Info TOP 20 of the World's Most Powerful CPU Cores - IPC/PPC comparison

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
6,825
1,387
136
These numbers are invalid and you know that. Ryzen 3300X@4.35 GHz cannot have higher score than Ryzen 3950X@4.6 GHz, that's pure nonsense. Ryzen 3300X is probably heavily OCed so using much higher clock than reported 4.35 GHz. That's the problem with Geekbench - you never know the clock and OC status.
It may be invalid for the Ryzen but certainly not for Sunny Cove, as you are ignoring Linux results. And by the way, Linux results are often comparable to Android results.

And while Geekbench pretty much scales linearly, SpecInt2006 doesn't. It typically scales at 80-85%.
 

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
421
196
76
It may be invalid for the Ryzen but certainly not for Sunny Cove, as you are ignoring Linux results. And by the way, Linux results are often comparable to Android results.

And while Geekbench pretty much scales linearly, SpecInt2006 doesn't. It typically scales at 80-85%.
So you try to tell me that SunnyCove/IceLake has IPC 35% higher than Coffie Lake in 9900K (yours twisted 375 vs. 276 of 9900K). Is it some joke? Because even Intel's optimistic numbers shows 18% increase in average (based on SPECint2006 optimistic numbers).
 

Antey

Junior Member
Jul 4, 2019
22
22
41
So you try to tell me that SunnyCove/IceLake has IPC 35% higher than Coffie Lake in 9900K (yours twisted 375 vs. 276 of 9900K). Is it some joke? Because even Intel's optimistic numbers shows 18% increase in average (based on SPECint2006 optimistic numbers).
so sunny cove IPC is what you want or believe it to be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and lobz

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
421
196
76
It's almost as if using Geekbench and SPEC is an invalid way to compare different microarchitectures. Hmm.
Attempt to start flame? I'm still waiting that you will prove this faulty statement. Still waiting you to show us some CPU that excels in SPEC or GeekBench but has terrible performance in real world application. Waiting already more than one year and no single proof from you and others.

I posted here Blender results: RPI4 (A72) vs. my Ryzen 3700X. And it matched the GeekBench results.

I thought that you will stop spreading this invalid statements with Fujitsu supercomputer based on ARM and with Apple's transition their bilion bussiness to ARM architecture as another proof. At least 90% of people stopped laughing at Apple's A13 performance because Apple would never migrate Mac Pro workstations to ARM if there is no performance.


so sunny cove IPC is what you want or believe it to be?
I want valid numbers. If somebody tells me that Ice Lake has 35% higher IPC than 9900K, obviously it's fake number. I know you try hard to discredit this PPC/IPC chart. But in the end you just discredit yourself as time proves this PPC table is correct (Fukagu, Apple migration to ARM, server CPU Graviton2 results on Phoronix). And first benchmarks and real world applications of new ARM cores like A14 and A78/X1 will hammer last nail into naysayer's coffin.
 

Antey

Junior Member
Jul 4, 2019
22
22
41
I want valid numbers
the problem is you don't have any methodology, you just believe something is valid because it matches what you have read about that microarchitecture IPC, you will only take the results that match what you think is skylake, zen 2 or sunny cove IPC.

i could make my own chart with very very different results with the same source as yours, some random geekbench results which i think are 'valid'. in fact, this could be a clownfest with multiple charts. call it reductio ad absordum, if you like.

if you want to prove that apple SPEC and geekbench results are incredible, yes, they are. otherwise, your methodology is flawed. and the more i think about it the more i think i will follow the rest and ignore this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: myocardia and Tlh97

Mr Evil

Senior member
Jul 24, 2015
457
181
116
mrevil.asvachin.eu
It's an interesting comparison, and although I know it's a little off-topic, I was inspired to do my own similar comparison of power-per-litre for internal combustion engines.

PosManModelEngine TypeYearBHPLitresPPLRelative
1MazdaRX-8Wankel20032381.3183100%
2BugattiVeyronQuad turbo W1620059878.012367%
3MaerskEmma Maersk2-stroke turbo diesel20061073902534042%

Conclusion:
Wankel engines are seriously impressive, and if Mazda can just scale them up a bit they could revolutionize the shipping industry, with a 46x increase in power output for the same engine size.
 
