And how is that different than different compilers for iOS and Windows x86? You wanted to disprove, and yet you proven that in fact there are diffeences between PLATFORMS you test on, that yield better performance on iOS.
To bring it full circle, since we know there are differences between compilers on different OS, I think it would be interesting to see how Xcode-compiled on macOS compares to Clang/LLVM on Win10/Ubuntu - all on the same Macbook. Michael Larabel did an Xcode vs GCC over on Phoronix but the variance in compiler is too big to make a call.
GB3 and earlier had really large differences between OSs. GB4 and 5 are much better in this regard but there is still a significant difference in my experience and in all the testing I've seen.
The question now would be, did the same Macbook get a higher GB score running macOS compared to when it was running Linux/Win10?
forums.anandtech.com
There will be always some difference. Apple A12 Vortex core has 65% higher IPC and that is the main factor here. A12 is fast due to excellent super wide core design. ARM Holding, AMD and Intel are about 4 years behind Apple in development. That's all.
Still waiting for you to compile some command-line open source benchmarks for iOS and show us what it can do outside of Geekbench and SPEC.
Should and does are often different things. I already posted a link to Phoronix doing the comparison and showing GB5 performing 10% faster on Linux than Windows. You can also look up the Linux vs Windows tests for the same CPUs on their results browser and see that Linux consistently scores higher. Again, they use different compilers on each OS so there's going to be performance differences just from that.Geekbench 5 vs Geekbench 4
Geekbench 5 just officially launched. So, is Geekbench 5 a better cross-platform test than Geekbench 4? CPU Benchmark The Geekbench 5 CPU Benchmark includes new benchmark tests that model the challenges your system faces when running the latest applications. These tests use cutting-edge...
GB5 should offer zero advantage to Linux now.
Not much to go off of in that post and both of his links for scores go to the same test on Windows, so hard to comment on that but his stated scores still have a 5% advantage for Linux.
He recorded at ~1% advantage in ST for Linux and 5% advantage in MT for Win10.
His link to his linux results is broken. Sadly.
I figured that his Linux score was the higher one because he said that Linux didn't perform much better this time.
The only issue is that to appease Richie Rich, the raw score isn't good enough, you have to apply GHz to obtain the GB5 scaled score (we should NOT being calling it IPC). Never mind that no one computes at a fixed GHz on a single thread, but that is what the audience (the guy you're responding to) demands.
And it means A13 is 1.88x faster per GHz than Intel. Which means +88%, nicely matching that Andrei's +83% SPEC2006 results. Just don't be scared to calculate this IPC advantage. Denial won't help x86 to perform any better. However I admit it hurts less ego hiding the fact x86 CPUs are so garbage.
...
Your posts are really twisted. I don't know how you can stand the fact that most of the forum members do not like you or your posts.And it means A13 is 1.88x faster per GHz than Intel. Which means +88%, nicely matching that Andrei's +83% SPEC2006 results. Just don't be scared to calculate this IPC advantage. Denial won't help x86 to perform any better. However I admit it hurts less ego hiding the fact x86 CPUs are so garbage.
Real SW at A13 won't show that +80% IPC advantage of course. That's exactly why IT industry does these tests. Probably they need to throw money and time out of the window by performing totally useless tests
Intel will never use mobile-derivatives of Banias/Dothan/Yonah to replace an actual desktop-derived CPU like Tejas/Jayhawk. Completely yugely unfeasible!!!
Apple A14 in a NUC format with active cooling or phat passive cooling. Probably will curb stomp the current Mac Mini, iMac, Macbook Air...
It isn't IPC, it's scaled benchmark results. It has almost no real-world applicability, just like the benchmarks that produce the result. Case in point: when was the last time someone completed a big project using single-thread-limited SPEC or Geekbench? Because those are the only performance wins the A13 has over current mainstream x86.And it means A13 is 1.88x faster per GHz than Intel. Which means +88%, nicely matching that Andrei's +83% SPEC2006 results. Just don't be scared to calculate this IPC advantage. Denial won't help x86 to perform any better. However I admit it hurts less ego hiding the fact x86 CPUs are so garbage.
Real SW at A13 won't show that +80% IPC advantage of course. That's exactly why IT industry does these tests. Probably they need to throw money and time out of the window by performing totally useless tests
I dunno, the 8279u ain't all that. I'm starting to think you might be on to something though, despite alleged compiler normalization for GB5.
How about my 2700 being 15.7% faster performance per clock than a 9900K on MacOS?
Wow, MacOS GB5 sucks. Also:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | Question Intel Raptor Lake vs AMD Zen 4 vs Apple M2 | CPUs and Overclocking | 212 |
| Similar threads |
|---|
| Question Intel Raptor Lake vs AMD Zen 4 vs Apple M2 |
Facebook
Twitter