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

331–340 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#331

Post by achandlerwhite »

remix2000 wrote: post #151
criddell wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use the $1.4k USD laptop for 2 years, that works out to around $2 / day. If it’s a Mac, it probably has some resale value at the end of the time bringing the cost down closer to $1 / day. For a work machine, that’s pretty easy to justify.

I wouldn't expect an Apple product to last that long… This is from my personal experience and also family members who tried Apple, so your mileage may vary, I just wouldn't trust it. Ignoring that though, if work machine means an Excel machine, then it's probably overspending IMO. If work machine means workstation, then you'd probably rather want one of the >1.6k models with more working memory… or just don't go Appl…

Interesting, most people have the opposite experience. 4 year old M1 here still amazing perf and OS support.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#332

Post by robertjpayne »

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...

This is the payoff of nearly over a decade of R&D being poured into their chip development.

Apple is a vertical integration company and the CPU/GPU in their devices was a clear sore spot of relying on external vendors they did not like.

You can see their lead continuing and growing with things like their new modem used in some iPhones

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#333

Post by robertjpayne »

lvl155 wrote: post #59

Too bad Apple refuses to innovate on AI. Epic management failure.

Apple doesn't tend to enter unprofitable markets early. Name one single AI company that is innovating and profitable?

All the premier modal providers are losing money hand over fist even at $100's a month in subscription fees.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#334

Post by Aurornis »

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%?

> but what if I don't notice the difference between rendering a web page taking 100ms and it taking 50ms?

You probably won’t notice this when using the new machine.

For me, it only becomes noticeable when I go back to something slower.

It’s easy to take the new speed as a given.

> What if I don't notice the difference between video playback consuming 20% of the chip's available compute and it consuming 10%?

You would notice it in increased battery life. A CPU that finishes the task faster and more efficiently will get back into low power mode quicker.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#335

Post by Aurornis »

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..

> Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing

Did everyone forget that these chips started in general purpose MacBooks and were later put in the iPad?

If general purpose computing is the goal you can get a cheap Mac Mini

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#336

Post by biinjo »

necovek wrote: post #319
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have i7-4790k that still seems to score almost 1500 on single core benchmark: that thing felt fast for decade+.

But it burns a hole in your lap while doing so probably.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#337

Post by foresterre »

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 find this usually doesn't matter as much as you seem to suggest.

I've been running linux laptops with AMD/intel for years, and while some focus on more battery life would be welcome, the cpu never bothered me.

My primary limiation is available RAM (esp. when debugging react native against a complete local docker setup), which unfortunately on both AMD/Intel but far more so on Apple is usually limited to higher compute CPU's, which drives up cost of laptop (not even including the extra cost of RAM on Apple).

The only really locally CPU intensive processes I run on a laptop are Rust builds, and then still I would prioritize RAM over CPU if that would be possible, because Rust builds are fast enough, especially when incrementally compiling (and I almost never do lto release-like builds locally unless doing benchmarking or profiling work)

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#338

Post by NetMageSCW »

mrheosuper wrote: post #321
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)

The first car is much more fun to ride

Only if all you care about is a straight line.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#339

Post by NetMageSCW »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #122
stego-tech wrote: post #72

Damn impressive if true, but I’ll be honest, I still don’t feel the need to replace my M1 iPad Pro or my M1 Pro Macbook Pro. They’re both more than amazing for my use cases - 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.

> 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…

Apple will replace your phone battery relatively inexpensively.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#340

Post by hamburglar »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #287
vient wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a bit out of my depths here, but I believe a significant contributing factor is how early Apple made multi-CPU Macs available, with the earliest being the summer 2000 revision of PowerMac G4 tower (dual 500Mhz PPC G4s), pre-dating the release of OS X. They made it easier for devs to take advantage of those cores in OS X, because this yielded performance boosts that were difficult to match in the x86 world, which…

> Apple made multi-CPU Macs available, with the earliest being the summer 2000 revision of PowerMac G4 tower

Earlier. I did some multiprocessing work on an SMP PowerPC Mac in 1997.

Post reply on HN