Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
401–410 of 565 posts
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. AMD is a little better. But bear in mind that Geekbench runs very short benchmarks for single core especially, so that the CPU never starts thermal throttling. The Apple chips are fast and efficient, and "feel" even faster because of the their single core burst performance and on chip very fast RAM.
Cinebench 2024 takes considerably longer to finish and would saturate the whatever possible heat headroom the device has. It can be treated as an accurate reading. Chart below is the aggregated result from CPU-monkey, Geekerwan's chip analysis, devices of my own and various other reports. Apple M1 series 3.2GHz 5W: ~115 Apple M2 series 3.5GHz 5W: ~120 Apple M3 series 4GHz 7.5W: ~140 Apple M4 series 4.4GHz 7.5W: ~170…
For example, the M4 does get around 170 single, but the Snapdragon X2E gets just under 2000 for multi, over double what the M4 scores. If your application is relevant to Cinebench, the X2E is a better CPU for that. To match the X2E you need to go up to the 16 cores M4 Max.
The 16 cores variant of M4 Max is only available on a 16inch MBP that starts at 4.8K€; it's not clear how much the X2E laptops will cost but I would bet a lot of money that it's going to be much less than that...
As for the desktop's parts, the only Apple product that beats the typical X86 CPUs in multi, is actually the M3 Ultra which is pretty bad deal because it doesn't scale very well in other ways (GPU). Otherwise, Intel (i9s/Core Ultra 9) and AMD (Ryzen 9) still hold the crowns in pure multicore score.
The score of an M4 Max 16 cores, actually puts you down in Core Ultra 7 265K territory. You can put together a system based around that CPU and a 5070Ti GPU (that raw bench around the same as the M4 Max 40 cores variant but will actually perform much better for most things) for a full 1200€ less than a Mac Studio equipped like that (it even has the luxury of double the storage). If you don't need dedicated GPU power or could do with a low-end GPU the savings would be between 2000-1700€ (the 5070Ti is an 800€ part).
Let's be real, the Apple Silicon SoCs are very power efficient but they are definitely not performance maxing and they are even less money efficient. It is very suspicious arguing about top performance while ignoring multicore.
Now here is another fact: the M4 Max 16 cores can draw more power than the 140W power adapter included with the 16-inch MPB. It has a battery capacity of 100Wh. If you run the things at full tilt or near that, it will actually have a runtime of less than an hour. It's actually funny because the Apple afficionados keep singing the praise of Apple Silicon and many have been burned by that unexpected fact. It's easy to shit on the high-power gamer type laptop that can't run well on battery but that's actually true as well if you use the full power of an Apple Silicon laptop. You might get like half an hour more runtime but that's basically irrelevant.
The reality is that everyone singing that Apple Silicon efficiency praise don't have truly demanding workloads otherwise the battery life wouldn't be a meaningful difference.
High performance laptops don't make a lot of sense whether they are Apples or other brands. They are mostly convenience products (for docking/undocking) or status symbols.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no decent option on an alternative operating system. I do not like macOS and its many quirks, especially its extremely gatekept nature, including the system being SURE that what IT wants is the best for me; I understand that this might be an approach that some people prefer, but in my case it's the equivalent of showing a bull a red cloth. I will say this - and most will not like this - that I'd go out and b…
Why not virtualise (?) with Parallels? Runs like a beast (M1 mba).
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does not take 30% cut from this hence this will never happen.
Apple certainly allows a lot of free without in-app purchases apps on the App Store. They don’t care that much about the 30% (which was the best deal ever for a phone app store when it came out) except how the App Store sells hardware.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#405Earlier 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.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Top speed hardly matters for cars. Acceleration is where fun is. Not sure this applies to CPUs at all.
Any cpu can run at 100ghz for 1 cycle. The trick is getting it to run at 100ghz forever
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#407Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD asleep? I didn't think this is accurate
If you read the first half of the sentence then yeah.... The complete sentence clarifies "with their mobile lineup"
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep hearing this, but I'd venture that a majority of those making it will most likely end up on Windows full time anyway. Which is not materially worse than MacOS, no matter how much MacOS is shooting themselves in the foot.
With WSL2, Windows is better, sad, but true.
Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad you’ve had a good experience, maybe we just got a bad computer. But I know what I saw ultimately and what it was was a brand new M3 machine running like crap.
Try installing Vitals.app open source app to see what's going on: https://github.com/hmarr/vitals Stats is another good one too: https://github.com/exelban/stats