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

521–530 of 565 posts

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#521

Post by AnthonyMouse »

thyristan wrote: post #418
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're essentially just arguing that all general-purpose benchmarks are worthless because your application could be different. Suppose I run many different kinds of applications and am just looking for an overall score to provide a general idea of how two machines compare with one another. That's supposed to be the purpose of these benchmarks, isn't it? But this one seems to be unusually useless at distinguishing bet…

General-purpose benchmarks aren't worthless. They can be used to predict, in very broad strokes, what application performance might be. Especially if you don't really know what the applications would be, or if it is too tedious to use real application benchmarks. But in your example, deciding between 24 cores with somewhat higher frequency or 32 cores with somewhat lower frequency based on some general-purpose benchm…

You're just back to arguing that general purpose benchmarks are worthless again. Yes, they're not as applicable to the performance of a specific application as testing that application in particular, but you don't always have a specific application in mind. Many systems run a wide variety of different applications.

And a benchmark can then provide a reasonable cross-section of different applications. Or it can yield scores that don't reflect real-world performance differences, implying that it's poorly designed.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#522

Post by raydev »

matwood wrote: post #419
porphyra wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. Lots of people still claim that M1 is super duper fast but now we're at almost twice the performance!

I bought an M1 Max with 64GB of ram on the gamble it would last awhile because future M series would be evolutionary not revolutionary again. It seems like it's paid off since there's never a time it feels slow. I may end up upgrading to the M5 just to go down in screen size because I travel more than I did when I bought the 16" one.

Same. My M1 Max only shows it age when building a few massive C++ projects, the M4 cuts down compile times to a quarter so I feel like I'm missing out there, but not enough to put down another$4k yet.

Compared to every Intel MBP I went through, where they would show their age after about 2-3 years, and every action/compile required more and more fans and throttling, the M1 is still a magical processor.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#523

Post by Forgeties79 »

saagarjha wrote: post #515
Forgeties79 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you’re mixing me up with sys. I didn’t link anything

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#524

Post by mrheosuper »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #388
mrheosuper wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>$800 the M4 Air just seems like one of the best tech deals Not at all, you are stuck with a machine that has only 256GB of ssd(and not upgradeable) and 60hz LCD screen, also only 2 IO ports. the M4 maybe the best mobile CPU, but that does not mean it will make every machine with it the best.

As an owner of an Macbook Pro M4 I am actually looking to sell and downgrade to the Air - because during my day-to-day developing I can't get close to utilizing the M4. Regarding the limitations: 256GB is enough for me, because 95% of the time I use my Macbook docked into my Thunderbolt dock, where I have an external drive (also for Timemachine backups) so plenty of space for big files that I rarely use of can do wit…

Not everyone has the luxury of having a rigid setup, that you can just plug in your dock and good to go. In fact, if that is your usecase, mac mini is a much better option.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#525

Post by ajross »

sgarland wrote: post #458
whatever1 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your $1000 MacBook breaks after a year you need $1000 to repair it. A 500 laptop is probably more repairable and worst case you pay $500 to get a new one. Not to mention battery replacement etc. The expected total cost of ownership is very high for a Mac. It’s like owning a Mercedes. Maybe you can afford to buy one, but you cannot afford maintenance.

As a sibling comment said, what maintenance? The only problem I’ve ever had with any Mac was a bad keyboard on my M4 MBP, and that showed itself so quickly that even without AppleCare it would have been covered. Between work and personal, I’ve had an Intel Air, 2x Intel Pros, M1 Air, 2x M3 Pros, and an M4 Pro. My wife has an M1 Air. My in-laws have an M3 iMac. My mom has… some version of an Apple Silicon laptop. That…

Oh, come on. Laptops are mobile devices that live in bags and backpacks and they break all the time. I've had more laptop failures than cracked phones, even. You absolutely need an answer for "what happens if my screen gets cracked", just ask any college student. Windows junk is cheaper, it just is.

In pre-college education, the answer is often "use any other junky Chromebook from anywhere in the world", which is cheaper still.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#526

Post by bigyabai »

bigiain wrote: post #367
ulfw wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a 17' M3 Pro?

A 17 foot tall MacBook, which was Steve's original vision sketched on a napkin. Not the 17 inch tall one they built and put on stage for the MacWorld keynote speech - that was in danger of being trod upon by a dwarf.

Was a great speech nonetheless. Shame about what happened to the drummer though. Best leave it unsolved, really.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#527

Post by sudoshred »

raddan wrote: post #417
sudoshred wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re chewing through 100GB of RAM on unit tests? What is filling your RAM? Are you sure that you don’t have a memory leak somewhere?

I’m certain it’s a memory leak, just not sure solving the problem is worth my time.

Re: Leaked Apple M5 9 core Geekbench scores

#529

Post by aurareturn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #519
aurareturn wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 B…

No one is using Geekbench 6 for Epyc evaluation. It’s a consumer benchmark.
Post reply on HN