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

171–180 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#171

Post by mpalmer »

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!

M1 is still fast, the speed of its successors does not change that.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#172

Post by mort96 »

lanza wrote: post #74
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. Literally everything you do gets the full power of the chips. They finish tasks faster using less power than previous chips. They can then use smaller batteries and thinner devices. A higher ceiling on performance is only one aspect of an upgraded CPU. A lower floor on energy consumed per task is…

Right but what if I don't notice the difference between rendering a web page taking 100ms and it taking 50ms? What if I don't notice the difference between video playback consuming 20% of the chip's available compute and it consuming 10%?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#173

Post by pier25 »

coconut08 wrote: post #164
pier25 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>There won't be an M4 Ultra as the chip was not designed with a fusion connector. which is the same thing that people said about the m3

Really? The M3 Ultra still uses the ultra fusion connector.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#174

Post by dylan604 »

ceayo wrote: post #101

Why would it have 9 cores? Feels a bit weird to have an (a) uneven and (b) not a power of two amount of cores on a processor.

AMD used to have a 3 core desktop CPU. IIRC it was because one of the intended 4 cores was bad but they could salvage the package by making it 3 cores. The 3 core option was so popular, that they kept it once the 4th core issues were resolve with a software patch. Clever people figured out how to enable it once installed and got a 4th core for free. Never used it myself, and only heard tales about it. Could be urban legend.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#175

Post by sandbags »

tylerflick wrote: post #45
criddell wrote: post #19

I bought an M4 iPad Pro and ended up returning it because I just don't like the magic keyboard. My current iPad is from 2018 and I use the Smart Keyboard Folio and (for me) it's just about perfect. Small, lightweight, not too expensive, easy to clean, and works great. I've been hoping there were enough people like me that a third party would make a replacement but that never happened. I know my current iPad Pro won't…

Still rocking a 2018 pro as well. At this point I would pay Apple for OS upgrades as I don’t see any reason to buy a new model.

Likewise. It still works fine for all the things I use it for. Long may it last!

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#176

Post by zamadatix »

ceayo wrote: post #101

Why would it have 9 cores? Feels a bit weird to have an (a) uneven and (b) not a power of two amount of cores on a processor.

Some models of the M4 iPad had 3P + 6E = 9 cores as well, so it's certainly not unusual. Like another commenter said, the "why" can be binning for chips which come out with a broken P core.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#177

Post by zamadatix »

bhouston wrote: post #57
Choco31415 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the multi core Geekbench progression: M1: 8350 M2: 9700 M3: 11650 M4: 14600 M5: 16650 (estimated) This is assuming an 8% uplift as mentioned. Also nice.

Will the base core count and mix between perf and efficient cores remain the same? That has lead to different scaling factors for the multicore performance than the single core metrics.

Possibly, at least compared to the previous M4 generation. For the lowest tier M models to this point:

  M1 (any):  4P + 4E
  M2 (any):  4P + 4E
  M3 (any):  4P + 4E
  M4 (iPad): 3P + 6E
  M4 (Mac):  4P + 6E
  M5 (iPad): 3P + 6E (claimed)
  M5 (Mac):  Unknown
It's worth noting there are often higher tier models that still don't earn the "Pro" moniker. E.g. there is a 4P + 8E variant of the iMac which is still marketed as just having a normal M4.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#179

Post by kridsdale1 »

Zak wrote: post #143

I'm not especially impressed that Apple came up with a mobile CPU that pretty much doubles the performance of the three year old Ryzen 6850u in my Thinkpad. What I'm impressed with is it's doing that in an iPad, which presumably doesn't have a fan.

It does not.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#180

Post by GeekyBear »

mort96 wrote: post #172
lanza wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Literally everything you do gets the full power of the chips. They finish tasks faster using less power than previous chips. They can then use smaller batteries and thinner devices. A higher ceiling on performance is only one aspect of an upgraded CPU. A lower floor on energy consumed per task is…

Right but what if I don't notice the difference between rendering a web page taking 100ms and it taking 50ms? What if I don't notice the difference between video playback consuming 20% of the chip's available compute and it consuming 10%?

I'm pretty sure that users of the announced Blender for iPad port will notice any additional horsepower.
Post reply on HN