Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

browser.geekbench.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#31

Post by Forgeties79 »

ksec wrote: post #26

iPad M5 vs M4 [1], this is coming from leaked unbox video of M5 iPad Pro. So it should be legit. Single-Core Score 4133 3748 110.3% Multi-Core Score 15437 13324 115.9% Same maximum clock speed. So assuming no special thermals solution on the new iPad Pro such as vapour chamber. This is 10% pure IPC improvements although the M5 has 6MB L2 Cache. 2MB higher than M4. Not shown here are the E-Core performance. Which if w…

Frankly it’s borderline unethical that they offered 8gb models past like…M1. 12gb isn’t enough IMO for anyone who wants a machine that will last but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

My friend with an M3 MacBook was complaining about the speed. I told them that was ridiculous and they must be doing something incredibly intensive. I came and took a look at it - I know chrome tabs are a memory hog but my God this thing slowed to a crawl with even lightweight usage despite being weeks old. I told him to return it immediately.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#32

Post by traceroute66 »

kwanbix wrote: post #11
matdehaast wrote: post #8

It feels like Intel and AMD are asleep at the wheel with their mobile lineup. I've been looking at non-apple equivalents that have similar performance/power as the M lineup and it seems they all lag about 20%+. For $800 the M4 Air just seems like one of the best tech deals around.

If you are OK with the closed apple ecosystem, sure, but I mean, 20% is not that much for 99% of the population. Don't get me wrong, I really admire what apple has done with the M CPUs, but I personally prefer the freedom of being able to install linux, bsd, windows, and even weirder OSes like Haiku.

> but I mean, 20% is not that much for 99% of the population.

As long as you're ok being tethered to the wall, and even then, guzzling power.

The whole point of Apple Silicon is that its performance is exactly the same on battery as tethered to the wall AND it delivers that performance with unmatched power efficiency.

Its the same on pure desktop. Look at the performance per watt of the Mac Mini. Its just nuts how power efficient it is. Most people's monitors will use more power than the Mac Mini.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#33

Post by jchw »

reaperducer wrote: post #18
AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #16

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. It's a nice problem to have, since for most of computing history it's been the other way around. (Meaning the hardware was the constraint, not the OS.)

I disagree. For a lot of the personal computing era, the problems with OSes and hardware were mostly a matter of technical progress. The problem with iPadOS is totally different; it's a problem that was basically manufactured in and of itself, and completely artificial at that. I do not think this is a good problem to have at all.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#34

Post by jeffbee »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #31
ksec wrote: post #26

iPad M5 vs M4 [1], this is coming from leaked unbox video of M5 iPad Pro. So it should be legit. Single-Core Score 4133 3748 110.3% Multi-Core Score 15437 13324 115.9% Same maximum clock speed. So assuming no special thermals solution on the new iPad Pro such as vapour chamber. This is 10% pure IPC improvements although the M5 has 6MB L2 Cache. 2MB higher than M4. Not shown here are the E-Core performance. Which if w…

Frankly it’s borderline unethical that they offered 8gb models past like…M1. 12gb isn’t enough IMO for anyone who wants a machine that will last but at least it’s a step in the right direction. My friend with an M3 MacBook was complaining about the speed. I told them that was ridiculous and they must be doing something incredibly intensive. I came and took a look at it - I know chrome tabs are a memory hog but my God…

I am totally satisfied with the utility of my Apple Silicon Mac mini that is now 5 years old. Calling it "unethical" shows you have a weird point of view out of touch with mainstream use cases.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#35

Post by CharlesW »

hu3 wrote: post #10
matdehaast wrote: post #8

It feels like Intel and AMD are asleep at the wheel with their mobile lineup. I've been looking at non-apple equivalents that have similar performance/power as the M lineup and it seems they all lag about 20%+. For $800 the M4 Air just seems like one of the best tech deals around.

> For $800 the M4 Air just seems like one of the best tech deals around. Only if you don't mind macOS.

I understand the point you're making, but FWIW I run Windows and Linux under Parallels and it works great. Colima/Lima is excellent, too: https://github.com/abiosoft/colima

Windows on ARM performance is near native when run under macOS. `virtiofs` mounts aren't nearly as fast as native Linux filesystem access, but Colima/Lima can be very fast if you (for example) move build artifacts and dependency caches inside the VM.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#36

Post by bigyabai »

reaperducer wrote: post #18
AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #16

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. It's a nice problem to have, since for most of computing history it's been the other way around. (Meaning the hardware was the constraint, not the OS.)

I don't think hardware has been a real constraint since the Pentium era. We've been living in a world of CPU surplus for close to 2 and a half decades, now.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#37

Post by wlesieutre »

doctoboggan wrote: post #29
AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #16

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..

> The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting What rumors have you seen? Anytime I've seen speculation, Apple execs seem to shut that idea down. Is there more evidence this is happening? If anything, Apple's recent moves to "macify" iPadOS indicate their strategy is to tempt people over into the locked down ecosystem, rather than bring the (more) open macOS to the iPad.

https://x.com/mingchikuo/status/1968249865940709538

> @mingchikuo

> MacBook models will feature a touch panel for the first time, further blurring the line with the iPad. This shift appears to reflect Apple’s long-term observation of iPad user behavior, indicating that in certain scenarios, touch controls can enhance both productivity and the overall user experience.

> 1. The OLED MacBook Pro, expected to enter mass production by late 2026, will incorporate a touch panel using on-cell touch technology.

> 2. The more affordable MacBook model powered by an iPhone processor, slated for mass production in 4Q25, will not support a touch panel. Specifications for its second-generation version, anticipated in 2027, remain under discussion and could include touch support.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#38

Post by razighter777 »

Shame this fantastic, carefully engineered and unique technology is locked behind closed source drivers, non-upgradable hardware and tamper resistent boot processes. I love apple silicon... if only they would launch some sort of product or documentation allowing M-series processors to be practical for more general purpose computing...

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#39

Post by zaptrem »

AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #16

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..

> perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing

They've been doing exactly this since the first M1 MacBooks came out in 2020.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#40

Post by cosmic_cheese »

doctoboggan wrote: post #29
AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #16

I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..

> The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting What rumors have you seen? Anytime I've seen speculation, Apple execs seem to shut that idea down. Is there more evidence this is happening? If anything, Apple's recent moves to "macify" iPadOS indicate their strategy is to tempt people over into the locked down ecosystem, rather than bring the (more) open macOS to the iPad.

Current rumors point to the M6 generation of MBPs being a significant redesign and featuring an OLED touch panel screen.

I don't understand the appeal, even a little bit. Reaching up to touch the screen is awkward, and every large touchpanel I've used has had to trade off antiglare coating effectiveness to accomodate oleophobic coating. For me, this would be an objective downgrade — the touch capability would never get used, but poor antiglare would be a constant thorn in my side. I can only hope that it's an option and not mandatory, and I may upgrade once the M5 generation releases (which is supposedly just a spec bump) as insurance.

Post reply on HN