Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In other news, throwing more monkeys at the problem works!
The first seemingly legitimate Geekbench 5 result for the base model 14-inch MacBook Pro with an 8-core M1 Pro chip has surfaced, and it reveals that the 8-core model is, as expected, ~20% slower than 10-core models in terms of multi-core performance. The 10-core model has 8 performance cores and 2 efficiency cores, while the 8-core model has 6 performance cores and 2 efficiency cores.
The benchmark result lists the 8-core 14-inch MacBook Pro with a multi-core score of 9,948, which is around 20% lower than the average multi-core score of around 12,700 for 14-inch MacBook Pro models configured with a 10-core M1 Pro or M1 Max chip. Keep in mind this is only a single result, so additional results are needed for certainty.
For single-core performance, the 8-core M1 Pro chip has approximately the same score as the standard M1 chip, the M1 Pro chip, and the M1 Max chip.
For multi-core performance, the 8-core M1 Pro chip is about 30% faster than the standard M1 chip, which also has 8-cores (4 performance, 4 efficiency).
Geekbench Scores
The base model 14-inch MacBook Pro with an 8-core M1 Pro chip is priced at $1,999 in the United States. Customers can upgrade this configuration to a 10-core M1 Pro chip with a 14-core GPU for an extra $200, raising the total price to $2,199.
- M1 (8-core) Single: 1742 Multi: 7582
- M1 Pro (8-core) Single: 1767 Multi: 9948
- M1 Max (10-core) Single: 1764 Multi: 12380
The new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models became available to order on Monday and have started shipping to some customers ahead of a Tuesday, October 26 launch. In addition to M1 Pro and M1 Max chip options, the notebooks feature mini-LED displays with ProMotion for up to a 120Hz refresh rate, additional ports like an HDMI port and an SD card slot, MagSafe charging, longer battery life, and a notch housing an upgraded 1080p webcam.
Article Link: 8-Core 14-Inch MacBook Pro Around 20% Slower Than 10-Core Models in Multi-Core Benchmark
This would never have happened, if Steve didn't pick that beancounter as his successor. Tim Apple destroyed the Mac the moment he stopped buying intel processors.
It interesting that we now can see how Apple's high-performance cores directly affect battery life.
Seriously though, video acceleration can always be improved, but it must also be tempered by thermal and power utilization considerations.
M1 Max can decrease some encode times something like 5X-10X compared to previous Intel models, which is a big frickin' deal. And it can do it without so heavy CPU or GPU usage, thereby keeping power utilization and heat generation relatively low, which is also a big frickin' deal.
I remember way back when a few people were talking about how h.264 encoding was so complex and was something that only really needed to be left to the pros on workstation class hardware. Regular people didn't really need that in their ultraportable laptops. Nowadays, h.264 encoding is uber fast even on our phones.
Last edited:
It was a joke of course.
I was just suggesting in not so many words that people who say - we-only-need-this-in-our-workstation-class-desktops-or-when-plugged-in-on-full-power are thinking in the past.
Technically, I think the actual SIZE of the CPU is the same, they just disable two of the 10 cores, to have an 8 core option..through binning.
Hmmm - actually it has 6 out of 8 performance cores, whereas the two efficiency (energy safe?) are the same.
6 out of 8 is a 25% reduction for performance jobs. Does this mean that the efficiency cores can jump in almost as strong as the 6 or 8 others?
I doubt it. You should remember that we’re making comparisons based on a very small sample so there’s some margin of error. Also, cores don’t necessarily scale linearly, so while ideally there would be the 25% performance difference you mention, in practice it could be somewhat less.
Yes - I agree. Just pointing this out because the “obvious 2 cores therefore 20%, duh” were not so obvious to me, because not all 10 cores are the same. Makes the result more interesting.
The 2020 Intel Core i7-1068NG7 2.4GHz MBP gets 1233 single core / 4490 multi-core in Geekbench. For the 2020 baseline Intel model these figures are 906 and 3745. So even if you go with the baseline model of the new MBP, it is more than twice the benchmark of the former Intel flagship model. At least for me, this evaporated any doubts on whether I should have opted for the 10 core version instead of the 8 core version for future-proofing. These are incredibly fast machines for the great majority of use cases today and surely also in the future.
Now that’s more useful. That shows that for multitasking (no media rendering etc) 8 is all I need. RAM could be a different story…
This is my strategy. I can tell myself “go nuts and keep this for 7 years” but I won’t. I 3-4 years there will be a complete refresh and I will want one. Most of us will. And the resale loss on the base version will for the average buyer be less.
Anyone getting the base, binned-chip models of these is nuts.
Why? If it‘s 30% faster than the M1 and I never get close to using all of the CPU on my 2017 i5, why spend $300 (in Australia) extra on something I don’t need?
MacBook Air uses binned version of M1 chip, and by all accounts it functions splendidly. I personally prefer a binned M1 pro with 32gb to a full on M1 pro with 16gb. Apple may very well upgrade the M chips annually, but they don’t design their own ram, I believe, so ram and probably ssd upgrades are more future proof than a cpu/gpu core upgrade.
1. No one is saying its a compelling purchase for someone in your shoes. It's for people who's systems are either running out of steam or are about to die for other reasons and need a new one
2. Because over time, side by side, the i5 in your system will become too slow much sooner than one of these chips.
Sure, thanks. So...if you were me would you still go to 10?1. No one is saying its a compelling purchase for someone in your shoes. It's for people who's systems are either running out of steam or are about to die for other reasons and need a new one
2. Because over time, side by side, the i5 in your system will become too slow much sooner than one of these chips.
Naw, save your money for next year
I'd wait till you actually feel the need it in your current system. This is the beginning and Apple will probably work out some kinks in this model like they did in your 2017 over my 2016's issues If you're really wanting to upgrade, get the 10 but the same money will get you a bit more performance in a year when it counts compared to your current system.