Their "main benchmark"? Stop making things up. It's no more than tragic fanboy addled fraud at this point.

That three-year old press-release refers to SINGLE CORE Geekbench and not the defective multicore version that doesn't scale with core counts. Given AMD's main USP is core counts it would be an... unusual choice.

AMD marketing uses every other product under the sun too (no doubt whatever gives the better looking numbers)... including Passmark e.g. it's on this Halo Strix page:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/ai-pc-portfolio-l...

So I guess that means Passmark is "endorsed" by AMD too eh? Neat.

▲

aurareturn 6 days ago | parent [-]

The industry has moved past Passmark because it does not correlate to actual real world performance.

The standard is SPEC, which correlates with with Geekbench.

https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...

Every time there is a discussion on Apple Silicon, some uninformed person always brings up Passmark, which is completely outdated.

▲

Fluorescence 6 days ago | parent [-]

Enough. You don't know what you are talking about.

What's with posting 5 year old medium articles about a different version of Geekbench? Geekbench 5 had different multicore scaling so if you want to argue that version was so great then you are also arguing against Geekbench 6 because they don't even match.

https://www.servethehome.com/a-reminder-that-geekbench-6-is-...

"AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3995WX, a huge 64 core/ 128 thread part, was performing at only 3-4x the rate of an Intel D-1718T quad-core part, even despite the fact it had 16x the core count and lots of other features."

"With the transition from Geekbench 5 to Geekbench 6, the focus of the Primate Labs team shifted to smaller CPUs"

	▲	aurareturn 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		GB6 measures MT the way most consumer applications use MT. GB5 was embarrassingly parallel. It reflects real world usage more.