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

Apple Silicon M1 MacBook Pro Earns 7508 Multi-Core Score in Cinebench Benchmark

Just ran R23 on my 2.4 GHz i9 (in 10.15.7/19H15). 9396 multicore, and it runs Warzone in 1440p @ 90 FPS. The M1 can do neither and will never do the latter at all.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: NetMage
Robospungo said:
True. But, apart from battery life, why should I care about TDP or number of cores? Performance is performance.

If anything, Apple probably went overboard on battery life. Not once in my life have I ever used a computer for 20 hours in a single day.
Click to expand...
the reality is that 20 hours of video playback may only equate to 8-10 hours of more intensive work, such as code builds, editing large documents, copying / syncing lots of data or video encoding. I would typically only get 5-6 hours on my MBP16, so getting across the line to a full working day with 10+ hours would be a big win
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robospungo
Robospungo said:
I thought this was going to be giant generational leap, and I guess for battery life, it is. But as for performance, it looks like this chip can be best described as “competitive with Intel mobile chips”.

That’s nice and all. But I’m not blown away like I was after Apple’s presentation and seeing the geekbench results. I’ve gone from “Apple just disrupted the entire industry” to “meh, I guess it’s a good first try.”
Click to expand...


Sounds like someone owns shares in Intel. Or your being sarcastic.

IF these results are in fact with lowered power consumption this is amazing, this really is the next generation in computer processing. The only person trying to deny that is Intel who is quickly realizing they have been knocked off their throne. IF this is all with lowered power consumption, that is the key here.

You are forgetting that if Apple scales up their design to something desktop class that doesnt have serious power constraints, its going to be amazing, ASSUMING their design scales up like we are all hoping (Or Intel is hoping will not). I dont think it is unreasonable to speculate something like 12 high power cores at 4 ghz. Maybe not blowing the new Ryzens out of the water but it would sure make Intel flinch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
These are wesome results!
I can’t wait to see the SoC used on the iMac/ MacPro.
Can we fast forward a couple of months please? :D
 
matt_k said:
Well, that's great for you, but many people do need windows. And not just Windows, I have VMs of old macOS versions that I need to test software with. That's also not possible to run on M1 anymore. For some people (including me) this is going to be a very painful transition, and if the CPU is only marginally better than what AMD has to offer (forget intel), that's a difficult pill to swallow. All this said, M1 is likely not meant to complete with R7 4800U, so fingers crossed for M1X.
Click to expand...
Apple has no interest in being dependent upon AMD instead of Intel.

If you need to buy a new machine for running Windows and VMs I’d suggest a Mac Pro. You’ll be good for 10-15 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuperCachetes
pyrrh0 said:
Just ran R23 on my 2.4 GHz i9 (in 10.15.7/19H15). 9396 multicore, and it runs Warzone in 1440p @ 90 FPS. The M1 can do neither and will never do the latter at all.
Click to expand...
....great, so the maxed out MBP16 does about 25% better than the new entry level at 1/3 the price. I think the M1 wins hands-down on performance/$, don’t you agree? :cool:

I also have an MBP16, and am very impressed at what Apple has achieved. Not enough to trade my MBP16 in, but I will be looking very closely at the next generation which should easily exceed my (and your) MBP16. I expect this within 7-8 months,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mescagnus, NetMage and sfwalter
applefan69 said:
Sounds like someone owns shares in Intel. Or your being sarcastic.

IF these results are in fact with lowered power consumption this is amazing, this really is the next generation in computer processing. The only person trying to deny that is Intel who is quickly realizing they have been knocked off their throne. IF this is all with lowered power consumption, that is the key here.

You are forgetting that if Apple scales up their design to something desktop class that doesnt have serious power constraints, its going to be amazing, ASSUMING their design scales up like we are all hoping (Or Intel is hoping will not). I dont think it is unreasonable to speculate something like 12 high power cores at 4 ghz. Maybe not blowing the new Ryzens out of the water but it would sure make Intel flinch.
Click to expand...
I'm not into making assumptions or speculating about what Apple may or may not do in the future. I'm only comparing the chips that are available today. Like I said, the M1 is competitive with Intel's top mobile chips (neck and neck on single core and ahead on multicore). But the M1 lags far behind AMD's 4000 series in multicore; the 4600U and 4800U specifically.

I don't own stock in any of these companies. I'm just stating factual information. No guessing or speculating required. Just factual statements based on the solid data we have available today.
 
Nicole1980 said:
Because everyone is creaming in their jeans about how 'incredible' the M1 is. Puts things in perspective. Thats all
Click to expand...
Except it doesn't really. The 10900K is a ten core 125W desktop part. Ten cores, 125 watts. The M1 is what, 4 performance cores (and four standby low power cores) at 15 watts? Designed for the lowest end ultralight laptops, no less, including a model without so much as a single fan.

