Hacker News Reader

Comment by morshu9001 | Hacker News Reader

I was going by Geekbench. If it's broken then yeah.

It's not trash - it's quite nice for its niche. It's just not very scalable with cores, so it's best interpreted as a benchmark of lightly threaded workloads - like lots of typical consumer workloads are (gaming, web browsing, light office work). Then again, it's not hard to find workloads that scale much better, and geekbench 6 doesn't really have a benchmark for those.

For the first 8 threads or so, it's fine. Once you hit 20 or so it's questionable, or at least that's my impression.

I get how even for multithreaded workloads, having a few fast cores is often better than the equivalent many slow cores. Or NUMA. There can be value in a test like 8 threads full load regardless of how many cores there are. But Geekbench 6 isn't that either, at least according to the chart showing sharply diminishing returns after 2 cores.

Yep. Still, I think it's a pretty decent benchmark in the sense that it's fairly short, quite repeatable, does have a quite a few subtest, and it's horribly different from the nebulous concept that is "typical workloads". It's suspiciously memory-latency bound, perhaps more than most workloads, but that's a quibble. If they'd have simply labelled it "lightly threaded" instead of "multithreaded", it would have been fine.

As it is, it's just clearly misleading to people that haven't somehow figured out that it's not really a great test of multithreaded throughput.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com