Last edited:

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
421
196
76
the problem is you don't have any methodology, you just believe something is valid because it matches what you have read about that microarchitecture IPC, you will only take the results that match what you think is skylake, zen 2 or sunny cove IPC.

i could make my own chart with very very different results with the same source as yours, some random geekbench results which i think are 'valid'. in fact, this could be a clownfest with multiple charts. call it reductio ad absordum, if you like.

if you want to prove that apple SPEC and geekbench results are incredible, yes, they are. otherwise, your methodology is flawed. and the more i think about it the more i think i will follow the rest and ignore this post.
SPEC results are taken from AnandTech articles and microarchitecture breakdowns from Andrei Frumusanu. Are you trying to say that official AnandTech benchmark measurements are flawed? Are you joking?



It's an interesting comparison, and although I know it's a little off-topic, I was inspired to do my own similar comparison of power-per-litre for internal combustion engines.

PosManModelEngine TypeYearBHPLitresPPLRelative
1MazdaRX-8Wankel20032381.3183100%
2BugattiVeyronQuad turbo W1620169878.012367%
3MaerskEmma Maersk2-stroke turbo diesel20061073902534042%

Conclusion:
Wankel engines are seriously impressive, and if Mazda can just scale them up a bit they could revolutionize the shipping industry, with a 46x increase in power output for the same engine size.
Yeah, it's off-topic and total non-sense. You can add rocket engine Merlin 1D with its 2GW power and revolutionize everything. Using your anology: Apple A13 is powerfull like rocket engine while sipping power like EV Tesla Model 3. I hope you understand now why Apple moved to ARM.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,742
4,706
136
You're saying AnandTech cheats in its own SPEC results?
Oh please.

Code:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/6if8vw/spec_updates_its_cpu_benchmark_for_the_first_time/
Or if you just want the article without reddit commentary:

https://techreport.com/news/32126/spec-updates-its-cpu-benchmark-for-the-first-time-in-11-years/

I don't know if ICC cheats in SPEC2017 now, too, though it wouldn't surprise me.

Honest question: do you even understand the implications of using SPEC2006 and GB5 numbers for IPC reference data? Can you think of anything wrong with these benchmarks? It would really help you if you could sort some of this out yourself instead of relying on others to spoonfeed you, since you don't seem to want anyone to contradict you anyway.

There's a lot that I didn't know about SPEC even until recently. You can learn too.
 

Hitman928

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2012
2,505
1,638
136
I posted here Blender results: RPI4 (A72) vs. my Ryzen 3700X. And it matched the GeekBench results.
No it didn't, your A72 significantly under performed compared to its GB result and you tried to blame it on a lack of memory bandwidth which wasn't very likely as Ryzen showed only a minor performance degradation with the same memory bandwidth as Rpi4.
 

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
421
196
76
Oh please.

Code:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/6if8vw/spec_updates_its_cpu_benchmark_for_the_first_time/
Or if you just want the article without reddit commentary:

https://techreport.com/news/32126/spec-updates-its-cpu-benchmark-for-the-first-time-in-11-years/

I don't know if ICC cheats in SPEC2017 now, too, though it wouldn't surprise me.

Honest question: do you even understand the implications of using SPEC2006 and GB5 numbers for IPC reference data? Can you think of anything wrong with these benchmarks? It would really help you if you could sort some of this out yourself instead of relying on others to spoonfeed you, since you don't seem to want anyone to contradict you anyway.

There's a lot that I didn't know about SPEC even until recently. You can learn too.
So you accuse AnandTech cheated the tests since 2019 A13 release?
Because Intel cheated in 2017 with his compiler in libquantum subtest?
That's the reason why A13 has higher PPC of massive 83% over Zen2? (Even it has nothing to do with Intel's compiler?)
Are you sure Andrei was using Intel's x86 compiler for Apple's A13 ARM CPU?

:D :D :D
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,404
1,178
136
@Richie Rich

I suggest you read this article.

From said article:

At the same time, however, Apple isn’t shifting to ARM in a year, the way it did with x86 chips. Instead, Apple hopes to be done within two years. One way to read this decision is to see it as a reflection of Apple’s long-term focus on mobile. Scaling a 3.9W iPhone chip into a 15-25W laptop form factor is much easier than scaling it into a 250W TDP desktop CPU socket with all the attendant chipset development required to support things like PCIe 4.0 and standard DDR4 / DDR5 (depending on launch window).
You play with numbers of "Start flame"? You gave me a joke of a response to an A14 laptop clobbering a 3950X. You don't seem to want to reason or discuss anything. In your mind, everything you say is fact. That is why so many have trouble with you.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,194
1,156
106
So you accuse AnandTech cheated the tests since 2019 A13 release?
Because Intel cheated in 2017 with his compiler in libquantum subtest?
That's the reason why A13 has higher PPC of massive 83% over Zen2? (Even it has nothing to do with Intel's compiler?)
Are you sure Andrei was using Intel's x86 compiler for Apple's A13 ARM CPU?

