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.

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
470
229
76
Added cores:
  • A53 - little core used in some low-end smartphones in 8-core config (Snapdragon 450)
  • A55 - used as little core in every modern Android SoC
  • A72 - "high" end Cortex core used in Snapdragon 625 or Raspberry Pi 4
  • A73 - "high" end Cortex core
  • A75 - "high" end Cortex core
  • Bulldozer - infamous AMD core
Geekbench 5.1 PPC chart 6/23/2020:

Pos
Man
CPU
Core
Year
ISA
GB5 Score
GHz
PPC (score/GHz)
Relative to 9900K
Relative to Zen3
1​
Nuvia​
(Est.)​
Phoenix (Est.)​
2021​
ARMv9.0​
2001​
3.00​
667.00​
241.0%​
194.1%​
2​
Apple​
A15 (est.)​
(Est.)​
2021​
ARMv9.0​
1925​
3.00​
641.70​
231.8%​
186.8%​
3​
Apple​
A14 (est.)​
Firestorm​
2020​
ARMv8.6​
1562​
2.80​
558.00​
201.6%​
162.4%​
4​
Apple​
A13​
Lightning​
2019​
ARMv8.4​
1332​
2.65​
502.64​
181.6%​
146.3%​
5​
Apple​
A12​
Vortex​
2018​
ARMv8.3​
1116​
2.53​
441.11​
159.4%​
128.4%​
6​
ARM Cortex​
V1 (est.)​
Zeus​
2020​
ARMv8.6​
1287​
3.00​
428.87​
154.9%​
124.8%​
7​
ARM Cortex​
N2 (est.)​
Perseus​
2021​
ARMv9.0​
1201​
3.00​
400.28​
144.6%​
116.5%​
8​
Apple​
A11​
Monsoon​
2017​
ARMv8.2​
933​
2.39​
390.38​
141.0%​
113.6%​
9​
Intel​
(Est.)​
Golden Cove (Est.)​
2021​
x86-64​
1780​
4.60​
386.98​
139.8%​
112.6%​
10​
ARM Cortex​
X1​
Hera​
2020​
ARMv8.2​
1115​
3.00​
371.69​
134.3%​
108.2%​
11
AMD
5900X (Est.)
Zen 3 (Est.)
2020
x86-64
1683
4.90
343.57
124.1%
100.0%
12​
Apple​
A10​
Hurricane​
2016​
ARMv8.1​
770​
2.34​
329.06​
118.9%​
95.8%​
13​
Intel​
1065G7​
Icelake​
2019​
x86-64​
1252​
3.90​
321.03​
116.0%​
93.4%​
14​
ARM Cortex​
A78​
Hercules​
2020​
ARMv8.2​
918​
3.00​
305.93​
110.5%​
89.0%​
15​
Apple​
A9​
Twister​
2015​
ARMv8.0​
564​
1.85​
304.86​
110.1%​
88.7%​
16
AMD
3950X
Zen 2
2019
x86-64
1317
4.60
286.30
103.4%
83.3%
17​
ARM Cortex​
A77​
Deimos​
2019​
ARMv8.2​
812​
2.84​
285.92​
103.3%​
83.2%​
18​
Intel​
9900K​
Coffee LakeR​
2018​
x86-64​
1384​
5.00​
276.80​
100.0%​
80.6%​
19​
Intel​
10900K​
Comet Lake​
2020​
x86-64​
1465​
5.30​
276.42​
99.9%​
80.5%​
20​
Intel​
6700K​
Skylake​
2015​
x86-64​
1032​
4.00​
258.00​
93.2%​
75.1%​
21​
ARM Cortex​
A76​
Enyo​
2018​
ARMv8.2​
720​
2.84​
253.52​
91.6%​
73.8%​
22​
Intel​
4770K​
Haswell​
2013​
x86-64​
966​
3.90​
247.69​
89.5%​
72.1%​
23​
AMD​
1800X​
Zen 1​
2017​
x86-64​
935​
3.90​
239.74​
86.6%​
69.8%​
24​
Apple​
A13​
Thunder​
2019​
ARMv8.4​
400​
1.73​
231.25​
83.5%​
67.3%​
25​
Apple​
A8​
Typhoon​
2014​
ARMv8.0​
323​
1.40​
230.71​
83.4%​
67.2%​
26​
Intel​
3770K​
Ivy Bridge​
2012​
x86-64​
764​
3.50​
218.29​
78.9%​
63.5%​
27​
Apple​
A7​
Cyclone​
2013​
ARMv8.0​
270​
1.30​
207.69​
75.0%​
60.5%​
28​
Intel​
2700K​
Sandy Bridge​
2011​
x86-64​
723​
3.50​
206.57​
74.6%​
60.1%​
29​
ARM Cortex​
A75​
Prometheus​
2017​
ARMv8.2​
505​
2.80​
180.36​
65.2%​
52.5%​
30​
ARM Cortex​
A73​
Artemis​
2016​
ARMv8.0​
380​
2.45​
155.10​
56.0%​
45.1%​
31​
ARM Cortex​
A72​
Maya​
2015​
ARMv8.0​
259​
1.80​
143.89​
52.0%​
41.9%​
32​
Intel​
E6600​
Core2​
2006​
x86-64​
338​
2.40​
140.83​
50.9%​
41.0%​
33​
AMD​
FX-8350​
BD​
2011​
x86-64​
566​
4.20​
134.76​
48.7%​
39.2%​
34​
AMD​
Phenom 965 BE​
K10.5​
2006​
x86-64​
496​
3.70​
134.05​
48.4%​
39.0%​
35​
ARM Cortex​
A57 (est.)​
Atlas​
0​
ARMv8.0​
222​
1.80​
123.33​
44.6%​
35.9%​
36​
ARM Cortex​
A15 (est.)​
Eagle​
0​
ARMv7 32-bit​
188​
1.80​
104.65​
37.8%​
30.5%​
37​
AMD​
Athlon 64 X2 3800+​
K8​
2005​
x86-64​
207​
2.00​
103.50​
37.4%​
30.1%​
38​
ARM Cortex​
A17 (est.)​
0​
ARMv7 32-bit​
182​
1.80​
100.91​
36.5%​
29.4%​
39​
ARM Cortex​
A55​
Ananke​
2017​
ARMv8.2​
155​
1.60​
96.88​
35.0%​
28.2%​
40​
ARM Cortex​
A53​
Apollo​
2012​
ARMv8.0​
148​
1.80​
82.22​
29.7%​
23.9%​
41​
Intel​
Pentium D​
P4​
2005​
x86-64​
228​
3.40​
67.06​
24.2%​
19.5%​
42​
ARM Cortex​
A7 (est.)​
Kingfisher​
0​
ARMv7 32-bit​
101​
1.80​
56.06​
20.3%​
16.3%​

