How to compare CPUs (for example Intel vs Apple)?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on comparing modern CPUs, particularly between Intel and Apple processors. Key factors for comparison include clock speed, core count, architecture, and specific benchmarks like gigaflops, teraflops, and MIPS. Users emphasize the importance of single-threaded performance alongside multi-threaded capabilities, and they recommend utilizing benchmark tests such as those listed on Geekflare to gauge CPU performance accurately. The conversation also touches on the reliability of benchmarks and reviews, particularly concerning potential biases from manufacturers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of CPU architecture and performance metrics
  • Familiarity with benchmarking tools and methodologies
  • Knowledge of single-threaded vs multi-threaded performance
  • Awareness of thermal management in CPU performance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research benchmark tools like Fritz Chess Benchmark for CPU testing
  • Explore the differences between Intel Raptor Lake and AMD Zen 4 architectures
  • Learn about the impact of thermal throttling on CPU performance
  • Investigate the significance of IPC (instructions per clock) in CPU comparisons
USEFUL FOR

Tech enthusiasts, hardware reviewers, and anyone involved in selecting or optimizing CPU performance for gaming, content creation, or general computing tasks.

  • #31
What is a picture "tube"? And an "aerial"?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
jtbell said:


When I was an undergrad, I played with a PDP-5 that used a paper tape reader on the side of a Teletype terminal. Not quite as fast.

I remember those. I played with the PDP-8.
 
  • #33
kyphysics said:
How small do you think they'll get in the future? ...Say in 25 years?

I'm already impressed we have Apple Watches.
That tiny tiny screen just does not impress me one little bit. A tiny computer that can tell you the time, or let you read this forum two words at a time? Come on! They sell them to the terminally niave. IMHO
 
  • #34
DrJohn said:
That tiny tiny screen just does not impress me one little bit. A tiny computer that can tell you the time, or let you read this forum two words at a time? Come on! They sell them to the terminally niave. IMHO
But what if it is so tiny that it fits in a contact lens? Or over your optic nerve? Then the screen will be as big as you want.
 
  • #35
Algr said:
But what if it is so tiny that it fits in a contact lens? Or over your optic nerve? Then the screen will be as big as you want.
We will have to wait a bit for that to happen I suppose
 
  • #36
DrJohn said:
That tiny tiny screen just does not impress me one little bit. A tiny computer that can tell you the time, or let you read this forum two words at a time? Come on! They sell them to the terminally niave. IMHO
My physical therapist says she uses her mainly to contact back and forth with her kids. Yeah, you can use a cell phone, so I'm not sure what she means by that.

Maybe it has features that make such an interaction easier? Mostly, I agree that the screen is too small for anything useful online.
 
  • #37
I don't have one, but I suppose it could be good for notifications. Do you want to talk to this person who is calling/texting? Do you have an appointment? Is your pulse doing something strange?
 
  • #38
Fritz Chess Benchmark is simple and easy use ... and has option to select single or multicore etc

http://www.jens-hartmann.at/Fritzmarks/

Fritzchessbench

*I write and run lots of benchmarks ... since around 2010 GHz speed increases have been incremental.

This means that other links in the computational chain have a far bigger impact than they used to.

Temperature ... a good CPU cooler and case fans can increase compute speeds by 5% or more

Cooler temps mean less thermal throttling General architecture has yeilded about a 1% or 2% increase with each iteration ... newer is better

True Cores are approx 5% to 10% faster than virtual cores (Hyper threading etc)

IPC ... instructions per clock is still a main factor to look for

Medium core counts CPU's are generally faster than high core counts at least for most typical applications ... Cinebench etc can utilise high core counts l... most software written only uses 4 cores or so ... high core count CPU's generally have lower clock speeds and lower / shorter Turbo Boost Speeds

GHZ is still king (mostly) ... But Cache (L1,L2,L3) and 'interconnects' are the new kings on the block
 
  • #39
I'm not sure I agree. A chess benchmark might be useful for benchmarking chess programs, and it might be OK for workloads that involve searching through trees, but as a one-size-fits-all benchmark? Nope.

As far as the relationship between cores and threads, I can shown you workloads where additional threads adds nothing, where it adds a full core's worth of power, and anywhere in between. All depends on the workflow. I can even show you workflows where adding a software thread without the hardware to back it up helped a little bit. That sounds impossible, but the numbers are what they are.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rive and berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K