The slowest M4 Macbook now has to best this score otherwise it's a fail!Besides breaking the 4000 score barrier in single-core, it’s also the fastest M4 9-core multi-core score to date.
senttoschool is quite the expert in hysterics.I can't help it. Hysteria, you know.
One can only hope they do this. We really need to be able to filter by subtest.The Geekbench Browser also needs an advanced search with better filtering options.
Wait, mikeegg is senttoschool? Or am I misunderstanding?senttoschool is quite the expert in hysterics.
Wait, mikeegg is senttoschool? Or am I misunderstanding?
Why do people waste their energy with these synthetic benchmarks when there are plenty of real world ones that can be used. I just don't get it, Geekbench is just a fun little tool and should never be taken that seriously. Yet people seem to take it as the holy grail of CPU performance.
Re: Geekbench vs. spec. Did you ever see this 2020 article on Geekbench 5?
Performance Delivered a New Way Part 2 — Geekbench versus SPEC
Author: Ram Srinivasan, Performance Architect, NUVIA
I've seen it, and I agree with some of their points, though with reservations. The tl;dr version of my opinions on Geekbench is that it's pretty good, better than other free benchmarks available, but is not a replacement for SPEC even if they tend to correlate decently well with each other. It is also notable that their prediction for the A14 correlated much less well with Anandtech's eventual SPEC estimate for that processor.
Any benchmark primarily available in binary form is going to be limiting in terms of what you can learn from it IMO. This is doubly true in that Primate Labs openly states that it uses platform-specific intrinsics when available. I'm very wary of the latter because it has a tendency to turn benchmarks from a measurement of a core's performance to a measurement of how good a machine-specific implementation of an algorithm is.
These issues could probably be addressed by buying the source license and doing a custom build, ideally excluding the platform-specific code, but Primate doesn't advertise a list price and I've never seen its source code in use anywhere myself. SPEC is cheap, ubiquitous, contains no platform-specific optimization whatsoever, and is very well-analyzed in its behavior.
Edited to add: Furthermore, I just don't think that "two integer CPU benchmark suites correlate with each other" is really meaningful. They're both integer benchmark suites. Some CPUs have faster integer perf than others. If they don't have a reasonably strong correlation, it means that one or both is not being a very good benchmark. This is extra true if you're measuring your R2 across only seven points. For the heck of it, I tried correlating SpecFP to Specint, which measure completely and utterly different things, using seven random SPEC06 results from Anandtech. I got an R2 of approximately 0.92.
Agreed. You can use pretty much any CPU benchmark and it will show very strong correlation. I tried it with Cinebench r20 from the 2700x to the 7950x and Anandtech's SPECint numbers and got 0.998 for the correlation coefficient. You know what that tells me? Faster CPUs perform better on CPU benchmarks. Not a very surprising result, but that doesn't mean that they track closely enough that you can substitute one for the other, especially as you get to larger data sets.
Amen.
Thanks man! I don't even know you though. Glad I'm famous.senttoschool is quite the expert in hysterics.
I'm. Never hiding it. I can be found in many hardware forums and reddit. But I'm not sure why your post is relevant to this thread. Let's focus on the topic instead.Yeah it's the same person, apparently he changed his account name. There's a few people who have done it for whatever reason. Unless there's some other way to tell that I'm not aware of you'd have to go back and look at an old post where someone replied to them as name in any quoted text from a post doesn't update with the name change on the account.
Re: Geekbench vs. spec. Did you ever see this 2020 article on Geekbench 5?
Performance Delivered a New Way Part 2 — Geekbench versus SPEC
Author: Ram Srinivasan, Performance Architect, NUVIA
I'd like to see your data on Cinebench vs SPECInt.Agreed. You can use pretty much any CPU benchmark and it will show very strong correlation. I tried it with Cinebench r20 from the 2700x to the 7950x and Anandtech's SPECint numbers and got 0.998 for the correlation coefficient. You know what that tells me? Faster CPUs perform better on CPU benchmarks. Not a very surprising result, but that doesn't mean that they track closely enough that you can substitute one for the other, especially as you get to larger data sets.
As is well known, Cinebench does have bottlenecks that do not represent modern CPU trends or real world software developments. But it is very accessible and consistent and it is a sustained perf bench, not a burst perf bench like Geekbench.Since that post, the internet has changed its tune on Geekbench and Cinebench. Finally, people are getting out of the AMD marketing fueled era of using Cinebench R23 as a proxy for general CPU performance. It has its niche but needs to remain a niche.
They really don't, it is just easy for the GP to understand. SPEC is numero uno and then specific stuff like Javascript or gaming.AMD and Intel need to stop optimizing their DIY CPUs for Cinebench.
Well things have changed since 2020, AMD is strong in SPEC and many real world apps but specifically weak in both Cinebench and Geekbench.Usually, their first marketing slide is Cinebench. This is very misleading since Cinebench has very poor correlation to actual CPU performance in most applications.
That is false equivalence and you know it. Comparing Cinebench results to Blender/V-Ray etc sure. But not to gaming, they are very different workloads.I'd like to see your data on Cinebench vs SPECInt.
Cinebench R20 results are quite terrible at predicting gaming performance, for example.
View attachment 99053
Are you sure that Geekbench still varies a lot depending on the OS? Picking some random results of Linux vs Windows, I see small differences; that was not the case for GB5 IIRC where some tests depended too much on libraries (libm mostly).Neither in their current forms represent good PC performance correlation, unlike SPEC. Geekbench can be cheesed in too many ways, with OS's and the like showing rather different results.
You should read my original Reddit post. Everything you wrote here has either been argued or agreed upon in the Reddit post already.As is well known, Cinebench does have bottlenecks that do not represent modern CPU trends or real world software developments. But it is very accessible and consistent and it is a sustained perf bench, not a burst perf bench like Geekbench.
Neither in their current forms represent good PC performance correlation, unlike SPEC. Geekbench can be cheesed in too many ways, with OS's and the like showing rather different results.
AMD used Cinebench when it suited them (Z2/3), Intel did when it suited them (ADL/RPL). ARM companies have always leaned on Geekbench because it suits them.
SPEC is the gold standard for subtest heavy sustained perf, and for rendering Blender does utilise modern CPU instructions and other capabilities very well.
I'm certain that they do for their consumer CPUs. It's the #1 benchmark for AMD and Intel and unfortunately, Cinebench dominates the minshare space for CPU benchmarking. Things have turned a bit more since I made the Reddit post a few years ago. Quite often, you'll see people on the internet actually cite Nuvia's medium post (for example, @Eug cited it just yesterday) as well as bring up the fact that Cinebench R23 is optimized for x86 and not ARM when comparing between the two architectures.They really don't, it is just easy for the GP to understand. SPEC is numero uno and then specific stuff like Javascript or gaming.
The person I quoted claims that Cinebench R20 scores are a close predictor of SPEC scores. I'd like to see the data.That is false equivalence and you know it. Comparing Cinebench results to Blender/V-Ray etc sure. But not to gaming, they are very different workloads.
Memory performance largely kept weaker Intel cores competitive in gaming vs stronger AMD cores, which is why V-Cache became a thing for client. It was originally only for technical DC but someone played around with it for client workloads and it worked out really well.
I think the percentage of people who really need more than 8C/16T cores is positively dwarfed by the number of people buying more than that due to other reasons, not limited to "I bet I might need this many cores at some point so better make sure I have them available!".I guess people need a CPU benchmark to justify buying 16 or more consumer CPUs.
Are you sure that Geekbench still varies a lot depending on the OS? Picking some random results of Linux vs Windows, I see small differences; that was not the case for GB5 IIRC where some tests depended too much on libraries (libm mostly).
BTW SPEC is not only a CPU benchmark, but also a compiler benchmark, and there you can have huge differences (even when compilers don't cheat). SPEC also depends on some extra libraries (many use jemalloc) and OS feaures (Linux THP, rebooting the machine to have the OS in an as clean as possible state). But I agree it's a better benchmark than Geekbench (especially when one uses the same compiler to compare different CPUs).
That should be due to AVX-512 I suppose? That's just general SIMD though, you can compile pretty much anything with AVX-512 support and at least in theory, almost all codebases could benefit in small ways at least (standard functions like MEMCPY for example). It might not be significant in practice, or it could slow CPU down if it causes downclock like on Intel, but it's just plain SIMD - a standard feature of CPU core. As far as I understand, SME has narrower applicability. Not sure how much narrower exactly, but narrower.Where is the outrage now?
As far as Zen 4, GB6 was largely ignored/minimized when evaluating Zen 4.
I'd like to see your data on Cinebench vs SPECInt.
Cinebench R20 results are quite terrible at predicting gaming performance, for example.
View attachment 99053
| CB r20 1t | SPECint 2017 1t |
2700x | 433 | 4.64 |
3950x | 527 | 5.78 |
5950x | 644 | 7.65 |
7950x | 796 | 9.39 |
| CB r20 1t | SPECint 2017 1t |
2700x | 433 | 4.64 |
9900ks | 517 | 6.1 |
3950x | 527 | 5.78 |
11900k | 626 | 7.346 |
5950x | 644 | 7.65 |
7950x | 796 | 9.39 |
Sure, SPEC is a compiler benchmark to a degree, but that's not a bad thing. It means you can build it in whatever configuration approximates what the software you'll be shipping or running will use - rather than having to just roll with whatever Primate Labs gives you. That's valuable! Vendor submissions are free to use trick compilers in whatever bizarre configuration they want, but then you can just run it yourself at O3 with LTO and no autopar, and see something realistic.
I've never seen significant improvements from jemalloc on SPECint in my own use (though if I recall, a couple of SPECfp tests benefit from it.) I have notes saying that omnet and leela break with jemalloc, though I haven't tested that in a few years and it's possible it's no longer the case.