News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Apple M3 lands on Geekbench: Marginal single-core gains over Snapdragon X Elite but lags by 22% in multi-core compared to Qualcomm's 80 W reference design

Started by Redaktion, November 01, 2023, 16:47:43

Previous topic - Next topic

Redaktion

Just a day after its announcement, Apple's latest M3 SoC has found its way to Geekbench. According to the entry, the M3 seems to be up to 10% faster in single-core compared to Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite 23 W reference design. However, multi-core performance takes a beating against both 23 W and 80 W X Elite reference scores. The M3 is also clocked 500 MHz faster than the M2 and is about 270 MHz faster than the A17 Pro.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-M3-lands-on-Geekbench-Marginal-single-core-gains-over-Snapdragon-X-Elite-but-lags-by-22-in-multi-core-compared-to-Qualcomm-s-80-W-reference-design.764376.0.html



Mr Majestyk

Quote from: Bob John on November 02, 2023, 01:14:35All of these scores are abysmal compared to competing high end x86 CPUs.

LOL sure at what power usage. I don't Apple but for a laptop the battery life is massively better and why I would buy an M3 based laptop anyday over even AMD's best Phoenix offerings. Intel's power usage is a joke. Why do you think Apple got rid of the Intel rubbish in the first place.

Maybe Meteor Lake will be a huge improvement, but they are only talking 30% less power than cRaptor Lake, which will still see it use way more power than the Apple chips.

CSharp

Quote from: Mr Majestyk on November 02, 2023, 01:29:59
Quote from: Bob John on November 02, 2023, 01:14:35All of these scores are abysmal compared to competing high end x86 CPUs.

LOL sure at what power usage. I don't Apple but for a laptop the battery life is massively better and why I would buy an M3 based laptop anyday over even AMD's best Phoenix offerings. Intel's power usage is a joke. Why do you think Apple got rid of the Intel rubbish in the first place.

Maybe Meteor Lake will be a huge improvement, but they are only talking 30% less power than cRaptor Lake, which will still see it use way more power than the Apple chips.


Lol, who cares about battery life, we aren't in the dark ages anymore you can get a big external battery for cheap and you are very likely to find a place to plug your charger in. You also don't have to use your laptop at full power the entire time you are unplugged.

PolCPP

Seeing overall geekbench results, it's pretty much a 13900H (slightly faster single core slightly slower multicore) minus the heat and battery drain.

And yes people care about not burning their hands while using a laptop. Still curious about how those cut-down m3 pro perform. Feels like the pro line drew the short end of the stick this time

Johnhan

So this is compared to a base M3 with 4 perf and 4 efficiency cores. The Snapdragon has 12 cores that are all alike (performance).

Wait until the M3 Max (12 performance cores) benchmarks come out for it to be a fair comparison, assuming it'll only show the 12 performance cores in the benchmark.

The M3 pro with 6+6 core configuration may even beat the SD and if so that goes to show you who really is the multicore winner.

RobertJasiek

Quote from: Mr Majestyk on November 02, 2023, 01:29:59Apple [...] for a laptop the battery life is massively better and why I would buy an M3 based laptop anyday over even AMD's best Phoenix offerings. Intel's power usage is a joke.

As a general statement, this is false. There are AMD or Intel notebooks with almost 16h WLAN battery life. Ryzen 7840U is capabable of reaching some 23h battery life with 99.9Wh.

NikoB

Isn't it funny that the situation between Arm SoC manufacturers - Apple vs Qualcomm exactly repeats the "confrontation" Intel vs AMD over the past 8 years? As always, Intel has higher single-core performance, but weaker multi-core performance - for the obvious reason - worse technical process. But Apple and Qualcomm are formally in the same league - both have direct access to "3nm" technical processes. It turns out that the Qualcomm team has not yet been able to achieve normal performance at the level of one productive core, but it takes them in quantity, and with the same technical process this is only possible by high consumption of the entire SoC. No miracles.

