News New Chinese Loongsoon chip matches Intel's 14600K in IPC tests, overclocked to 3 GHz with liquid nitrogen

[Admin]

Loongson’s 3A6000 CPU is ready for prime time, and it has announced PC partners including a new Asus motherboard. The Chinese chip’s performance is similar to Intel’s Core i3-10100 CPU.

New Chinese Loongsoon chip matches Intel's 14600K in IPC tests, overclocked to 3 GHz with liquid nitrogen
: Read more

 

[bit_user]

Not to totally downplay this achievement, but it's not super hard to get good IPC at lower clockspeeds. That's one reason Apple typically leads on IPC - their CPUs simply don't clock as high.

BTW, SPEC CPU 2006 and UnixBench are obsolete benchmarks. They were retired for good reasons, as they no longer characterize modern workloads nor stress all aspects of a CPU the way more recent benchmarks do.

It would be fun to get a Loongson 3A6000 CPU in the lab, with a suitable motherboard.

I look forward to independent Loongson benchmarks. However, given they're on the entities list, it might not be as simple as ordering from Ali Express. It'd probably be worth some research, to be sure you're not breaking any US laws. Either that, or find someone in a neutral country to test it for you.

U.S. Govt Blacklists Chinese Tech Firms Loongson and Inspur

Two major Chinese companies get Huawei treatment for supporting China's military.

www.tomshardware.com

BTW, it's misspelled, in the article's title. When I first heard the name, I kept wanting to write "longsoon", which is a funny name to me, but only the first "o" is the one that's doubled up. Here's a mnemonic: "son of loong".

 

[nookoool]

BTW, SPEC CPU 2006 and UnixBench are obsolete benchmarks. They were retired for good reasons, as they no longer characterize modern workloads nor stress all aspects of a CPU the way more recent benchmarks do.

They actually was a spec 2017 benchmark numbers at the presentation. Link below

SPEC 2017 IMG

 

[bit_user]

They actually was a spec 2017 benchmark numbers at the presentation. Link below

SPEC 2017 IMG

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. I just saw the article mention the other two.

Here's the image, for the benefit of others:

​

So, it's not quite as favorable as the others, but still similar.

BTW, the 'Stream' benchmark (also pictured) is a simple HPC test that stresses the cache & memory subsystem.

 

[gfg]

Not to totally downplay this achievement, but it's not super hard to get good IPC at lower clockspeeds. That's one reason Apple typically leads on IPC - their CPUs simply don't clock as high.

BTW, SPEC CPU 2006 and UnixBench are obsolete benchmarks. They were retired for good reasons, as they no longer characterize modern workloads nor stress all aspects of a CPU the way more recent benchmarks do.


I look forward to independent Loongson benchmarks. However, given they're on the entities list, it might not be as simple as ordering from Ali Express. It'd probably be worth some research, to be sure you're not breaking any US laws. Either that, or find someone in a neutral country to test it for you.

​

U.S. Govt Blacklists Chinese Tech Firms Loongson and Inspur

Two major Chinese companies get Huawei treatment for supporting China's military.

www.tomshardware.com

​

BTW, it's misspelled, in the article's title. When I first heard the name, I kept wanting to write "longsoon", which is a funny name to me, but only the first "o" is the one that's doubled up. Here's a mnemonic: "son of loong".

Apple Processors have better IPC than AMD and Intel and also better overall single-thread performance, the M3 line at 4.05 Ghz demonstrates this. So there's nothing easy about it, otherwise ARM with its X4 family of processors would be in the fight. Look, Qualcomm, just with the purchase of Nuvia, is approaching a similar Monocore performance with its latest family for laptops.

 

[bit_user]

Apple Processors have better IPC than AMD and Intel and also better overall single-thread performance, the M3 line at 4.05 Ghz demonstrates this. So there's nothing easy about it,

My point was that it's easier to achieve high IPC in CPUs not designed to clock as high. That's because your critical path is longer, for a lower-clocking design. With a longer critical path, you can do more work per cycle, enabling shorter pipelines, with more complex stages, and enabling instructions to have lower latencies.

otherwise ARM with its X4 family of processors would be in the fight.

Are there any ARM Cortex-X4 cores in shipping devices? If so, have they been independently benchmarked? Cortex-X4 cores are supposedly 10-way decode and I'd indeed be very interested in seeing how they compare.

