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

271–280 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#271

Post by dagmx »

kwanbix wrote: post #154
Zak wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as I understand, the only Linux you can install on an M CPU is Asahi linux. Apple is not doing anything actively, but is also doing nothing to help linux be ported.

A big issue there is that there’s a massive backlog of patches to land in the kernel and Asahi are currently working on reducing that.

Once that’s done, any distro should be able to work.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#272

Post by gpm »

porphyra wrote: post #166
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

Nice. Lots of people still claim that M1 is super duper fast but now we're at almost twice the performance!

I claim that the M1 (macbook air) is fast. I also claim it's about half the speed of my similarly priced desktop of the same vintage for slow tasks that I care about.

So I guess we've caught up with the desktop now.

Actually I assume we caught up awhile ago if I used the beefy multi core MX-Ultra variants they released, really just the base model has caught up. On the other hand I could have spent four times as much for twice as many cores on my desktop as well.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#273

Post by vient »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #125
vient wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> building a CPU that doesn't guzzle battery It may be the software problem as well. On Windows I regularly need to find which new app started to eat battery like crazy. Usually it ends up being something third-party related to hardware, like Alienware app constantly making WMI requests (high CPU usage of svchost.exe hosting a WMI provider, disabling Alienware service helped), Intel Killer Wi-Fi software doing someth…

Windows doesn't do it any favors, for sure. Running Linux with with every tweak under the sun for better life still leaves a large gap between x86 laptops and MacBooks, however, and while there's probably some low hanging optimization to be taken advantage of there I think the real problem is that x86 CPUs just can't idle as low as M-series can, which is exacerbated by the CPU not being able to finish up its work and…

I wonder if Windows and Linux just can't yet work on heterogeneous CPUs as well as macOS does. Intel chose an interesting direction here, going straight from one to three kinds of cores in one chip. I almost never see LPE cores being used on Windows, and on Linux you have obscure soft like Intel LPMD which I tried but was not able to notice any battery life improvements.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#274

Post by GeekyBear »

rowanG077 wrote: post #268
GeekyBear wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That Alyssa is no longer involved definitely is a huge loss for Asahi Are you under the impression that Linux is about to abandon OpenGL and Vulkan in favor of a new graphics API that only Alyssa could possibly implement?

No. I am under the impression that there is no replacement on the horizon that could take on the challenge of further optimizing the GPU driver and work on M3/M4/M5 GPU support once upstreaming efforts have settled down.

Alyssa wasn't doing the GPU driver work.

Marcan already provided the tools needed to capture the data being passed back and forth between MacOS and the GPU, so you can see exactly what the newer versions of the SOC are doing that is different.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#275

Post by pitched »

larusso wrote: post #51
dylan604 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Exclusive! Unboxing the iPad Pro with the M5 before Apple! Big boy is bitching about a meager 10% increase in CPU and 30% increase in GPU as a nothing burger. "Who would upgrade from M4 to M5?" exactly. The difference is when you upgrade from older to latest. Most people do not upgrade annually. I'm looking to replace my 6th gen tablet, but now I might just get an m4 after the m5 is official and get a nice discount…

I also don’t understand what people expect. Also it seems that everybody is constantly grilling their machines. Otherwise I can’t understand this need for even more power. I have the iPhone 16ProMax and upgraded from a 13ProMax. I didn’t really feel a difference. Mainly because I don’t use my phone for high performance applications or gaming. [edit] typo

I recently upgraded to a 15 (from an SE) and found that the power efficiency is very noticeable. I can leave home in the morning at 50% and still expect it to last the day. Like you said though, I don’t know if the gain in peak performance is noticeable at all, outside of how it might help power efficiency.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#276

Post by willis936 »

nixosbestos wrote: post #267
willis936 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, has Linus clarified Linux's position on rust patches in the kernel? I hadn't heard.

Rust has been in the kernel for sometime now? With 6.18 to include significantly more including arguably the single most important component of Android, binder, entirely re-written in Rust.

Yes, it has. Marcan left Asahi and Linux after the DMA maintainer rejected their patch on non-technical grounds and labeled Rust as cancer for maintainers. So Linus supports Rust in the kernel, Rust patches come in, some maintainers reject them, there is no guidance on where or how Rust will or will not be accepted. Just do a bunch of free work and roll the gatekeeping dice. Very healthy and not abusive.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#277

Post by AlphaAndOmega0 »

runjake wrote: post #70
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..

Questions for you: 1. If you don't know what to do with it, why did you buy it? 2. If you wanted a general purpose computer, why did you buy an iPad? 3. Which iPadOS limitations are particularly painful for you?