Obviously. that AMD is technologically inferior to Intel, since every time it loses in single-core performance, despite clearly more advanced technical processes. Gaining in multi-threaded work due to the difference in consumption of the entire SoC, i.e. It is clear to any IT expert that the Intel processor development team makes much more efficient cores, but simply cannot add many of them, because... how their technology processor support team is worse than TSMC/Samsung's. But having its own factories allows Intel to firmly maintain its overwhelming superiority in the x86 processor market in a 5:1 ratio compared to AMD. The latter is simply not able to increase its market share due to lack of access to large and cheap production - TSMC/Samsung cannot provide this to them.

There is also a funny correlation between the Apple vs Qualcomm opposition. Apple is always one step ahead in chartering major volumes to TSMC/Samsung compared to Qualcomm.

It turns out that the winner will be the one who can provide himself not only with the performance of his cores approximately equal to that of his competitor, but also will receive the desired level of access to mass and cheap production of chips, winning in this regard over his competitor. It is not enough to have the technologically best kernels (product) - it is important to have access to huge mass production of them using the most advanced technical processes before a competitor and in GREATER volumes, for LESS (per piece) money...

Intel already lives only on government subsidies; it has been bankrupt for a long time. And AMD is moving towards this, because... it clearly has less chance of entering the Arm SoC market for mass PC/laptop models, because her team is also apparently weaker at the moment. in this regard, like Intel, compared to the burgeoning teams at Apple and Qualcomm.

NikoB

As I wrote earlier, Intel and AMD have the best hardware/software translators of x86 code into RISC core code, because All of their processors are internal RISC processors.

But with the gradual loss of significance of the old x86 code base, the erosion of influence on the market, the significance of both, at some fatal moment for both companies, will collapse on the market and the market will immediately forget about them, as has happened more than once in the history of mankind.

This has very serious consequences both for older developers for these platforms and for students currently studying for the developer profession (mostly we are talking about the system level, of course) - it is important in advance, from youth, not to get on board the Titanic...this will determine their entire future career and success.

NikoB

Somewhere on the side Mediatek is still dangling in the hole, but apparently it will suffer the same fate as VIA, as when it was on the x86 market...

NikoB

As soon as technological processes reached a flat curve and the smartphone market began to stagnate, the whales of this market then turned their attention to another market, where they could potentially, with their accumulated strength and weight, take away customers from the withering companies Intel and AMD. Nothing personal, just want to eat them...

NikoB

It will be even funnier if in the end Apple absorbs Intel, and Qualcomm is its (Intel) shadow, AMD...and everything will return to "normality" in the presence of pseudo-competition, only with 2 new players who accumulate all the developments in x86/arm (cisc/risc).

One is stronger, the other is much weaker, but necessary for the strong, main player, for minimal attention from the antimonopoly authorities...


NikoB

Despite any efforts and tricks with TDP in PL2 mode, Intel always beats AMD in single-threaded performance in the same class, taking into account real availability on the market.

By the way, AMD here published a preliminary forecast for revenue - growth in sales of processors for desktops and laptops in the 3rd quarter in unit terms by more than 60% (but revenue growth only by 42%, due to a fall in the average price of processors) -
ir.amd.com/sec-filings/content/0000002488-23-000195/amd-20230930.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=auto&width=auto&preload=false

AMD points out that most of the growth came from laptop processors.

At the same time, Intel's revenue in the third quarter fell by approximately 14.6% (volume -19%) in the desktop processor segment, but still grew by 2.3% (volume +8%) in the laptop processor segment.

And yet, as I previously wrote, Intel quietly continues to hold more than 80% of the x86 market in the consumer segment in terms of revenue - $7.9 billion for the 3rd quarter, against a measly $1.5 billion for AMD, although the latter grew by 46 compared to the 2nd quarter % and by 42% year on year.


Quick Reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name:
Email:
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview