[tpush]

Twitter pundits commenting on Geekbench benchmarks, mostly.

Snark aside, Apple's CPUs are pretty(really pretty) far ahead of Qualcomm's in single-threaded performance.

[jandrese]

Qualcom's chips tend to struggle to keep up with whatever Apple released two generations ago.

But it doesn't matter because if you're building an Android device you can't buy an A chip for it.

[pjmlp]

Given how highly multithreaded mobile OSes are, that is only advantageous for lazy coding.

Any proper iOS application with be doing lots of GCD dispatchs, for starters.

Likewise on Android, Google had to change the OS behavior to just kill apps that insist in misusing the UI thread for long running tasks.

[eecc]

Uh nope, single threaded performance is the key parameter. It’s what made intel (et al) blow up with Meltdown and Spectre. It’s what they’d still be pushing if it weren’t for physics.

[madeofpalk]

Single threaded programming isn't 'lazy coding'

[pjmlp]

It is, in the age of ubiquitous multi-core hardware.

I don't remember when it was the last time any of my applications only had a single thread of execution on them, beyond shell and Python scripts.

Maybe around 2000.

And even then, the OS is juggling processes across all cores every few ms, so outside any benchmark winning game, there isn't much real world value in single thread performance.

[eecc]

Are you serious? Multithreadjng is not Parallelism. It’s not about processing an image in the UI thread, it’s about making that processing faster on the background thread that picks up the work. Don’t get me wrong but lots of people still write iterators, for loops and single threaded functions. Parallel algorithms are hard

[jasonvorhe]

Except for JavaScript performance: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/954493740600578049

[pjmlp]

What I see is the quality of a JIT compiler implementation, not the use of cores.