Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by SantiagoElf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

SantiagoElf

Ryzen 9 7950X, 4.5 GHZ, Single Core GB6 Score @ 2907 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/2985656

It's alreay on par.

p.s.: I don't care about power consumption :)

View on HN

> p.s.: I don’t care about power consumption :)

Clearly! I don’t know if I’d say it’s “on par” if an Apple A-series part (i.e., low power enough to be shipped in iPhones and not in any of their “serious” computers) is actually getting slightly higher numbers than the fastest, most power hungry core that AMD has right now!

> I don’t know if I’d say it’s “on par” if an Apple A-series part (i.e., low power enough to be shipped in iPhones and not in any of their “serious” computers) is actually getting slightly higher numbers than the fastest, most power hungry core that AMD has right now!

It isn't. The A17 Pro gets 7199 on GB6 multi-thread compared to 18778 for the 7950X, and multi-thread workloads are the only thing that will cause the 7950X to use its full TDP. If you give the Apple chip a desktop's power budget, the single-thread number barely changes because that isn't what sets the TDP.

And Zen4 is punching above its weight because it's on TSMC 5nm compared to the A17 Pro on TSMC 3nm. Try comparing the chips that use the same process.

I dunno, I haven't seen much evidence that 3nm is as big a leap as hoped/claimed, the A17 pro is certainly impressive but in most cases it is not more efficient for its power gains.

> The A17 Pro gets 7199 on GB6 multi-thread compared to 18778 for the 7950X [...]

But how many cores does the A17 have versus the 7950X?

That's kind of the point -- the reason it uses more power is that it has more cores, out of which you get higher multi-thread performance.

No, that is clearly not the case given that the TDP of the A17 Pro (10W) is 17 times less than the TDP of the 7950X (170W) while the multi-core performance of the 7950X is only 2.6x that of the A17 Pro.

The reason it uses more power is that it's less efficient. The reason it has higher multi-core performance is that it has four times the number of cores.

Exactly. If we have to explain this in every single discussion we may as well not discuss it.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950x: 16 cores and 32 threads

Apple A17 Pro: 6 cores (4 efficiency and 2 performance)

Refs: https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-9-7950x.c2846 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A17

Yeah, I don't care about power consumption.

There is no 'serious' computers coming out of Apple for quite some time now - just glorified consumption devices :)

Can Apple sillicon run Dota2@200fps or Visual Studio (Not CODE!) 2022+ as good as an x86? Can I put a 7900XTX on a Mac and run Windows natively ?

Interesting that you‘re writing about serious computers followed by referring to running games at 200 fps. It seems like you yourself don’t know anything about actual “serious“ use-cases.

There is nothing more serious than gaming.

Sure.

7900X is pretty close https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/2407099

Yes, when I was buying this PC beginning of the year I was consdering 7900X, 7950X and 7950X3D.

At the end chose the 7950X, super happy about it.

Absolute beast.

i do -- higher power consumption leads to more heat and noise and i hate that stuff i find it super distracting.

Here's what I did years ago, and will never look back:

1. Get a usb extender and a fiber optic displayport extender.

2. Stick your computer in the garage, run the cables to whatever room and hook up your monitor and peripherals.

3. Enjoy as perfect silence and low heat generation as can be possibly be achieved. (Monitors generate heat and sometimes electrical noise, and mice and keyboards are what they are)

yup. if you are picky about mobo selection, you can also do it all over one fiber thunderbolt cable; I have my desktop rackmounted and could go up to 165ft away for the desk.

It’s a problem with laptops especially, where massive coolers aren’t a possibility (at least if you want the laptop to be more than just technically “portable”). Even worse, tiny whiny fans are the standard there which means anything with much power at all will have times where its fans are screaming. Really annoying.

Cooling these CPUs silently is not a problem if you have room for a decent cooler. Which you typically do on a desktop.

Buy good headphones - Audeze, HiFiMan, Meze :) Btw my cpu is watercooled - very silent, I can barely hear it.

If you don't know how to cool these processors silently, you're not their target audience.

All of these approaches are bandaids to a problem of big, fat, inefficient x86 cpus.

I know how to cool CPUs such that they can run under load for days and weeks and be relatively quiet.

The point is: the m series chips get you a crap ton of performance with utter silence. The m2 pro Mac minis — amazing. No fans whatsoever.

Again, if m2 is enough for you, you're not the target audience.

Some professionals have workloads that require more multi core perf (not to mention proper Linux support). And running those dead silent is trivial.

>p.s.: I don't care about power consumption :)

I have seen this over and over again and it is tiring. We are discussing ISA, uArch ( and possible Node as well ) in a ChipandCheese article. Not a CPU comparison / gamer review site.

What if the A17 was clocked up to the same clock speed as the 7950x, do you think that the A17 would not score higher?

I don't think thats even possible, as the A/M silicon is specifically designed/fabbed for lower clockspeeds.

That is like saying every single Intel CPU cant be overclocked because they were not designed to do so. There certainly is a limit ( It definitely cant do 5Ghz ), but I am willing bet a 20% is easily achievable with enough cooling.

Maybe one could get f_clock a bit higher, but what would be the point comparing an overclocked CPU with one working at normal frequency?

The A17 is already on the TSMC 3nm process, while the 7950X is on TSMC 4nm. If anything, the A17 has the advantage here and the real question is, where the AMD chip would land if it was produced with the same technology.

I'm sorry, the original post was about the 7640U, which is indeed on 4nm.

The 7950X, though, is on 5nm.

A17 can't be clocked at 4.5-5.0 GhZ.

> p.s.: I don't care about power consumption :)

You should, considering it's really the only bottleneck to getting more perf

  > I don’t care about power consumption

That doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t on par.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com