Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 27, 2020
26,729
18,420
146
Last edited:

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,491
1,588
106
To be fair ARM got a LOT better between the time they announced the Nuvia acquisition and time the first fruit of that was released a year ago.
Good point
That "crowding" between Apple, Qualcomm and ARM might be because they've all mostly exploited the same ideas.
Something interesting, Apple and ARM seem to be going high IPC and lower clocks vs Qcomm going higher clocks and relatively lower IPC... but then Apple and Qualcomm use the same general caching setup (and interestingly enough, Tenstorrent too) while ARM uses the more traditional one.
Apple seems to have the best of both worlds lol.
 

gdansk

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
4,367
7,340
136
This is the laptop part, yeah? We don't know that the clock rate is accurate. But it being roughly correct is a very simple explanation to the low results in e.g. ... all the non-SME subtests.

What's even less reliable than GB is wherever the 4.7GHz comes from. Even if that rumor originated with Qualcomm they missed last time..
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
7,258
17,107
136
Lowkey if I was Qcomm and my expensive cpu team acquisition can't differentiate themselves well from the stock ARM stuff, since that didn't really happen this gen with the x925, I would start getting mad lol.
The expensive team failing to deliver is the easy answer, but not a complete certainty. The new team still had to integrate in a complex organization, and that cost (in time, stress, politics etc) may reflect on the Geekbench sheet more than we'd like.

I don't understand why they're pushing so high with clocks, though I guess that makes more sense if they plan to use the arch for PC devices as well. Still a recipe for disaster though, my guessometer would argue high speed designs fail more often than they deliver.
 
Last edited:

CouncilorIrissa

Senior member
Jul 28, 2023
673
2,602
106
This is the laptop part, yeah? We don't know that the clock rate is accurate. But it being roughly correct is a very simple explanation to the low results in e.g. ... all the non-SME subtests.

What's even less reliable than GB is wherever the 4.7GHz comes from. Even if that rumor originated with Qualcomm they missed last time..
4.74 is the figure reported by CPU itself.
1755083082143.png
We still don't know what that "4050" clock rate means, and whether that's accurate since we've all seen GB6 produce wildly wrong frequency numbers on unreleased parts. If it can run at 4.7 GHz why wasn't it tested at that speed? Or is it that it can "run" at that speed, but only in one of those ridiculous phones that has a fan in it? I don't buy the "its an engineering sample" argument. Its not far from release and it is on N3P which is effectively a mature process from day one - TSMC never has yield issues with their iterations. So if it can only run at 4 GHz they can't blame the process on that, it would indicate some shortcomings in design.
Very true, GB6 clock readings are wildly inconsistent. Given that the predecesessor already pulls considerable amount of power @ 4.37, I wouldn't be surprised if 4.7 is only achievable in actively cooled devices (or in a fridge lmao)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and gdansk
Jul 27, 2020
26,729
18,420
146
Here's a laptop I ignored for a year because I blamed LPDDR4 for its high latency: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/post-your-maxxmem²-score.2608515/post-41492029

Here's the Geekbench 6.2 comparison before and after fixing the laptop's performance by nuking power saving settings in the BIOS: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13297047?baseline=5554294

I feel sorry for the suckers living with the OOB lame performance of this laptop. It may have even contributed to the sales failure of this model. If only the engineers had provided a turbo button on the laptop to provide boosted performance on AC power instead of forcing the user to figure out how to unlock the dormant performance...

Notice the tests that loved the latency being halved:

HDR
File Compression
Navigation
PDF Renderer
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and poke01

poke01

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2022
3,972
5,290
106
Here's a laptop I ignored for a year because I blamed LPDDR4 for its high latency: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/post-your-maxxmem²-score.2608515/post-41492029

Here's the Geekbench 6.2 comparison before and after fixing the laptop's performance by nuking power saving settings in the BIOS: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13297047?baseline=5554294

I feel sorry for the suckers living with the OOB lame performance of this laptop. It may have even contributed to the sales failure of this model. If only the engineers had provided a turbo button on the laptop to provide boosted performance on AC power instead of forcing the user to figure out how to unlock the dormant performance...

Notice the tests that loved the latency being halved:

HDR
File Compression
Navigation
PDF Renderer
Here’s a good benchmark for memory latency etc, been playing with it. Will share my results soon.


If you want to run on Linux do not use the complied version. Compile it your self cause the complied version is using python 3.7 and messes up and gives a lib shared error.

macOS is easy too just follow the steps listed in the readme file.

For the windows version, I recommend running it from Benchmate.