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.
For reference I have a M4 Pro mac mini, top spec model with 14 cores and score: single: 3960 multi: 22521
Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
221–230 of 565 posts
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#222Looking forward to how programmers manage to waste and abuse this power.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#223I 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…
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#224Nice. 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
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.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't buy or recommend one just on principle. I've spent way too much of my life advocating for open firmware and user-customizable systems to throw it all in the trash for a few hours of battery. I absolutely tell everyone they're the best, and why, but my daily driver has been a Linux box of some form (OK fine I have a windows rig for gaming too) for decades, and that's not changing. Also, again, most folks just…
>> Compiles code twice as fast as my new Windows desktop >That's because MS's filesystem layer has been garbage since NT was launched decades ago [...] I confess that this kind of excuse drives me batty. End users don't buy CPUs and buy filesystems. They buy entire systems. "Well, it's not really that much faster, it's just that part of the system is junk. The rest is comparable!" That may be, but the end result for…
At least historically for hardware components of PCs, this was not irrelevant, but the state of things:
You basically bought some PC as a starting basis. Because of the high speed of improvements, everybody knew that you would soon replace parts as you deemed feasible. If some component was not suitable anymore, you swapped it (upgrade the PC). You bought a new PC if things got insanely outdated, and updating was not worth the money anymore. With this new PC, the cycle of updating components started back from the beginning.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#226Nice. 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!
A car that does this in 4 seconds is still fast (though twice as slow)
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> though if Apple suddenly took gaming seriously, like extending Rosetta to act as a translation layer for Windows games a la Proton, I’d gladly throw down for an M5 Ultra when it’s released No joke, if I could run my Steam library on my phone, I'd probably buy a new phone every year (and might need to, given what the thermals and rapid charge/discharge cycles would do to battery longevity). But Apple's current strat…
I completely agree. I've worked on the Whisky project and am fairly familiar with WINE, Proton, and CrossOver. Proton uses the underlying technology of WINE, which is largely supported by CodeWeavers, who mainly create CrossOver, essentially Proton for MacOS. CodeWeavers also supported the creation of GPTK, which uses WINE as well. CrossOver, considering it's live-translating Windows x86 calls to MacOS x86 calls, and…
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is also always at least one generation ahead on the process/lithography too because they buy out all of the initial capacity. That alone accounts for a decent chunk of the difference. I don't think the market is there for fanless non-Mac laptops. Most people would rather have a budget system (no $ for proper passive cooling) or more powerful system.
> Most people would rather have a budget system The low end of the market is for sure bigger but I think Apple has shown that the higher end can be profitable too. Dell, HP, Lenovo, and the other big laptop makers aren't afraid of having a thousand different SKUs. They could add one more for a higher end machine that's fanless.
I bought a MacBook Air because it was cheaper and met my needs. Being passively cooled was just a nice bonus.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know Asahi is in choppy waters this year, but it is a seriously impressive project in (imo) a good state. I was surprised that I could run a one-liner script and an hour later play a 32-bit windows x86 3D openGL game on an ARM apple machine with reasonable performance.
Asahi isn't in choppy waters. The new project leadership team made the decision to prioritize getting their existing work upstreamed into the Linux kernel, before working on supporting newer SOCs. It's been going well.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#230Nice. 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!