pitfalls and introducing vulnerabilities. Also, these days targeting specific perceived-to-be-critical application areas also makes sense as opposed to primarily going for general purpose tweaking. Which, incidentally, makes sensible cross architecture comparisons even more difficult.
 

EntropyQ3

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2009
716
824
Why? It's not like those will be any faster than the desktop CPUs...
They are (particularly Phoenix) more conceptually similar to Apples offerings. Monolithic build, substantial GPU (1536x2xclock GFLOPs) resources backed by on-chip LLC + LPDDR5 main memory, quite modest power draw target, similar process (5nm TSMC variant).
Laptop wise, they mostly share targets, but AMD seems to prefer not offering these processors for the desktop, which would be AM5 in this case. I hope that changes, as these puppies are quite attractive, perhaps too attractive for the market partitioning game. Not due this year however, presumably Apple will have refreshed their offerings by the time Phoenix comes around.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Xiao_Xi

Xiao_Xi

macrumors 68000
Oct 27, 2021
1,584
1,015
Why? It's not like those will be any faster than the desktop CPUs...
What is the value of a raw performance comparison between two SoCs with such different consumptions?

We can see how they compare in perf/w and clock freq and also the power consumption per core and under load.
Phoenix and Dragon Range will have better performance/consumption than Raphael. Why make a comparison against a worse SoC?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.