:D :D :D
In the middle of this great laughter, try to answer Hitman's post #87 ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and myocardia

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
475
131
116
Can't wait for the ARM MacBook whenever that launches. I'll soon be able to compare this to my 9750H MacBook for the code I actually run.
But gosh, Mac OS 11 looks like a serious downgrade from Catalina which was a buggy mess.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
6,825
1,387
136
So you try to tell me that SunnyCove/IceLake has IPC 35% higher than Coffie Lake in 9900K (yours twisted 375 vs. 276 of 9900K). Is it some joke? Because even Intel's optimistic numbers shows 18% increase in average (based on SPECint2006 optimistic numbers).
I sit down and analyze results first before I post. Do you?

9900K's result will be higher in Linux/Android too. Desktops can be overclocked much readily making peak result difficult to isolate.

18% is not optimistic. It's average.
 

Antey

Junior Member
Jul 4, 2019
22
22
41
Ok, i made my own WebXPRT3 PPC chart, anandtech uses it so is 100% valid (yes, i had to say it)

WebXPRT3 PPC chart 6/26/2020:

Pos
Man
CPU
Core
Year
ISA
WebXPRT3 Score
GHz
PPC (score/GHz)
Relative
Relative
1​
Apple​
A13​
Lightning​
2019​
ARMv8​
187​
2,65​
70,6​
100,00 %​
103,42 %​
2​
AMD​
3950X​
Zen 2​
2019​
x86-64​
317​
4,6​
68,9​
97,66 %​
100,99 %​
3​
Intel​
9900K​
Skylake​
2018​
x86-64​
348​
5,1​
68,2​
96,70 %​
100,00 %​
4​
Apple​
A12​
Vortex​
2018​
ARMv8​
163​
2,53​
64,4​
90,80 %​
94,42 %​
5​
AMD​
1800X​
Zen 1​
2017​
x86-64​
237​
4​
59,3​
83,96 %​
86,83 %​
6​
Apple​
A11​
Monsoon​
2017​
ARMv8​
137​
2,39​
57,3​
80,81 %​
84,01 %​
7​
ARM Cortex​
A77​
Deimos​
2019​
ARMv8​
120​
2,84​
42,3​
59,88 %​
61,92 %​
8​
Apple​
A10​
Hurricane​
2016​
ARMv8​
82​
2,34​
35,0​
49,36 %​
51,36 %​
9​
ARM Cortex​
A76​
Enyo​
2018​
ARMv8​
97​
2,84​
34,2​
48,40 %​
50,05 %​




:cool:

EDIT: This is not serious.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,742
4,706
136
So you accuse AnandTech cheated the tests since 2019 A13 release?
Part of the problem with these attempts at conversation is that you put words in people's mouths thusly. People have been cheating at SPEC in general, and usually its the compiler vendors, NOT the individuals who conduct the benchmarks themselves. So no, Anandtech specifically isn't cheating their SPEC numbers. But any SPEC2006 results they (or anyone else) have ever published after compiling with ICC for x86 targets would have inadvertently cheated libquantum, at a minimum. Which should tell you that other cheats are also possible . . . they might just not have been caught yet. SPEC, as a benchmark, is not the most reliable thing in the world, and SPEC2006 in particular is rather old now.

Now that you've attempted to beat that dead horse, would you care to consider all the other problems with SPEC2006 and GB5? Before others have to tell you?
 

Doug S

Member
Feb 8, 2020
143
172
76
I think you missed his point. The Apple A series is highly optimized for single threaded workloads, unlike the 3950x and other high end x86-64 CPUs which are highly optimized for multithreaded workloads as well.
Sorry, there's no such thing as optimizing a core for single threaded workloads. You do realize that the A series has 2 or 4 big cores plus 4 little cores, right? Every CPU is multicore these days. Making a CPU perform well in 4 way vs 16 way or 64 way has almost no effect on its single threaded performance. More cores will add a little bit of latency to main memory but the overall performance hit is low single digit in magnitude at most.

All you guys who are holding onto this belief that Apple's SoCs will somehow be exposed when A14 based Macs ship in six months are going to be doing a lot of backtracking and crow eating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richie Rich

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
421
196
76
Part of the problem with these attempts at conversation is that you put words in people's mouths thusly. People have been cheating at SPEC in general, and usually its the compiler vendors, NOT the individuals who conduct the benchmarks themselves. So no, Anandtech specifically isn't cheating their SPEC numbers. But any SPEC2006 results they (or anyone else) have ever published after compiling with ICC for x86 targets would have inadvertently cheated libquantum, at a minimum. Which should tell you that other cheats are also possible . . . they might just not have been caught yet. SPEC, as a benchmark, is not the most reliable thing in the world, and SPEC2006 in particular is rather old now.

