Apple M1 chip outperforms Intel Core i7-11700K in PassMark (single-thread)

it's faster than AMD cpus too, but the point now is to s*it over rocket lake as hard as possible. Sad really.

 

What good is how fast any of these chips are if they're exclusive to a locked down platform that can't even be used as a normal PC?

An iPhone might have the fastest chips, but it's worthless to me considering you practically don't own it with how retard-controlled it is. Apple's PCs are just a half step away from that now that they're no longer x86. Last I heard you can't even do something as simple as change your default music app, wouldn't want those filthy peasants who paid over a thousand dollars to rent the phone to have an option to use a different music provider!

It can be twice as fast as an 11700K, and yet still worthless as far as I'm concerned, if I can't use it for anything that has any value or interest to me. No, real gaming in any meaningful capacity is not coming to Apple platforms in the near future. As always, Apple can go suck a fat one.

 

Yes kinda , but i think the focus on intel is because apple dropped intel to move to their own cpu design.

 

Sure there are, but in the end, you have microcode. You may change the front end, and different architectures require different decoders, sure, but from that point on you can actually reuse resources. It can't be 100% unaffected, but the front end does manage this for quite some time now.

 

That's the real reason yes, but let's be real: No one likes Intel, the raging weasel assholes who held a monopoly from 2006 to 2017 on everything but the low end after they used every scumfuck illegal tactic imaginable to nearly sink AMD and never really paid any meaningful price for doing so. The only reason they aren't a galaxy beyond AMD right now is because they sat around with their thumbs up their asses for over a decade. A decade of quad core CPUs at asshole scalper-like prices with each "generation" being either the exact same, or nearly the same crap as the previous.

The only reason I want Intel to succeed is the only reason any of us should want those monumental cartoon-level villains to succeed; for our own good. The market is still horrendously bad even with 2 players, the last thing we need is 11 years of AMD robbing us for the same barely-changing garbage year after year. It's the same reason I hope Intel somehow successfully enters the nearly FUBAR GPU market.

 

10% ahead of Ubuntu, acc to latest Phoronix 62 tests benchmark. Very nice.
Focusing all of Intel's might to come up with 10%, while admirable, does not really substantiate the lazy devs accusation.

So put them in jail for 17 hundred years. Why does the entire company has to suffer for the sins of few top criminals. Oh but the jail is where we put common criminals. /politics

 

Depending on the appliction, it might be more than 10%, but this has nothing to do with developers. Intel is using their compiler to do this, they could have chosen to optimize GCC if they were honest about this, but there they know that some crap doesn't fly.
Developers are not responsible for compiler optimizations.

 

I've always said these types of colossal crimes will never stop until there is actual hard prison time given out to those responsible as a punishment. Otherwise the punishment will always remain as a pre-calculated cost of business. The cost to Intel to do it (which I'm not sure if they've even paid out yet) was absolutely laughable and an insult to us all.

That being said: Frack Intel. I'll always be a hardcore anything-but-Intel buyer so long as any viable alternative exists. Much of the same assholes from back then are still running the company. Their new Chancellor of Propaganda (or whatever his title is, but that's literally his job) is just a small result of that. He's already been breaking laws left and right. Laws of which lawsuits against Intel set precedent for.

 

You do know that M1 has like triple the transistors compared to 5900/5950 or Intel 11700.

It's an awesome soc Apple made but it's also quite a bit more expensive to make than AMD or Intel processors. Apple can drown alot of the price because they don't really sell hardware they sell service attached to the hardware and gain money from that.

For AMD and Intel making something like this would be more akin to suicide. Google and Microsoft could do it. I guess the soc in ps5 and Xbox series X are the most comparable things.

 

iPhones don't have the fastest chips and the M1 isn't the fastest either. Their locked-down and proprietary nature is why their chips yield such good performance. They can finely tune their software for their platforms, because there's no variety and no room for variation.
Granted, Apple shouldn't prevent you from installing whatever you want on your phone (such as a different music provider). Sometimes the control they seek is just so unnecessary.

I phrased myself in a deliberate way. Clear is 10% faster today. Years ago, it used to be much faster than a 10% average. Thanks to what Clear proved could be done, many other distros (including Ubuntu) included the optimizations they made.
So the laziness is that for so many years prior to the project, nobody was optimizing anything. Since Clear is open-source, I wouldn't be surprised if many devs just simply copied Clear's work. Although it's good we're finally seeing improvements that take advantage of modern CPUs, the bad news is if Intel decides to stop working on Clear, we're probably not going to see things improving anymore.

AMD makes some of their own contributions too, but they mostly just focus on optimizing compilers, schedulers, and the kernel only for their CPUs. Obviously there's nothing wrong with improving those things, but Intel's work on Clear yields more performance to more users, at least on x86.

 

50K??? What CPU are you running to get that score there? I'm running overclocked 5950X and only get 40426 in that CPU benchmark!

 

Apple's M1 single core comparison reminds me of the adage, "Most people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination."

For anyone interested in some illumination, M1's single-core perf was covered 3 months ago by tech editorials:
https://wccftech.com/why-apple-m1-single-core-comparisons-are-fundamentally-flawed-with-benchmarks/

 

Still not sure why the Intel chip is only running at 3.6Ghz?

 

If you notice the 5950x runs at 3.4, in fact both processors run overclocked to catch high single threads

 

Apple is definitely selling a hardware+software combo. It's trying to get more revenue from services, but it's fundamentally a devices company (hence their insistence on selling privacy, basically).

The M1 has 16 billion transistors, and it also includes a GPU, and bespoke tensor accelerators etc. The 5600x is around 7 billion transistors of just basically CPU. The differences aren't that great honestly. But I would be very interested to see a Zen CPU on an interposer with some HBM.

 

4.15 billion I think is for the CCD and 2.05 billion for the I/O die on that 5600x. I would think if AMD also made a SoC integrated in to a board it would probably be a smaller die in terms of needing transistors also. But alas I dunno how much does something like Vega embedded to a 5xxx series add to the transistors most likely not much?

 

The estimate is around ~5bn transistors.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-vega-8.c3042

All things considering, they aren't crazy on the transistor budget.

 

I'd never touch anything Appled. Not fan of getting prestige from nothing.

 

Here in EU we dont use apple products. It seems this part of the world is little smarter.