 

[gfg]

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Generación 3

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsh7I4E2k2U

Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 benchmarks rival the Apple A17 Pro

We ran Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 benchmarks on the REDMAGIC 9 Pro to see if the new smartphone processor is as fast as Qualcomm claims.

www.androidauthority.com

Qualcomm shares Snapdragon 8 Gen 3's official benchmarks

It gets 2.13 million in AnTuTu 10, and 2329/7501 in Geekbench 6. Qualcomm shared the new Snapdragon 8 Gen 3's benchmark results at its Snapdragon Tech...

www.gsmarena.com

Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite

Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite Performance Preview: A First Look at What’s to Come

www.anandtech.com

 

[bit_user]

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Generación 3

Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 benchmarks rival the Apple A17 Pro

We ran Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 benchmarks on the REDMAGIC 9 Pro to see if the new smartphone processor is as fast as Qualcomm claims.

www.androidauthority.com

Thanks. There's a more recent article, as well:

Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 vs Apple A17 Pro: A surprisingly even match-up

The Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 will power the best Android phones of 2024 but can it live up to Apple's A17 Pro in the iPhone 15 Pro?

www.androidauthority.com

One thing to note is that the A17 Pro has a node advantage, being made on TSMC N3B, while the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 is made on N4P. It's a bigger difference than it sounds like, since N4 is a derivative of N5. Still, the Snapdragon's single-thread GB6 performance of 2319 isn't even a match for the A16 Bionic's figure of 2506, and that's made on N4. That gives it 92.5% of the performance of the last Apple SoC to be made on a similar node, which I think is a narrower gap than we usually see.

That's a little disappointing, but not too surprising. I wonder how the amounts of cache compares between them and how much of the discrepancy that accounts for. Apple is known for using generous amounts of cache.

 

[nookoool]

Just to give people an idea of cost, they were selling early adopter boards which had 3a6000 cpu+motherboard for around 1500 rmb or 210$ ish on the Chinese sites like JD. Unfortunately, you may need a Chinese phone number to access some mainland sites. There were greedy resellers on aliexpress trying to get 1000$+ for a 3a5000 desktop system at one point from some unsuspecting international testers/hobbyist.

 

[artk2219]

Apple Processors have better IPC than AMD and Intel and also better overall single-thread performance, the M3 line at 4.05 Ghz demonstrates this. So there's nothing easy about it, otherwise ARM with its X4 family of processors would be in the fight. Look, Qualcomm, just with the purchase of Nuvia, is approaching a similar Monocore performance with its latest family for laptops.

Its a funny thing when people compare Apple's IPC to AMD and Intel, yes its better in certain aspects, but at the same time it doesn't matter, the only way to take advantage of it is to buy a mac. Apple will never sell these chips to anyone else as it would potentially reopen the door to clones, which they absolutely hated once Jobs came back on board. So if you were already on Mac OS, great you have a great option, if you weren't, are you really going to redo your entire workflow for a generally relatively minor improvement? I like Apples architectures because they show the potential of what ARM can be if the proper resources get thrown at the problem, its just a shame no one else will be able to put those chips to use.

 

[bit_user]

Its a funny thing when people compare Apple's IPC to AMD and Intel, yes its better in certain aspects, but at the same time it doesn't matter, the only way to take advantage of it is to buy a mac.

Two reasons it matters:

1. It will sway some who are on the fence about switching to Mac.
2. It shows what's possible, at least with ARM ISA.

if you were already on Mac OS, great you have a great option, if you weren't, are you really going to redo your entire workflow for a generally relatively minor improvement?

Some will. I know two developers who grew up on Windows & Linux and switched to Macs, a long time ago (pre-ARM). I don't know any executives, but that's another set of users who value something light, powerful, and with excellent battery life.

Also, consider kids who have never used anything but Chromebooks. When they get old enough, they might want a more powerful machine and Macs would have a roughly equal draw for them as Windows.

I like Apples architectures because they show the potential of what ARM can be if the proper resources get thrown at the problem, its just a shame no one else will be able to put those chips to use.

It keeps the pressure on ARM and Qualcomm to make ever better cores, themselves. With AMD and Nvidia rumored to be working on their own ARM-based CPUs, things should get really interesting in 2025!