Now that you've attempted to beat that dead horse, would you care to consider all the other problems with SPEC2006 and GB5? Before others have to tell you?
Andrei uses GCC and LLVM compilers:

Another your fake-news I destroyed. It was pretty long list of fake news:
  • Apple's are designed only for short bursts, it cannot handle sustained load
  • Apple is using ASIC circuits to increase IPC
  • Apple score is caused by cheating via compiler (even it's impossible to cheat all 40 subtests for SPEC and Geekbench when using GCC and LLVM)
  • ARM cores cannot scale up into many-core server CPUs (Phoronix showed Graviton2 is even better than A76 SPEC results, so SPEC and GB results are valid)

All these pearls are describing pretty nicely how desperate you are from Apple's performance. I wonder what will be the next performance denial excuse? Green Martians hidden in the chip?

And time to ARM MacBook release is ticking out fast. The truth who is right is coming soon ;)
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,742
4,706
136
Andrei uses GCC and LLVM compilers:
And you've missed my point entirely. But hey, thanks for trying.

All you guys who are holding onto this belief that Apple's SoCs will somehow be exposed when A14 based Macs ship in six months are going to be doing a lot of backtracking and crow eating.
Nobody's eating crow. The problem is that some people are using . . . questionable techniques to try to compare mobile SoC cores to desktop and server cores.

Apple's A-series chips may actually be faster than anyone - including Richie Rich - suspects. Or they could be slower. When you use complete horse manure to try to create a realistic picture of relative performance, you just don't know. Hell I can't even get Geekbench 5 to significantly tax my 3900x in GB5. Is it even using AVX or AVX2? The only tests that seemsto push it at all are Structure from Motion and Ray Tracing.

To contrast GB5 with CBR20 (4.4 GHz, 1.344v-1.38v)

CBR20:

ST: ~49W package power
MT: ~162W package power

GB5:

ST: ~42W average, peaked at 46W in Structure from Motion
MT: All over the place, so average seems pointless, but it was ~91W. Ray tracing seemed to push power up to around 142-147W, while Structure from Motion hit the 130s.

Pretty sure Primate Labs claims to use AVX, but . . .
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
5,880
565
126
Sorry, there's no such thing as optimizing a core for single threaded workloads.
When you quoted me I didn't use the word "core." I said Apple A series, meaning the entire chip. And while you're probably right that you can't really optimize a core for single threaded workloads, you can certainly optimize a chip/CPU.

You do realize that the A series has 2 or 4 big cores plus 4 little cores, right? Every CPU is multicore these days. Making a CPU perform well in 4 way vs 16 way or 64 way has almost no effect on its single threaded performance. More cores will add a little bit of latency to main memory but the overall performance hit is low single digit in magnitude at most.
Yes I'm aware, and I disagree. First off, a disclaimer. I'm not a chip designer or anything, so I'm just going off of my observation. From what I've seen, cache hierarchy is perhaps the number one factor affecting scalability. Then after that, it's interconnect. Or perhaps they're reversed? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, Intel, AMD and IBM's high core count CPUs all have a few things in common; small L1 and L2 caches, and absolutely humongous L3 caches. This is in sharp contrast to the Apple A series which has a huge L1 and L2 cache, with no L3 cache.

For the workloads that Intel, AMD and IBM have designed their CPUs, that cache hierarchy makes sense because with so many cores on a single die, the much slower L3 acts as a common cache between them so that some or all of the cores can share the multithreaded workloads without taking a long trip to the main memory.

Juxtaposed to the Apple A series which has a very large low latency L2 cache which is shared between two of the big cores, because the workloads on a mobile device tend to be single threaded for the most part. I would imagine that for the most part, a single core will usually have all 8MB of L2 cache to itself.

This helps to explain why the A series is so fast in single threaded workloads, because memory latency is a huge obstacle for CPU performance. And if Apple ever scaled the A series to say 64 cores a la Epyc, they would certainly have to abandon their current cache hierarchy in favor of the one that is used by AMD, Intel and IBM.

All you guys who are holding onto this belief that Apple's SoCs will somehow be exposed when A14 based Macs ship in six months are going to be doing a lot of backtracking and crow eating.
I guess we'll see. I'm looking forward to seeing Apple duke it out with Intel and AMD in anything but Geekbench and Spec2006.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY