Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

8-Core 14-Inch MacBook Pro Around 20% Slower Than 10-Core Models in Multi-Core Benchmark

TheYayAreaLiving said:
Does that mean 14” model is slower than 16”?
Click to expand...
The 14" starts with a Pro chip that has 2 High Power CPU cores and 2 graphics cores disabled, for the cheapest configuration. But both the full Pro chip and the Max chip are available, and personally I'm even expecting both to share the exact same thermal design, so they should perform near identically under load. The 16" might take a bit longer to turn on the fans in the first place though, as it has more mass to soak up and more surface area to dissipate heat. I kind of wish there was an 8/14 option for the 16", even if it was a BTO as these chips are massive overkill for me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbirdparis and Vazor
Accoring to these my own calculations, the 14" 10 core cpu verison, has a 58% higher geekbenck score (12700) - than
the Macbook Pro M1 13" (7382). Valid gainz imho.
 
MarvinHC said:
I somehow doubt that binning theory, are there any reliable resources out there confirming this?

In any case I wouldn’t worry too much about it, the processor is one of the last components to fail in a computer. Especially in one with soldered SSD that will die long before the CPU.
Click to expand...
Confirming the case with these specific laptops: a reliable source isn't going to appear, these are trade secrets. But in a general sense it's in line with what chipmakers do. Knowing how chips are made, it would likely be more expensive to try to specifically target so many variations. Just aim high, with a big gun, then sell what you get, some for cheaper. Everyone wins.

Every Intel Mac anyone's ever owned was made like this too. Check the link above. That is to say: @MarvinHC is right, something else is more likely to break before the CPU. Maybe sand between the display and the keyboard, or a coffee cup falling the wrong way. CPU/GPU binning is not new nor risky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbirdparis, Vazor, yitwail and 2 others
As expected, 20% fewer cores equal 20% less performance, so what's the point of the article. I can't imagine it would turn out any other way.
 
Well duh.
Since there are 2 less cores, 2/10 = 0.2, which is equivalent to 20%. That’s expected.
 
Tagbert said:
No, as long as it is using the same SOC as the 16”. the case is not impacting performance only the specific chips. This is a rare case where you can get the same performance options out of both the smaller and larger models. The only differences are because of the size: screen, battery, and maybe maximum cooling.
Click to expand...
I am curious, given that the 14" and 16" both have the same M1 Max CPU/32 core GPU and RAM, how much will the High Power Mode improve the performance on the 16" model.
 
Icarus73 said:
Wrong. It has 20% fewer cores and 20% less processing power.
Click to expand...

The internet has convinced me that most native English speakers (including many professional journalists) can’t identify the correct usage of less vs. few, there is vs. there are, or login vs. log in (which also applies to signup, dropoff, checkout, and many others).
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Christopher Kim, KENESS, chabig and 1 other person
Schizoid said:
Great, does the 1TB MacBook have half the storage of the 2TB model?
Click to expand...
Almost. There is space required for the operating system and for firmware, so (presuming the OS as an example, takes 8 GB of space, your free space on a 1TB MacBook would be (1TB - 8GB) whereas on the 2TB your free space would be (2TB - 8GB) - you lost a bit more than half your free space by halving the physical hardware.
 
Krizoitz said:
Nope.

If the 8 core is 20% slower than the 10, then the 10 core is 25% faster than the 8. They are reciprocals of each other.

You can easily check the math:

20% slower
10 * (1-.2) = 8
10 * .8 = 8

25% faster
8 * (1 + .25) = 10
8 * 1.25 = 10

28% faster would be
8 * 1.28 = 10.24
Click to expand...
Complicating matters not all of the cores are equal, either. I'm not sure how much power the Icestorm cores have in comparison to the Firestorm, but if it was for example half, then effectively it would be like having a 7 core and 9 core chip.
 
Krizoitz said:
Nope.

If the 8 core is 20% slower than the 10, then the 10 core is 25% faster than the 8. They are reciprocals of each other.

You can easily check the math:

20% slower
10 * (1-.2) = 8
10 * .8 = 8

25% faster
8 * (1 + .25) = 10
8 * 1.25 = 10

28% faster would be
8 * 1.28 = 10.24
Click to expand...
i hear you ,but there must be a mistake in the article

anyway u cannot really do a comparison just in terms of cores,look

the m1pro 8c has 6p+2e,which means 6.7P

the 10c has 8p+2e=8.7P

that means the 8c is 23% less powerful than the 10c,and the 10c is 28% more powerful :)

i just mean i agree with you,except the example was wrong xd
 
Taz Mangus said:
So it appears that the M1 Pro has about 31% better performance over the M1.
Click to expand...
Only for certain tasks that are specially designed to use multiple cores. Few are. For example try measuring how long it takes to recalculate a large spreadsheet or apply a filter to a large Photoshop image. And obviously it still takes 10 minutes to watch a 10-minute cat video on YouTube even if you have 100 cores.

What would be fun and informative is to find a list of normal everyday tasks that are actually faster with 10 vs 8 cores.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Disagree
Reactions: NetMage, 1Peace, yitwail and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back