[1] http://llvm.org/devmtg/2007-05/09-Naroff-CFE.pdf
[2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2007-July/000000.ht...
No, one cannot claim "Apple makes Clang" (which was your original claim) just because they funded the initial effort many years ago. It is not their product and they do not control it. It is like saying Blender is made by the original company who developed the initial version.
The LLVM Foundation (a legal entity) is the actual owner.
> because they were not happy with GCC
Many companies are not happy with GCC due to the license. Which is why so many companies work on LLVM.
> Clang is first and foremost developed as Apple's compiler.
False. The Clang version that Apple includes with macOS is not even close to the latest Clang.
> It is a safe bet that they will optimize it for new Apple hardware.
False. Optimizing is mainly the job of LLVM, not Clang.
Further, most optimization passes are independent of architecture. Codegen targets Intel, AMD, ARM, etc. hardware in general, not Apple’s in particular.
• iPhone 11 Pro Max - 1413 (11.0 Klines/sec) https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2634126
• 9900K - 1270 (9.89 Klines/sec) https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2633843
The A13 is really impressive.
Or from another source, this time compiling Chromium (which also uses Clang): https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/cpu-methods/1_...
And these are both 8-core / 16-thread CPUs, no multi-thread brute force shenanigans. And the 3700X is even the lower TDP & lower measured power consumption part, so no sketchy turbo games either.
So don't put too much faith in Geekbench numbers. They seem to have a very weak relationship to reality.
729 LOC within a single file doesn't represent ANYTHING about real world compilation. It neatly fits within a single system call and the entire thing fits within L2 cache (maybe even within L1 cache).
Tests like these are also very questionable if they are constrained to sub-60s microbenchmarks, which ignore power-limits and cooling.
I'd rather wait for the actual product in a comparable package (e.g. laptop chassis vs. whatever unspecified environment the Geekbench test was run in) before drawing conclusions...
Power limits and memory hierarchy both benefit the 9900k heavily in this comparison, which is why I went with the single-core score. I'd be surprised if an iPhone 11 Pro Max will floor all its cores even for a short microbenchmark. A desktop/laptop A14 will likely look much more competitive in these respects.
But then you're leaving out the actual interesting scenarios for the question of Apple ARM performance in laptops/desktops.
We've already known for a while that the A1x family is an IPC beast.
But it's sustained power and memory subsystem performance that are the hard part in scaling up.
Yours is nothing but theoretical.
The Multicore benchmark compares a 8 core with a dualcore which is a bad faith comparison.
How so? Are we comparing real-world performance or artificially limited what-if-scenarios? That's my critique with these benchmarks in general.
I don't care what a single A13/A14 BIG-core does in a short burst load situation when the context is code compilation that takes a minute or more on a system with multiple cores.
Multi-core is a bad faith comparison you say? I'd say it's an Apples-to-apples comparison if anything, since I usually don't artificially restrict my machine when trying to get work done as fast as possible.
So I'd argue that it's actually your perspective that's just theoretical: oh look - this dual-core [technically hexa-core while we're on the topic of being theoretical] SoC is faster than this octa-core, provided we choose a short, bursty workload and limit ourselves to a single core. You know, as one does when compiling Chrome or a any big software...
Like, contexts where compilation times actually matter as supposed to compiling this small utility takes only 0.89s on the A13X as opposed to 1.2s on the i9. I know, I know, the difference adds up quickly, like to an whole hour after just 11600 compilations. Theoretically, that is. sigh
Remember the point of this thread: speculating on how fast ARM chips will be for compilation workloads compared to Intel chips when shipped as part of Macbooks. It seems that you are mistaking the point of the parent poster - nobody is arguing that an iPhone is better at compiling code than a desktop with an i9 chip.
The comparison of an 8-core chip to a current 2-core chip is pointless because it is an artifact of comparing a $500 stand-alone chip to a chip that is sold as part of a complete $400 phone. Adding more cores is easy - it just costs more money, and Apple has opted not to do it for the iPhone because it is not necessary for standard iPhone workloads.
It is a very reasonable assumption that the chip that will ship with a Macbook will have at least as many cores (but probably more as the individual cores are cheaper) than the equivalent Intel chip.
> I don't care what a single A13/A14 BIG-core does in a short burst load situation when the context is code compilation that takes a minute or more on a system with multiple cores.
ARM chips are more energy efficient and run less hot than Intel chips. In an equivalent chassis they have the advantage in this situation. The intel chip will overheat and throttle faster.
> So I'd argue that it's actually your perspective that's just theoretical: oh look - this dual-core [technically hexa-core while we're on the topic of being theoretical] SoC is faster than this octa-core, provided we choose a short, bursty workload and limit ourselves to a single core. You know, as one does when compiling Chrome or a any big software...
Again, it's speculation. Obviously it's theoretical. The point is that current benchmarks indicate that ARM chips are very good for compilation workloads - relatively comparable to Intel chips for a much lower cost.
When Apple moved to Intel the unintended effect was that Adobe et al finally optimized their software for Intel CPUs to the benefit of non-Apple users. Maybe this move will just have all those graphics people switch to Windows.
Isn't this already the case, especially for docker, due to FS perf on OSX ?
High-end desktops and cloud systems are getting really amazing performance, with 32 and 64-core threadrippers compiling the linux kernel befo[compile complete!]re you can finish your thought.
I think this is a by-product of amd and intel serving the cloud market, and it just happens to benefit the high-end desktops.
Would apple invest in a many many core pro machine just for the (whatever low number) of pro users they have?
I'm saying - if apple does ARM, will they make a 24-core arm chip?
May be they'll just discontinue powerful Pro devices at some point and that's about it.
May be they'll manage to create powerful CPUs using chiplet design, but I absolutely have no idea whether it's cheap or not.
Also I'm pretty sure nobody wants a crap keyboard.
Linux on laptop doesn't work that well, especially if you want a nice (HiDPI) screen. Microsoft is trying with the Linux emulation, but they are creepy with their snooping and telemetry, and will autoinstall Candy Crush and other shit.
- OS that supports HiDPI well - Windows 10 has good support for this now
- good touchpad - Surface touchpads are very close to Apple ones these days and I'd argue the key part of keyboards are superior as is the touch and pen support.
- unix environment as a first class citizen - WSL2 (while Linux not Unix) is a first class citizen.
How is Microsofts telemetry any more "snooping" than Apples telemetry? I mean they both do it...
Surface keyboards are mushy and imprecise - frankly not even as good as the one on my iPad Pro, let alone the Macbook Pro which is to date the only keyboard I can type on for a whole day without significant RSI flaring.
WSL2 is absolutely not a first class citizen - right now I have to opt into a build with _required_ telemetry to use it. In fact the Microsoft telemetry and update regime is a disgrace to the company (apparently outside of enterprise SKUs which also do not support WSL2) - if you think they’re comparable to what Apple collect I don’t know what to tell you.
And Candy Crush with advertising in the start menu... JFC someone needs to be fired for that.
- Subjective. I love old Macbook keyboards. I hate new ones.
- WSL2 is available on mainline Win10
- Yeah