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

131–140 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#131

Post by satellite2 »

FootballMuse wrote: post #108
satellite2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

M4 23884 365 29861 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Apple+M4+10+Core&id... https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+AI+9+365&...

Passmark is an outdated benchmark not well optimized for ARM. Even so the single thread marks are 3864 (AI365) vs 4550 (M4) OTOH, Geekbench correlates (0.99) with SPEC standards, the industry standard in CPU benchmark and what enterprise companies such as AWS use to judge a CPU performance. https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...

I see you are citing a 6 month old post which itself isn't really well sourced isn't really reaching consensus and doesn't have a definitive answer.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43287208

The article in question doesn't mention subpar ARM optimizations.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#132

Post by criddell »

nchmy wrote: post #127
amelius wrote: post #92

To what extent can these improvements be ascribed to Apple, as opposed to the particular silicon fab process node?

I'm also curious about this. And, even moreso - did apple just start designing chips from scratch or did they buy someone who already had some cutting edge technology? Its hard to believe that they're beating everyone just out of nowhere...

Right after the launch of the original iPhone, Apple bought P.A. Semi for $27 billion to work on chips for future iPhones.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#134

Post by aurareturn »

eek2121 wrote: post #15
bhouston wrote: post #5

Nice. The iPads generally measure around ~8% slower than the MacBooks, I guess for cooling reasons. So we should see approximately a 4400 single core Geekbench score for the MacBook series. This is nice. Single thread MacBook progression on Geekbench: M1: 2350 M2: 2600 M3: 3100 M4: 3850 M5: 4400 (estimated) https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

Keep in mind that a big part of the huge jump in recent chips was that GB6 added support for SME, and to my knowledge, no app uses SME as of yet. GB5 is a better benchmark for all these chips for this reason. The actual IPC increase and perf/clock of these chips excluding SME specific acceleration is MUCH smaller.

SME is just the AMX coprocessor that’s been in Apple chips since 2019. SME made it easier to target the AMX. But it’s been in use and available to developers since 2019.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#135

Post by aurareturn »

satellite2 wrote: post #131
FootballMuse wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passmark is an outdated benchmark not well optimized for ARM. Even so the single thread marks are 3864 (AI365) vs 4550 (M4) OTOH, Geekbench correlates (0.99) with SPEC standards, the industry standard in CPU benchmark and what enterprise companies such as AWS use to judge a CPU performance. https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...

I see you are citing a 6 month old post which itself isn't really well sourced isn't really reaching consensus and doesn't have a definitive answer. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43287208 The article in question doesn't mention subpar ARM optimizations.

[flagged]

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#136

Post by robbinb »

bhouston wrote: post #17
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.

I use a MacBook Air 15" has my full stack main development machine. It is just light and portable on the go. At home I just plug it into a docking station with 10 GigE and output to a 48" OLED monitor - a beautiful setup.

just curious what brand etc monitor and docking station you're using here.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#137

Post by pier25 »

maz1b wrote: post #71

Where's the M4 Ultra/M4 Extreme? M5 Ultra/M5 Extreme/M5 Super?

There won't be an M4 Ultra as the chip was not designed with a fusion connector.

The Extreme versions were only rumors. But maybe Apple will finally make one with the M5 and release a proper Apple Silicon Mac Pro.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#138

Post by dijit »

zdragnar wrote: post #80
traceroute66 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 po…

I was just looking at an HP laptop with a snapdragon X processor that claimed 34 hours of battery life while watching video. It'd be tempting if I had any idea what the software compatibility story would be like. For example, the company I'm contracting with now requires a device monitor for SOC2 compliance (ensuring OS patches are applied and hard drive encryption remains on). They don't even want to do it, but thei…

The last Snapdragon X Elite claims really didn't pan out though.

Which left me bitter quite honestly as I was looking forward to them a lot.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#139

Post by nerdsniper »

cainxinth wrote: post #124
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 buy the higher end Apple products not because I plan to use all their power immediately, but because I keep my devices a very long time and want them to retain usability right to the end.

Same here. My launch-day M1 MBP is starting to show its age finally, M5 with twice the perf will be a nice upgrade.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#140

Post by Zak »

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.

It does not appear to me that Macs are closed in the sense that iOS is. It is possible, at least to install Linux on Apple silicon Macs.

There are certainly many more options on the PC side, but it's not because Apple actively blocks users from running another OS.

Post reply on HN