• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Apple A9X Geekbench

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So I think AnandTech will run SPEC2k6 on the iPad Pro and probably some Skylake systems, so we will get a "real" CPU comparison between A9X and Skylake soon.

I personally can't wait to see this comparison. Should be incredibly exciting to see 🙂
 
Arachnotronic said:
So I think AnandTech will run SPEC2k6 on the iPad Pro and probably some Skylake systems, so we will get a "real" CPU comparison between A9X and Skylake soon.

I personally can't wait to see this comparison. Should be incredibly exciting to see 🙂
Click to expand...
Could be disappointing too. It's very easy to mess this up.

First the comparison will be against results compiled with icc SPEC compiler, unless AT also compiles using more fair compilers. Might be great if they did that on for instance a Surface Pro 4.

Second I'd be surprised if they are going to do what should be done regarding 32- vs 64-bit compilations; look at any SPEC 2006 score to see what I mean. But that'll be OK if they also run all tests in 64-bit on SP4.

Third will they play with the flags?

I sound pessimistic, but what I saw for SPEC 2k on Android by AT doesn't make me optimistic. But let's wait and see what we get 🙂
 
Nothingness said:
Could be disappointing too. It's very easy to mess this up.

First the comparison will be against results compiled with icc SPEC compiler, unless AT also compiles using more fair compilers. Might be great if they did that on for instance a Surface Pro 4.

Second I'd be surprised if they are going to do what should be done regarding 32- vs 64-bit compilations; look at any SPEC 2006 score to see what I mean. But that'll be OK if they also run all tests in 64-bit on SP4.

Third will they play with the flags?

I sound pessimistic, but what I saw for SPEC 2k on Android by AT doesn't make me optimistic. But let's wait and see what we get 🙂
Click to expand...

Aw, you've taken a lot of the fun out of this for me 🙁
 
Is anybody going to buy an iPad Pro to test this stuff? I have a friend who got one but I won't see him for a couple weeks. I do not feel I should spend $1k on an ipad when I already have an Air 2.



I am very curious what Adobe will be doing with their software for the ipad pro, if they give full functionality comparable to desktop it could be a very powerful and useful device. I don't see why they couldn't do the same for the air 2, though.
 
Thanatosis said:
Is anybody going to buy an iPad Pro to test this stuff? I have a friend who got one but I won't see him for a couple weeks. I do not feel I should spend $1k on an ipad when I already have an Air 2.



I am very curious what Adobe will be doing with their software for the ipad pro, if they give full functionality comparable to desktop it could be a very powerful and useful device. I don't see why they couldn't do the same for the air 2, though.
Click to expand...

I ordered one but cancelled it after using one in the store. I just can't justify it after using it.
 
Arachnotronic said:
I ordered one but cancelled it after using one in the store. I just can't justify it after using it.
Click to expand...

I had basically the same sentiment after using it. It is pretty though, but I already feel the Air 2 is a bit too heavy with the smart case for one-handed use comfortably and this will be worse.
 
Thanatosis said:
I had basically the same sentiment after using it. It's pretty though.
Click to expand...

Oh it's a gorgeous, well-engineered, finely crafted piece of Apple Tech and honestly I think Apple deserves somebody's money for how well made it is. Just...not my money.

I'd rather save that cash for the iPhone 7 Plus...or next year's iteration which will surely come in Rose Gold + include 3D Touch.
 
Thanatosis said:
Who is going to drop $2600 on surface book when they can get an ipad pro for half the price that has better GPU and CPU performance, is thinner and lighter and looks better to boot?
Click to expand...
People who actually, you know, do work on their tablet/laptops.
 
stingerman said:
What kind of work are you referring to? All the key productivity Apps are on iOS and many many more
Click to expand...

xcode? And I don't know how anyone doing anything serious can deal with the pain that is sharing files between apps. IOS is fundamentally not for production.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, I put my 6700K at 2.2GHz without any Speed Step or turbo active. In other words, it's locked at 2.2GHz. Memory is 16GB DDR4 @ 2667MHz 15-15-15-36-1T. My Windows 10 installation is clean and I made sure there were no appliactions running in the background while Geekbench ran. Here's the comparison to the iPad:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/4149721?baseline=4183457

If we assume that the iPad actually runs at 2.16GHz (and no higher), the performance/IPC advantage of Apples core is pretty big in some cases. Many of the test results seem to hover in the +30% area. That's if the results are actually meaningful at all. We can speculate, but I don't see any way of determining who's right with any certainty without having much more varied test results available.

For completeness, here's the bone stock Geekbench score of the system with otherwise exactly the same running conditions. Multicore enhancement disabled.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/4183670
 
We already established that geekbench is horrible biased towards mobile, specially IOS. The methods used for the windows version is an outright joke. Plus the dataset is also different. Not sure why people keep using this flawed benchmark.
 
Brunnis said:
Out of curiosity, I put my 6700K at 2.2GHz without any Speed Step or turbo active. In other words, it's locked at 2.2GHz. Memory is 16GB DDR4 @ 2667MHz 15-15-15-36-1T. My Windows 10 installation is clean and I made sure there were no appliactions running in the background while Geekbench ran. Here's the comparison to the iPad:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/4149721?baseline=4183457

If we assume that the iPad actually runs at 2.16GHz (and no higher), the performance/IPC advantage of Apples core is pretty big in some cases. Many of the test results seem to hover in the +30% area. That's if the results are actually meaningful at all. We can speculate, but I don't see any way of determining who's right with any certainty without having much more varied test results available.

For completeness, here's the bone stock Geekbench score of the system with otherwise exactly the same running conditions. Multicore enhancement disabled.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/4183670
Click to expand...

iPad runs at 2.26GHz but your point is still basically valid.

What's interesting is when I went down to a local Apple store and ran some JS benchmarks on Safari browser on A9X, Core M, and Broadwell i5 (quad core), I noticed that a 2.4GHz MacBook (1.1GHz base, 2.4GHz max turbo) is actually beaten by the iPad Pro's A9X @ 2.26GHz.

Nothing conclusive obviously, but I do think in terms of raw CPU st perf/clock there is a very real chance that Twister is actually ahead of Skylake. However, I do think more tests need to be done before we can say anything definitive. Also note that Skylake scales to much, much higher frequencies so it's not exactly apples to apples.

But yeah, Twister core from Apple? Good stuff.
 
Nothingness said:
Could be disappointing too. It's very easy to mess this up.

First the comparison will be against results compiled with icc SPEC compiler, unless AT also compiles using more fair compilers. Might be great if they did that on for instance a Surface Pro 4.

Second I'd be surprised if they are going to do what should be done regarding 32- vs 64-bit compilations; look at any SPEC 2006 score to see what I mean. But that'll be OK if they also run all tests in 64-bit on SP4.

Third will they play with the flags?

I sound pessimistic, but what I saw for SPEC 2k on Android by AT doesn't make me optimistic. But let's wait and see what we get 🙂
Click to expand...

It is said that the difference between ICC and GCC(new version) is quite small, not so obvious as before.

And anandtech will disable PAR when testing SPEC06?
 
tempestglen said:
It is said that the difference between ICC and GCC(new version) is quite small, not so obvious as before.
Click to expand...
Here is gcc on a 3.8GHz Haswell (most likely some 4670: https://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/spec2006.topka/gcc/home.html
Here is icc on a 4670: https://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2014q3/cpu2006-20140715-30459.html

So that's base 35 / peak 37 vs 56/58. See what I mean?

Of course icc flags are playing with 32 vs 64-bit flags, while the gcc run is 64-bit only.

OTOH as was noted on RWT, gcc is competitive against icc for 403.gcc, because the latter is very difficult to break, so Intel found no trick to make its score shine. That's one of the reasons most people only care about 403.gcc.

And anandtech will disable PAR when testing SPEC06?
Click to expand...
I think only icc (and other proprietary compilers) do autopar.
 
ShintaiDK said:
We already established that geekbench is horrible biased towards mobile, specially IOS. The methods used for the windows version is an outright joke. Plus the dataset is also different. Not sure why people keep using this flawed benchmark.
Click to expand...


its pretty funny author of said benchmark says the difference between the two work sets is ~1% and in the next version all versions will be using the same work set. So what will be your excuse then?
 
itsmydamnation said:
its pretty funny author of said benchmark says the difference between the two work sets is ~1% and in the next version all versions will be using the same work set. So what will be your excuse then?
Click to expand...

The dataset showed much more variation in different benches. But it still doesn't change the base setup.

You can call it what you want.
 
itsmydamnation said:
its pretty funny author of said benchmark says the difference between the two work sets is ~1% and in the next version all versions will be using the same work set. So what will be your excuse then?
Click to expand...

FPiednoel on Twitter showed that the difference can be much greater on some Intel mobile devices.
 
Anybody know what the TDP/power usage difference is between the 6200U and A9X?


A9X makes Core M look really bad...
 
ShintaiDK said:
The dataset showed much more variation in different benches. But it still doesn't change the base setup.

You can call it what you want.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh, so a few outliers means the benchmark is invalid. That never happens in pure PC master race land before, right?

Even you must know how lame your excuse is.
 
You know what's funny? The only reason that there is any argument over Apple's cpu performance is that you can't do jack shit with it.

Run a kernel compile, do some rendering, play a few common games, churn out a few F@H WU's, the real world performance of a cpu is really not that hard to gauge. But guess what? You can't do any of that on the ipad pro!

So the A9X might well have quantum computational powers but do you even care?
 
Last edited:
podspi said:
Anybody know what the TDP/power usage difference is between the 6200U and A9X?


A9X makes Core M look really bad...
Click to expand...

In geekbench and gfxbench (which isnt really comparable). Octane, kraken, sunspider, and webxprt are all roughly in line with top line broadwell core m. 3dmark favors broadwell core m.
 
dahorns said:
In geekbench and gfxbench (which isnt really comparable). Octane, kraken, sunspider, and webxprt are all roughly in line with top line broadwell core m. 3dmark favors broadwell core m.
Click to expand...

Web benchmarks are meaningless especially when you're using two different browsers.

It's silly that anyone could think A9 can beat skylake/haswell in IPC. Does A9 have 256 bit SIMD? No.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top