They've finally stopped comparing RISC-V boards to Pi 3!
But why don't they include Pi 3 and Pi 4 in the charts *anyway*, as well as come more appropriate x86 machines such as Core2Duo, i7-860 (or other Nehalem), 2nd-5th gen i5 etc?
It's not telling anyone anything they didn't know that a K3 isn't going to compare to an Apple M5 or Core Ultra 9 or whatever.
I've got as 32 GB PicoITX K3 and I've been comparing it to a "Late 2012" Mac Mini with i7-3720QM running Ubuntu 24.04 and the Mac is 20% or 30% faster single-core, but of course on some things the K3 wins from having lots of cores.
I imagine the issue is not having hardware to test. Or, at least, not having a test environment for that hardware.
Probably the only hardware they tested for this article was the K3 and the only recent test results they had that were slow enough were the Pi 500+, the P550, and Loongson. I agree though that comparing it to 10 different Ryzens is not super useful.
The Pi and the P550 are what people are comparing it against. And showing how much slower it still is compared to modern x86-86 is useful too. Something like the RK3588 would have been interesting.
This shows that RISC-V has improved a lot compared to itself, that it is becoming competitive with ARM, and that it has a long way to go to the high-end desktop. That is about the right story to tell.
But why don't they include Pi 3 and Pi 4 in the charts *anyway*, as well as come more appropriate x86 machines such as Core2Duo, i7-860 (or other Nehalem), 2nd-5th gen i5 etc?
It's not telling anyone anything they didn't know that a K3 isn't going to compare to an Apple M5 or Core Ultra 9 or whatever.
I've got as 32 GB PicoITX K3 and I've been comparing it to a "Late 2012" Mac Mini with i7-3720QM running Ubuntu 24.04 and the Mac is 20% or 30% faster single-core, but of course on some things the K3 wins from having lots of cores.
It's starting to be a race at least.