Hacker News Reader

Comment by deaddodo | Hacker News Reader

> It's an objective measure, an actual proof. Geekbench 6 is one suite of tests that is reliable

Did I say it wasn't useful? I said it's only useful if you're trying to measure a single set of metrics versus a broad spectrum. As is clear from the 100+ tests it doesn't compare to a generation old Ryzen architecture at. I also clearly said that it was a useful metric for what many M-series users are actually looking for ("common use cases such as JavaScript execution and visual compositing").

You should really learn to comprehend entire thoughts versus the idea/sentence/strawman you make up in your head.

View on HN

> You should really learn to comprehend entire thoughts

Both of these replies from you are poorly written, hence you're getting downvoted by others. You should learn to form clearer thoughts that are worth communicating, and work on your writing.

I'm being downvoted for being a smarmy ass. I accept that.

Now feel free to introspectively accept your own faults. Particularly your pigheaded inability to argue in good faith and/or comprehend basic English.

PS - you didn't need two messages for that. All it does is reinforce your insecurity and necessity to "be right".

Next time, just edit your post. Or better yet, post and move on. It's an internet comment from an anonymous person, no need to let it live rent free in your head.

Wow. You have issues.

> PS - you didn't need two messages for that.

I only wrote one message for that.

Anyway, put that aside. The benchmark suite at Phoronix is biased to AMD due to a lot of tests being optimized for x86 instructions (AVX).

> Wow. You have issues.

Sick burn, bro.

> I only wrote one message for that.

You returned to write this later:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38121689

Because a stupid internet argument was living rent free in your head.

> Anyway, put that aside. The benchmark suite at Phoronix is biased to AMD due to a lot of tests being optimized for x86 instructions (AVX).

Which is a part of the x86 instruction set. As equally as with Apple's own simd instructions:

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/accelerate/simd

But understood, one favors one party so is invalid and the other favors your weird cult, so it's acceptable. I'll keep that in mind in the future for internet "debate": "if the benchmark doesn't favor Apple, it's invalid for <INSERT-SOME-REASON>".

You can move the goalposts or change the argument all you like. I don't really care who wins/loses an internet argument, and I'm quite well versed on both architectures to be able to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each. Which I fully acknowledged multiple times, despite your inability to parse the text of that information.

> Which is a part of the x86 instruction set. As equally as with Apple's own simd instructions:

Yes M1 does not have AVX. That is x86 only. So if the application does not use M1 SIMD then it won't run as quickly. Benchmark results were obvious in many cases. Apple SIMD is simply not 10x slower than x86 SIMD. That is obvious.

Note that the Apple Accelerate API that you linked to is available on MacOS only. The benchmarks were run on Asahi Linux.

> favors your weird cult

LOL. I own an AMD Zen 3 desktop, Intel i5 Surface Pro, Apple M1 laptop. I develop on MacOS, Windows, Linux. Which cult does that put me in? Am I in all three cults?

> As is clear from the 100+ tests it doesn't compare to a generation old Ryzen architecture

I checked the Phoronix test results. Looks like AMD is ahead specifically in DSP / linear algebra tests where the code was designed for AVX instead of NEON. These are massively accelerated by specialized vector processing instructions. The results would be quite different if the code was optimized for both instruction sets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com