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

511–520 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#511

Post by jl6 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #501
jl6 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

M1 has 16bn transistors, M4 has 28bn. Increasing the core count is useful for some applications (particularly GPU cores), but there are still many critical workloads that are gated by single-threaded performance.

That's not what was being talked about. Moore's law was never about single threaded performance, it was about transistor count and transistor cost, but people misunderstood it when single threaded performance was increasing exponentially.

GP mentions cores and the article is about benchmarks. The relationship between transistor count, core count, and performance, is exactly on topic.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#512

Post by olyjohn »

swiftcoder wrote: post #371
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 It's definitely becoming less easy over time. First you had to click approve in a dialog box, then you had to right-click -> open -> approve, now you have to attempt (and fail) to run the app -> then go into System Settings -> Security -> Approve. I wanted to install a 3rd party kernel extension recently, and I had to reboot into the safety partition, and disab…

Yep, they will lock all that down. It's been coming for years. Tech companies have learned to do their anti-consumer work slowly and progressively over time instead of dropping it all at once. The whole frog in boiling water thing...

Microsoft is working towards this too. They wish so bad that they were Apple.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#513

Post by olyjohn »

ako wrote: post #348
thewebguyd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reduced horsepower relative to M-series isn't a problem for me as much as efficiency is Same here. I actually don't care for macOS much, and I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes Windows (with WSL). I tried the surface laptop 7 with the snapdragon X elite, and it's..OK. Still spins up the fans quite a bit and runs hotter than my 14" M4 Pro. It's noticeably slower than the MacBook too, and isn't instant wa…

It’s even worse: Parallels on MacBooks runs windows better than a dedicated windows laptop…

I doubt that's true except for in your mind. What are you comparing it to? And old-ass Windows laptop?

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#514

Post by jackothy »

danhon wrote: post #311
jackothy wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that, 6 years for less than a doubling? Nothing against the Apple chips themselves, but gone are the days of Moore...

Moore was just about the transistor count doubling. Not performance.

Performance is an excellent proxy for transistor count. Somebody else replied with the actual transistor counts, which had basically equal scaling.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#515

Post by saagarjha »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #505
saagarjha wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just use Activity Monitor

Honestly combed it over and it didn’t tell us anything other than high mem utilization/pressure. I’m not sure what the deal is but I’ve found AM on Mac’s almost…deceptive? It feels like I’m not getting the full story sometimes. We use one at my office for live streams and the math on resources often does not check out. Our head of engineering agrees that his experience with the silicon chips has been that they do not…

Why are the tools you linked better though, they mostly use the same APIs

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#516

Post by mort96 »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #484
monkmartinez wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just one very simple part, connecting the mouse. Literally everything else sucks on iOS. File management, hidden menus, running multiple apps, system management... and the list goes on. Need to convert a STEP file to something else on the iPad? Download 15 apps to see which one works, then try to find the converted file in the abomination of a file system? iOS is hot garbage.

iPadOS works differently from macOS and if you aren’t willing to learn that, you will think it is bad. The problem isn’t the OS.

What if you've learned how to work around many of iPadOS's limitations and still think those limitations are bad?

Downloading 15 different paid or free-with-in-app-purchases or free-with-ads apps to see which one actually does what it's supposed to do is one of those workarounds. I've learned how to do it and done it a bunch of times and I don't really like it. I much prefer the macOS/Windows/Linux workflow where there's typically some established, community run and trustworthy FOSS software to do whatever conversion you need.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#517

Post by jama211 »

ethanwillis wrote: post #184
jama211 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have Tahoe and it’s just as good at being a desktop os as any of the previous os’s. Not sure what you’re referring to.

There have been lots of complaints all over the place that contradict your experience. One article that talks about it: https://osxdaily.com/2025/09/19/why-im-holding-off-on-upgrad... For less discerning users maybe the rough edges aren't that noticeable. But the point of choosing Apple products is you should be a discerning consumer.

That article mentions basically that they’ve heard that some apps crash a bit but it’s anecdotal and not uncommon with beta/new upgrades before a patch or two (not uncommon), and that he personally dislikes or has trouble with some of the transparency or other design changes.

Neither of those things worry me personally, and I think the previous user calling it a “crappification” is still somewhat of an overreaction. Obviously from an accessibility standpoint transparency/legibility is important but as far as I’m aware tweaks are being made and these things can also be turned off or modified in accessibility settings.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#518

Post by jama211 »

ethanwillis wrote: post #323
detourdog wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This a pretty insulting comment. I’m sure ther is better word then discerning.

I was actually trying to be more neutral :\ than saying something like for consumers with taste the point i'm trying to make is that "apple consumers" are more critical.

Also me having a different experience from you doesn’t make me any less critical or discerning or makes me have less taste.

There’s no good way to phrase a thought that is fundamentally flawed.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#519

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aurareturn wrote: post #424
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 instea…

Relax. No one worth their salt uses the average. They tend to pick the highest or near highest to compare.

The multi-core score listed in the main results page for EPYC 9534 is 15433, but if you look at the individual results, the ones that aren't VMs with fewer than all the cores typically get a multi-core score in the 20k-25k range, e.g.:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6807094

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/9507365

The ones on actual hardware with lower scores typically have comments like "Core Performance Boost Off":

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/1809232

And that's still a higher score than the one listed on the main page.

Post reply on HN