1. I do know what to do with it. I take notes, a lot, in my work as a doctor. That's been the case since I owned an iPad Air from 2020, which I replaced with an 11 inch M1 iPad Pro (which broke), and I finally caved and bought a 13" iPad Pro to replace it. I ended up getting the M4 model because there just didn't seem to be older ones reasonably available. Even the M1 was more than fast enough for the overwhelming majority of iPadOS applicantions.

Why an iPad? Android tablets have been... not great for a long time. The pencil is very handy, and the ecosystem has the best apps. Also, I know a few rather handy tricks Safari can do, such as exporting entire webpages as PDF after a full-screen screenshot, that are very useful to my workflow.

2. I already own multiple general purpose computers. They're not as convenient as an iPad. My ridiculously powerful PC or even my decent laptop doesn't allow the same workflow. However, that's not an intentional software limitation, it's a consequence of their form factor, so I can't hold Microsoft to blame. On the other hand,Apple could easily make an iPad equivalent to a MacBook by getting out of the way.

3. The inability/difficulty of side-loading apps, the restriction to a locked down store. Refusing to make an interface that would allow for laptop-equivalent usage with an external/Bluetooth m+k. You can use an external monitor, but a 13" screen should already be perfectly good if window management and M+K usage wasn't subpar. Macs and iPads have near identical chips (the differences between an M chip for either are minor), and just being able to run MacOs apps on device would be very handy. Apple has allowed for developer opt-out emulation of iOS and iPadOS apps on Mac for a while now, why not the other way around?

If not obvious from the fact that I'm commenting on HN, I would gain utility from terminal access, the ability to compile and run apps on device, a better filesystem etc. Apple doesn't allow x86 emulators, nor can I just install Proton or Wine. If I can't side-load on a whim, it's not a general purpose computer. I can't use a browser that isn't just reskinned Safari, which rules out a great deal of obvious utility. There are a whole host of possible classes of apps, such as a torrent manager, which are allowed on other platforms but not on iPadOS. It's bullshit.

My pc and laptop simply aren't as convenient for the things I need an iPad for, and they can't be. On the other hand, my iPad could easily do many things I rely on a PC for, if Apple would get out of the way. iPadOS 26 is a step in the right direction, but there's dozens left to go.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#278

Post by pitched »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #27

I can’t wait to suffer M5 with macOS 26, such a disappointment. Edit: Let me double down, macOS 26 is the worst OS that Apple has shipped in the last two decades.

I am very unhappy with Liquid Glass but it’s been extremely stable, as far as I’ve heard so far?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#279

Post by satellitemx »

RachelF wrote: post #190
modeless wrote: post #158

Intel's best single core score is listed as 3240 for the Core i9-14900KS, a 250W desktop monster chip. Is this score of 4133 for an equivalent test? Is Intel that far behind?

Yes. AMD is a little better. But bear in mind that Geekbench runs very short benchmarks for single core especially, so that the CPU never starts thermal throttling. The Apple chips are fast and efficient, and "feel" even faster because of the their single core burst performance and on chip very fast RAM.

Cinebench 2024 takes considerably longer to finish and would saturate the whatever possible heat headroom the device has. It can be treated as an accurate reading.

Chart below is the aggregated result from CPU-monkey, Geekerwan's chip analysis, devices of my own and various other reports.

Apple M1 series 3.2GHz 5W: ~115 Apple M2 series 3.5GHz 5W: ~120 Apple M3 series 4GHz 7.5W: ~140 Apple M4 series 4.4GHz 7.5W: ~170

Snapdragon X1E 4.3GHz 10-20W: ~140 Snapdragon X2E 5GHz >20W: ~160

AMD 9950X 5.7GHz (Desktop Best): ~140 AMD AI 9 HX 375 5.1GHz (Laptop Best): ~125

Intel Ultra 9 285K 5.7GHz (Desktop Best): ~145 Intel Ultra 9 285HX 5.4GHz (Laptop Best): ~135 Intel Ultra 9 288V 5.1GHz (Low Power Laptop Best): ~125

Apple M5 may be the first ever CPU to near ~200pts on Cinebench single-core while still maintaining less than 10W of core power draw. Competitors lose on all fronts by about 2 or even 3 generations at their respective device class.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#280

Post by BearOso »

modeless wrote: post #158

Intel's best single core score is listed as 3240 for the Core i9-14900KS, a 250W desktop monster chip. Is this score of 4133 for an equivalent test? Is Intel that far behind?

It's all up in the air when you have completely different environments. These benchmarks are mostly useful for comparing similar chips from generation to generation.
Post reply on HN