> Intel/M1 ratio 1.2 0.9
> As you can see, the older Intel processor is slightly superior to the Apple M1 in the minify test.
I'd consider it as bigger news that M1 in one of the two tests chosen by the author (utf8) 10% faster than Intel, and in another (minify) only 20% slower, which is for most purposes something that most users won't even be able to notice. It's quite remarkable result. I'd surely write:
"As you can also see, in the UTF-8 validate test M1 is superior to older Intel processor, and in the minify test only 20% slower, even if Intel uses more power to calculate the result!"
-----
(Additionally I use the opportunity to thank again to u/bacon_blood who verified the initial claims and u/messe who figured out what the remaining bug in the author sources was! Great work!)
(Edit: the ratio 1.16 is from older native measurement. So I've also made an error in the previous version of this comment! I've wrongly connected that with the Rosetta 2 produced code. I've deleted that part of this message. Still the difference between 1.07 and 0.9 measured on two different setups is interesting, when another test is close enough).
Still, glad this was caught.
I’m impressed that the M1 can keep up on this SIMD-optimized code, likely at much lower temperature / power use.
And even the Rosetta numbers are pretty decent.
Far inferior becomes....actually superior in many cases, even at SIMD.
It is clearly the case that the M1 CPU/SoC has a significant performance advantage in typical branchy single-core code, but much less advantage if any for certain kinds of heavily optimized numerics. Beyond that high-level summary, it’s good to dive into the details, and spark discussions.
Everyone is just now getting their hands on these chips, learning how to work with them, and trying to figure out how to best optimize for them.