GB5-PPC-evolution.png

GB5-STperf-evolution.png

TOP10PPC_CPU_frequency_evolution_graph.png



TOP 10 - Performance Per Area comparison at ISO-clock (PPA/GHz)

Copied from locked thread. They try to avoid people to see this comparison how x86 is so bad.[/B]

Pos
Man
CPU
Core
Core Area mm2
Year
ISA
SPEC PPA/Ghz
Relative
1​
ARM Cortex​
A78​
Hercules​
1.33​
2020​
ARMv8​
9.41​
100.0%​
2​
ARM Cortex​
A77​
Deimos​
1.40​
2019​
ARMv8​
8.36​
88.8%​
3​
ARM Cortex​
A76​
Enyo​
1.20​
2018​
ARMv8​
7.82​
83.1%​
4​
ARM Cortex​
X1​
Hera​
2.11​
2020​
ARMv8​
7.24​
76.9%​
5​
Apple​
A12​
Vortex​
4.03​
2018​
ARMv8​
4.44​
47.2%​
6​
Apple​
A13​
Lightning​
4.53​
2019​
ARMv8​
4.40​
46.7%​
7​
AMD​
3950X​
Zen 2​
3.60​
2019​
x86-64​
3.02​
32.1%​



It's impressive how fast are evolving the generic Cortex cores:
  • A72 (2015) which can be found in most SBC has 1/3 of IPC of new Cortex X1 - They trippled IPC in just 5 years.
  • A73 and A75 (2017) which is inside majority of Android smart phones today has 1/2 IPC of new Cortex X1 - They doubled IPC in 3 years.

Comparison how x86 vs. Cortex cores:
  • A75 (2017) compared to Zen1 (2017) is loosing massive -34% PPC to x86. As expected.
  • A77 (2019) compared to Zen2 (2018) closed the gap and is equal in PPC. Surprising. Cortex cores caught x86 cores.
  • X1 (2020) is another +30% IPC over A77. Zen3 need to bring 30% IPC jump to stay on par with X1.

Comparison to Apple cores:
  • AMD's Zen2 core is slower than Apple's A9 from 2015.... so AMD is 4 years behind Apple
  • Intel's Sunny Cove core in Ice Lake is slower than Apple's A10 from 2016... so Intel is 3 years behind Apple
  • Cortex A77 core is slower than Apple's A9 from 2015.... but
  • New Cortex X1 core is slower than Apple's A11 from 2017 so ARM LLC is 3 years behind Apple and getting closer



GeekBench5.1 comparison from 6/22/2020:
  • added Cortex X1 and A78 performance projections from Andrei here
  • 2020 awaiting new Apple A14 Firestorm core and Zen3 core
Updated:



EDIT:
Please note to stop endless discussion about PPC frequency scaling: To have fair and clean comparison I will use only the top (high clocked) version from each core as representation for top performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chechito

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
XPS 13 1065G7 - 1461 @ 3.9GHz, PPC 375
Unknown Intel CPU - 1153 @ 3.2GHz, PPC 360.
Ryzen 3300X - 1401 @ 4.35GHz, PPC 322.07
EPYC 7702P
- 1075 @ 3.35GHz, PPC 320.9
i7 8700 - 290 @ 1GHz, PPC 290

-Zen 1 has 12% higher PPC than Cortex A77.
-X1 is 15% faster than Zen 1.
-Sunny Cove is just ahead of X1.
-A13 has 34% higher PPC compared to Sunny Cove.
-AMD is only 1 year behind Apple.
 
Last edited:

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,057
2,856
136
XPS 13 1065G7 - 1461 @ 3.9GHz, PPC 375
Unknown Intel CPU - 1153 @ 3.2GHz, PPC 360.
Ryzen 3300X - 1401 @ 4.35GHz, PPC 322.07
EPYC 7702P
- 1075 @ 3.35GHz, PPC 320.9
i7 8700 - 290 @ 1GHz, PPC 290

-Zen 1 has 12% higher PPC than Cortex A77.
-X1 is 15% faster than Zen 1.
-Sunny Cove is just ahead of X1.
-A13 has 34% higher PPC compared to Sunny Cove.
-AMD is only 1 year behind Apple.
This sums up the idiocy of this thread perfectly.

Again, the idea of comparing the ISAs is very exciting to me. However, the way OP's using twisted data to promote his agenda/delirium makes me sick.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
825
136
I think the subject is very interesting, the data is very interesting, but that's it, interesting.
Nothing concrete can be taken from this for all sorts of reasons stipulated, cores are designed for different power and silicon targets, Apple can dedicate resources from phone sales to offset the the huge expense of designing such a massive core with massive cache to run at modest clocks at short bursts.
Apple cores don't have to scale to a massive gamut of form factors, TDPs and frequencies.
Apple cores are probably designed to run these benchmarks inside their cache and would likely suffer if forced to run a wide selection of apps that exceeded it's cache. it is clear Apple designs its cores and optimises the hell out of its software to run a narrow set of benchmarks extremely well.
This discussion is an interesting debate, but as others have stated nothing can be taken from this as to say 'X is better than Y'.. Not with this limited information.
I mean Linux and Windows benchmarks and different compilers throw wildly different results, the variance in software alone could throw the scores off by 50% easily, making this a fun exercise but nothing more.

Personally I think Apple could design a core for desktop that would beat out Sunny Cove and Zen 2 at 15-125w+ TDP, whether they could do this at a profit is another matter, but this data certainly doesn't show that and I doubt very much Apples current mobile cores could match top X86 current designs at their top performance running the same software across a wide selection of apps and usage scenarios, let alone having to scale the Watts and form factor like they do or make a profit on each die sold like they do.

So OP I applaud your efforts on this and I will follow this thread, please add SpecINT and SpecFP ongoing.
 

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
470
229
76
I think the subject is very interesting, the data is very interesting, but that's it, interesting.
...
So OP I applaud your efforts on this and I will follow this thread, please add SpecINT and SpecFP ongoing.
Thank a lot. It took a lot of effort to dive into and gather all data. Of course these SPEC and GeekBench data are just tip of the iceberg in the water. Everybody have to take this into account.

However I found interesting to compare how cheap smart phone SoC based on A53 stands against desktop/laptop class CPUs. Yeah, and it's really slow :D Or when somebody complains that Raspberry Pi 4 is slow garbage in compare to PC... and he is right, the A72 is really slow due to low PPC/IPC and it's 1.5 GHz nails that even more (I tried run Blender on RPI4 and compare it to my 3700X and it basicaly match the GB results, FYI render of BMW scene took 5 hours in single core :D )

Another interesting fact is that ARM has a massive range of performance you can buy today. From really slow garbage (and consuming mW) up to monstrous Apple A13 with it's massive cache system and super wide core containing 6xALUs and almost double PPC/IPC than x86 CPUs (and outperforming Ryzen 3950X@4.6 GHz).

I let everybody to make his own conclusion from the numbers. Because two years ago if somebody told me that Apple has the most advanced CPU on the world with 6xALUs then I'd laugh at him as well. But the numbers speaks for itself. BTW Apple has 6xALU monster core since 2017 (A11 Monsoon core), still unbeaten PPC-wise even today. And it looks like that Golden Cove neither Zen3/Zen4 won't able to beat that old Apple core in PPC. Pretty interesting fact estimation.

There are tons of interesting conclusions in those data.
 
Last edited:

defferoo

Member
Sep 28, 2015
53
57
91
as much as this is not a perfect comparison, it’s still an interesting set of observations.

I guess we’ll really find out how good Apple’s CPUs are once we get native ARM macOS binaries running on Apple Silicon. At the moment there are a lot of excuses about why we can’t compare benchmarks across desktop and mobile, but I kind of have a feeling we’ll be pretty surprised later this year.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
No need to wait for A14. Ryzen 3950X@4.6-4.7 GHz is beaten by A13@2.65 GHz in SPECint2006 today:
  • A13 has score 52.82 pts
  • Ryzen has....... 49.02 pts
A14 will destroy any x86 CPU in ST load. Higher IPC by 10% and significantly higher clocks due to 5nm (2.65 -> 2.9 GHz is realistic expectation for iPhone, MacBooks could go up to 3.1 GHz, that's 17% up). IPC and clocks combined 1.1 * 1.17 = 29% higher ST performance. That's estimated SPECint score of 67.98 pts = massive improvement.

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.

So continuously quoting the SPECint single threaded benchmark as indicative of future performance and assuming that the Apple A series is going to carry its high single thread performance into other platforms are just assumptions at this point.

That said, I am glad this is happening. After all the debates we've had over ARM and x86-64, we're finally going to see who's right and who's wrong. And not only that, whatever core Apple uses for laptops and desktops in the future won't be compared against the positively decrepit Skylake cores that Intel has been using for the last thousand five years, but a much more powerful x86-64 core than anything out now.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,027
11,607
136
That said, I am glad this is happening. After all the debates we've had over ARM and x86-64, we're finally going to see who's right and who's wrong.

Finally. Took long enough for Apple to expose their hardware to the possibility of real testing. I sure hope Dr. Cutress and Andrei are willing to compile some of their own benches for Apple's new ARM-based Macs instead of sticking to the applications that have native, closed-source vendor support.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
825
136
Well zen 3 and Willow Cove will be waiting for this new Apple core.
A better comparison would probably be Apple's 2021 core vs Zen 4 on N5P and a 7nm Golden Cove?.. Let's say at 25-28w (realistic battle ground).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Richie Rich

Senior member
Jul 28, 2019
470
229
76
Well zen 3 and Willow Cove will be waiting for this new Apple core.
A better comparison would probably be Apple's 2021 core vs Zen 4 on N5P and a 7nm Golden Cove?.. Let's say at 25-28w (realistic battle ground).
Do not even think that any x86 CPU can compete against Apple's ARM CPUs in 25W laptop TDP.

Current A13@ 2.65 GHz in iPhone at 5W TDP is beating in ST load AMD Ryzen 3950@ 4.6 GHz in desktop 105W TDP.

Apple's MacBooks with 12-core A14 (8-big cores, 4 small cores) will devastate every desktop in ST and all 8-core Ryzens and 9900K in MT too. All this despite laptop TDP. With exception of 5GHz all core 9900K, but that's rare machine with TDP > 250W.

And you think that you will be safe with 12-core Ryzen 3900X? Those 4 little Apple efficient cores has PPC/IPC similar to Intel Sandy Bridge. There is high chance that Apple A14 with 8-big cores will threaten 12-core desktop chips.

"the new Thunder cores represent a 2.5-3x performance lead while at the same time using less than half the energy."

Let do the math and predict Geekbench score:
  • 12-core Ryzen 3900X..... PPC = 286 pts/GHz * 12 cores * 4.0 GHz all core clock = 13 728 pts
  • 8-big cores A14X .... PPC +10% over A13 = 502*1.1 = 552 pts/GHz .... * 8 cores * 3.1 = 13 694 pts
  • 4-little cores A14X .... PPC 1/3 big core = 184 pts/GHz * 4 cores * 2.0 GHz = 1 472 pts
  • Overall GB5 score for 12-core A14X will be 13694 + 1472 = 15 166 pts
When you look into Geekbench database then:

To sum up: 12-core A14X in laptop is capable to achieve Geekbench MT score 15 166 pts and beat most 16-core Ryzens 3950X. The only problem is that such a A14X would have 50W TDP and this is probably too much for laptop. So realistically MacBooks will decrease clocks and beat just 12-core desktops. 16-core Ryzens will be beaten by iMacs.


Apple A14 is the nightmare before Christmas (for x86) :D
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
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
470
229
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

Member
Jul 4, 2019
105
153
116
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
470
229
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

Member
Jul 4, 2019
105
153
116
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
464
187
116
mrevil.asvachin.com
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
470
229
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?

SPEC-A78-X1-projection_575px.png


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
22,027
11,607
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

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,123
10,532
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.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,975
4,545
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.