- Jul 27, 2020
- 16,712
- 10,707
- 106
Geekbench
www.geekbench.com
Weird choice of baseline CPU and even weird is that the baseline score is 2500.
i7-12700 does hardly 2000 in GB5 with the fastest DDR5.
They're also running their actual compute on x86 (+ Nvidia) platforms...OpenAI is right now the premiere AI company in silicon valley. Why are they giving all their employees Macs and not Windows laptops with Intel and AMD chips?
Seeing as how my 96 core Genoa was beat by an Alderlake something CPU mul multicore, I am not even going to bother trying it, due to this comment "and multi-core scores to be raised by up to 10%.".Geekbench 6.1 has been released: https://www.xda-developers.com/geekbench-6-1-released/
- Clang 16
- SVE/AVX512-FP16
- Fixed-point math
- Improved multi-core performance (I guess this one will appease some... or not )
Yeah, that's just plain silly. Either stop pretending it's reflecting a CPUs (instead the test case's) multi-core performance, or change it to something embarrassingly parallel.Improved multi-core performance (I guess this one will appease some... or not )
You almost made it sound as if multi-core performance is only measured by embarrassingly parallel tasks. If it's what people want, then they should use some rendering or parallel compilation benchmark.Yeah, that's just plain silly. Either stop pretending it's reflecting a CPUs (instead the test case's) multi-core performance, or change it to something embarrassingly parallel.
But I'm sure many people now are happy GB 6.1 improved their chip's multi-core performance...
For a simple refresh the gains are quite nice, though I hope GB7 brings a healthy generational +25% ST performance uplift!
View attachment 81534
Geekbench 6.1 has been released: https://www.xda-developers.com/geekbench-6-1-released/
- Clang 16
- SVE/AVX512-FP16
- Fixed-point math
- Improved multi-core performance (I guess this one will appease some... or not )
I know, was making fun of how they chose to frame it.For a benchmark this just means that the results of the previous version cannot be compared with the results of 6.1. The title of this news piece is pure trash.
For a simple refresh the gains are quite nice, though I hope GB7 brings a healthy generational +25% ST performance uplift!
Yes, in real life MT scaling often is abysmal. Look at subscores for things you're interested in rather than focus on the global score; see my other post above, some of the tests scale quite well.MT scaling is still abysmal. The core issue of GB6 being "I prefer this particular CPU with its very limited number of cores, and I don't care about any additional cores people may have" remains. And this particular CPU may very well be the basic Apple M1 (4P+4E cores).
Yes, in real life MT scaling often is abysmal. Look at subscores for things you're interested in rather than focus on the global score; see my other post above, some of the tests scale quite well.
For a benchmark this just means that the results of the previous version cannot be compared with the results of 6.1. The title of this news piece is pure trash.
MT scaling is still abysmal. The core issue of GB6 being "I prefer this particular CPU with its very limited number of cores, and I don't care about any additional cores people may have" remains. And this particular CPU may very well be the basic Apple M1 (4P+4E cores).
And there's a regression, bravo John Poole! The Navigation test is now slower than in v6.0.
And this has been discussed here as well ad neouseum. There are a dozen ways to limit MT performance (including and not limited to memory performance; inter-core communications including inter-core latency; cache size; threads synchronization, etc), GB6 uses just one of them and calls it a day. Good. Fine. Excellent. Now is there a single mention of that on the website? In the program? Anywhere?
tl;dr it models multithreaded workloads more realistically, hence why multicore scores are lower.
Perhaps a better way would be to show both scores so users have a good idea of both theoretical and actual multicore performance.
GB 6.2
Apple 6S Plus
599 ST
900 something MT
Phones don't unlock more performance for being on the charger LOL. It is the other way around, they can throttle more because of the heat generated by charging.GB 6.2
Apple 6S Plus
599 ST
900 something MT
Motorola Edge 30
1068 ST
3013 MT
Both on battery power.
Motorola Edge 30 (with charger)
1071 ST
3022 MT
It didn't seem hot so I'm sure it was fine. No easy way to check the chip type. There used to be some battery monitor app that revealed the CPU codename but that's not available on the app store anymore.That almost seems too good to believe...was that 599 throttling? Is yours the TSMC or Samsung chip?
Seems you are right, with respect to the iPhone 6S Plus only. On charger, it delivered 521 ST and 485 MT. The Moto Edge 30 seems to not get hot enough with the charging so there is no throttling and it even improves the score.Phones don't unlock more performance for being on the charger LOL. It is the other way around, they can throttle more because of the heat generated by charging.
1.85GHz for the A9 and 4.05 for the M3, that s 2.19x the frequency, guess that a similarly clocked A9 would be still quite competitive currently even if not high end.It is kind of amazing to me that even after the A9's massive 70% performance jump in a single year, since then Apple has managed to go a full 5x faster in only 8 years in ST performance. That's despite their rather lackluster gains the last few years.
Did you pay double for a known good sample or something?Some numbers from my newly acquired 7950X
View attachment 91161
DDR5 8000...Did you pay double for a known good sample or something?