[gruez]

>- specialization. M1 offloads oodles of compute to hardware accelerators. No idea how their code interfaces with it, but I know lots of the demos involve easy-to-accellerate tasks like codecs and neural networks

that wouldn't help in benchmarks, would it? Only in the most dishonest benchmarks would they compare x264 to a hardware h.264 encoder, for instance.

[flumpcakes]

Maybe - but how do you know they are off loading to a hardware encoder?

Example: I run a benchmark for AES encryption - a modern CPU will have circuitry designed explicitly for this task and it's asm instructions. An old CPU just supporting the base x86 instructions probably doesn't have a hardware solution. Is it unfair to compare them?

If the utilisation of the hardware accelerators is completly opaque to the user (not importing special libraries) is it unfair that one CPU has specific hardware implementation for common tasks and one only has the generic circuitry?

[legacynl]

> I run a benchmark for AES encryption - a modern CPU will have circuitry designed explicitly for this task and it's asm instructions. An old CPU just supporting the base x86 instructions probably doesn't have a hardware solution. Is it unfair to compare them?

YES! Unless you're specifically searching for the fastest AES cpu.

If you want to compare general performance this benchmark is flawed. E.g.: I could have the fastest CPU in existence, but since it happens to be lacking hardware AES circuitry, your benchmark will always show another CPU as the 'fastest'.

It's not 'unfair' or whatever. It just makes it so that you need to think better about your benchmark, what you want to measure, and what you're actually measuring. Or you need to adjust your conclusion: "this is the fastest cpu" -> "this cpu performs best on this specific task"