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

301–310 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#301

Post by sgerenser »

aurareturn wrote: post #134
eek2121 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Similar, but not the same. SME is much more powerful than AMX on the pre-M4 cores, and software can target it directly instead of using Apples frameworks. Which means that software is more likely to actually use it (eventually), even if hardly anything does now.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#302

Post by sroussey »

liuliu wrote: post #218
sroussey wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What improvements did the A19 Pro provide for Draw Things?

https://releases.drawthings.ai/p/iphone-17-pro-doubles-ai-pe...

That's amazing! Curious how this will translate to the M5 Pro/Max Macs...

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#303

Post by sgerenser »

GeekyBear wrote: post #194
wmf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point stands that virtually no apps used AMX (either directly or through a framework).

> The point stands that virtually no apps used AMX (either directly or through a framework). AMX has been present in every M series chip and the A series chips starting with the A13. If you are comparing M series chip scores in Geekbench 6 they are all using it, not just the latest ones. Any app using Apple's Accelerate framework will take advantage of it.

This isn’t true, I don’t believe GeekBench ever made use of AMX. They do use SME on any Arm-based platform that has it, which up until extremely recently has only been Apple.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#304

Post by asa400 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #189
mpalmer wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I use one for software development and it's great. Sometimes rust builds are slow and I'd love to force that to be faster with hardware (optimizing build time would be a huge undertaking with not-so-great returns), otherwise I'm totally content. I also have an M2 Max with 32GB of RAM that still feels like magic. I've never had computers that felt so fast for so long.

Same here. I have an M1 Max with 64GB and the only time I notice a slowdown is doing Rust release builds with `lto = true` and `codegen-units = 1`, which makes complete sense. Otherwise there is _plenty_ of multicore performance for debug builds, webdev, web browsing, etc., often all at once.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#305

Post by dzhiurgis »

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 feel no need to upgrade, especially now that you can have applecare yearly subscription.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#306

Post by sgerenser »

Reason077 wrote: post #236
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

Here's the comparison between the M4 iPad Pro and the M5: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/14173685?baseli... About 10% faster for single-core and 16% faster for multi-core compared to the M4. The iPad M5 has the same number of cores and the same clock speed as the M4, but has increased the RAM from 8GB to 12GB.

M4 iPads with the top two storage tiers (1 or 2 TB) already come with 12 GB. Maybe they’re changing to all having 12GB though, who knows.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#307

Post by asa400 »

adastra22 wrote: post #187
thenaturalist wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local LLMs will be one of those things where you'll feel a difference. Not much else I can think of as well. M1 is still insane. Apps, OS emulation... just chuggs along.

Just upgraded my M1 Pro to an M4 Max. Roughly an order of magnitude faster local inference, though I haven’t benchmarked it. Outside of that though, it’s really hard to tell the difference. M1 is/was a beast and plenty fast enough for daily work.

I have an M1 Max and I'm curious, do you notice any difference in battery life/power usage?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#308

Post by kjkjadksj »

sudoshred wrote: post #265
pylotlight wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, working with M1 daily I struggle with resource contention and slow py/js builds. I'd love something faster when work provides me with updated device.

My m1 16gb pro gets throttled (and manually restarted) every time vs code hits 100gb ram usage when running jest unit tests. Don’t know who to blame but 99% sure the problem is my source code and not the machine.

100gb ram usage? Why not build a pc?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#309

Post by dzhiurgis »

onionisafruit wrote: post #235
tedk-42 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car that travels 0-60 MPH in 2 seconds is fast A car that does this in 4 seconds is still fast (though twice as slow)

If they both top out at 60 they are equally fast. One just had better acceleration than the other

Top speed hardly matters for cars. Acceleration is where fun is. Not sure this applies to CPUs at all.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#310

Post by kalleboo »

vient wrote: post #269
illusive4080 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mac ecosystem isn’t as closed as you’re alluding to. You can easily download unsigned binaries and run them. Furthermore, if you’re looking for a battery hog, look no further than Microsoft Defender, Jamf Protect, and Elasticbeat. All 3 of those are forcibly installed on my work laptop and guzzle up CPU and battery.

> You can easily download unsigned binaries and run them Of course, but I assume you don't really need to install third-party apps to control hardware. In my case Alienware and Dell bloat came from me setting up an Alienware monitor. MSI bloat came from setting up MSI GPU. Intel Killer stuff just got automatically installed by Windows Update, it seems. > Microsoft Defender This one I immediately disable after Windows…

What's mad is that you would have thought that Microsoft would use the Surface devices to show hardware manufacturers what could be done if you put some effort in, but I've heard so many horror stories from Surface owners about driver issues
Post reply on HN