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

351–360 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#351

Post by AnthonyMouse »

wtallis wrote: post #294
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we could get something other than Geekbench for these things, since Geekbench seems to be trash. For example, it has the Ryzen 7 7700X with a higher multi-core score than the Epyc 9534 even though they're both Zen4 and the latter has 8 times as many cores and is significantly faster on threaded workloads in real life.

There's real value in having a multi-threaded benchmark that doesn't ignore Amdahl's Law and pretend that everything is embarrassingly parallel.

That's what the single thread score is supposed to be for. The multi-thread score is supposed to tell you how the thing performs on the many real workloads that are embarrassingly parallel.

Suppose I'm trying to decide whether to buy a 32-core system with a lower base clock or a 24-core system with a higher base clock. What good is it to tell me that both of them are the same speed as the 8-core system because they have the same boost clock and the "multi-core" benchmark doesn't actually use most of the cores?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#352

Post by astrange »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #322
zamadatix wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are these cores getting way more complex? Because there should be room for 2x - 3x as many cores with die shrinks at this point.

If you get more space, you need a really good reason not to use that space on more cache.

Also, the size numbers are lies and aren't the actual size of anything.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#353

Post by eppsilon »

illusive4080 wrote: post #270
vient wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Re: Microsoft Defender, I’m actually talking about defender on macOS. It is a multi platform product. I hear infosec is pretty happy with it. Me? It uses 100% CPU even when I’m doing nothing. I’m not happy.

Try some of the steps on this page [1]. In particular, enabling real-time protection stats and then adding exclusions for the processes causing the most file scans can help.

1. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-endpoint/mac-supp...

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#354

Post by prawn »

addandsubtract wrote: post #168
nerdsniper wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. My launch-day M1 MBP is starting to show its age finally, M5 with twice the perf will be a nice upgrade.

Is it, tough? I feel like everything on my M1 is still as snappy as it was on day 1. My previous MacBook definitely showed it's game after 4 years, but I'm happy to use this one for at least another 2-4.

Mine is an M1 Max and gives me no gripes after four years. Like you, I also felt as though past laptops felt their age sooner. I'm typically using Photoshop, Lightroom, Resolve, Docker and other usual stuff at any given time.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#355

Post by rkomorn »

prawn wrote: post #354
addandsubtract wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it, tough? I feel like everything on my M1 is still as snappy as it was on day 1. My previous MacBook definitely showed it's game after 4 years, but I'm happy to use this one for at least another 2-4.

Mine is an M1 Max and gives me no gripes after four years. Like you, I also felt as though past laptops felt their age sooner. I'm typically using Photoshop, Lightroom, Resolve, Docker and other usual stuff at any given time.

I wasn't super informed on the Apple silicon laptops, so I was kind of disappointed when my last job gave me a 2-3 year old M1 Max laptop.

It blew the doors off every other laptop and desktop I've had (before or since).

When I think back to how quickly obsolete things became when I was younger (ie 90s and 00s), today's devices seem to last forever.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#356

Post by ulfw »

dwd wrote: post #345
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

Between personal and home, I've had a: M1 (16Gb) M1 Pro (16Gb) M2 Pro (16Gb) M3 Pro (32Gb) M4 Air (24Gb) Currently switch between the M2 Pro and the M4 Air, and the Air is noticeable snappier in everyday tasks. The 17' M3 Pro is the faster machine, but I prefer not to lug it around all day, so it gets left home and occasionally used by the wife.

What is a 17' M3 Pro?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#357

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Aurornis wrote: post #326
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we could get something other than Geekbench for these things, since Geekbench seems to be trash. For example, it has the Ryzen 7 7700X with a higher multi-core score than the Epyc 9534 even though they're both Zen4 and the latter has 8 times as many cores and is significantly faster on threaded workloads in real life.

The trick with GeekBench is to scroll down and look at the specific sub-benchmarks that are most relevant to you.

I attempted to do this and discovered an irregularity.

Many of the systems claiming to have that CPU were actually VMs assigned random numbers of cores less than all of them. Moreover, VMs can list any CPU they want as long as the underlying hardware supports the same set of instructions, so unknown numbers of them could have been running on different physical hardware, including on systems that e.g. use Zen4c instead of Zen4 since they provide the same set of instructions.

If they're just taking all of those submissions and averaging them to get a combined score it's no wonder the results are nonsense. And VMs can claim to be non-server CPUs too:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q...

Are they actually averaging these into the results they show everyone?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#358

Post by mrheosuper »

astrange wrote: post #350
mrheosuper wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's quite different from the M1. Please don't mix it. It like saying i3 and i7 is the same if they are on the same generation.

It's not that different. It has more cores but they're the same cores.

And higher power limit, exactly like i3 and i5 and i7. Same core architecture, just different in clock, power and core count.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#359

Post by para_parolu »

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 use m1 max and m4 max every day. Don’t see difference in speed at all. Regular tasks are equally fast. Rust compiler is equally slow
Post reply on HN