Doesn't take a genius to add up the numbers and extrapolate what an M-series chip with the same number of cores as that Intel part will give you in a multicore test: a higher score is what it gives you. That's why these "comparisons" are so pointless and misleading. They're like comparing an ant to a human being. Of course a human can step on an ant and crush it with no effort whatsoever. But as soon as you scale the ant up to human size, that's when you realise it can carry a house or a truck on its back without even breaking a sweat...

This is why people are interested in the M1. Sure it's impressive for what it does at its level, but what's more impressive is what happens when future M-series chips scale up. And this doesn't even mean hypothetical unproven enhancements, even though just like with all CPU designs, those will also come. It just means as soon as an M-series chip is made with a comparable core count to that 10900K, it will exceed its multicore test results. That's putting things in perspective properly.

But don't take my word for it, I'd recommend reading the very thorough tests and analysis Anandtech did on the A14. They already suggested, based on the A14 single core speeds alone, that there's no reason to suspect the M1 won't live up to the claim of having the fastest single core on the market today. "If Apple's performance trajectory continues at this pace, the x86 performance crown might never be regained". Their words, not mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CalfCanuck, PickUrPoison, cupcakes2000 and 8 others
The problem is that a lot of you are saying "M1 is no Intel/AMD XYZ".... but the M1 chip is going to be of various speeds and types based on the form factor it's in.

Compare this 13" MacBook Pro to other 13" laptops and it's KILLER. The single-core number is amazing.

If you wanna compare to a 16" model, or desktop model (iMac), wait until those M1 variants come out in the future!

You can't expect a 13" MacBook Pro to compete against some high-end desktop with high-end graphics, no matter what rabbit Apple has pulled out of its hat. The fact that it's even remotely close is AMAZING.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbirdparis, NetMage and brynsmith23
JaySoul said:
What did Captain Marvel say again?

"I've been fighting with one hand tied behind my back... What happens when I'm finally set free?"

Just wait a year or two ;)
Click to expand...

This is just the "1st generation release" of Apple Silicon CPUs.... and it's already close to "at par" with Intel's 11th generation chips.

It will just get better and better from here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaySoul, NetMage and brynsmith23
Fomalhaut said:
....great, so the maxed out MBP16 does about 25% better than the new entry level at 1/3 the price. I think the M1 wins hands-down on performance/$, don’t you agree? :cool:

I also have an MBP16, and am very impressed at what Apple has achieved. Not enough to trade my MBP16 in, but I will be looking very closely at the next generation which should easily exceed my (and your) MBP16. I expect this within 7-8 months,
Click to expand...
If I was really concerned about performance/$ I wouldn't have bought a Mac, and especially not the model I have. I wanted the best Mac portable that could also be a gaming PC and I paid through the nose for it. We're not going to see that in 7-8 months on ARM. Apple Silicon may eclipse Intel & AMD in certain environments, but Windows gaming will never be one of them.

Also, my job requires I use Windows, so I run VMs. Many, many VMs. We're not going to see a version of Windows that will run in a VM on Apple Silicon anytime soon.
 
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and cardfan
Some people keeps saying how much better AMD is. Can anyone suggest AMD laptops? To be honest, I’m not seeing any of them in retail.
 
That's impressive for a 1st gen low end chip.

I have a 4700U (8c/8t) lenovo laptop and ran a quick R23 run for comparison.

1150 singlecore

7531 multicore

Under full load it maintained 3.48 GHz and 68c

GB5 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/4766360
 

Attachments

  • 4700U.PNG
    4700U.PNG
    2.1 MB · Views: 104
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Robospungo
djjeff said:
Yep, spec too. You will never see me recommending a system based on either one. Instead you'll find me recommending systems based on a users needs, not some lame benchmark.
Click to expand...
A benchmark’s uselessness as a recommendation engine isn’t being debated, is it?

The fact is, if you’re doing valid benchmarking, valid system performance comparisons can be made.
 
Last edited:
ian87w said:
Some people keeps saying how much better AMD is. Can anyone suggest AMD laptops? To be honest, I’m not seeing any of them in retail.
Click to expand...
They’re having fab problems. Different from Intel’s fab problems, but the end result is the same: you can’t sell what you can’t produce. Who knows who will solve their problem first? Either way, Apple no longer cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mescagnus
ian87w said:
Some people keeps saying how much better AMD is. Can anyone suggest AMD laptops? To be honest, I’m not seeing any of them in retail.
Click to expand...
Look at my above previous post, if you need the x86 compatibility (for windows ect) its a good choice.. Other than that.. The M1 is very impressive for a low end 1st gen chip.. Can't wait to see what they have coming up for high end mobile and iMac.
 
djjeff said:
Just saying that 71% increase in performance over 12 year old technology is nothing to write home about.
Click to expand...
You’re comparing a 2010 Mac Pro with a 2020 low-end MacBook Pro. Compare like-for-like and you’ll see a single-core performance in the realm of 5x the earlier machine and multi-core in the realm of 13x the performance. There’s your increase to write home about.

If you only see modest increases in whatever AS chip ends up in the 2021-22 Mac Pro then that’s your time to criticise AS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
You can't win arguments against people that don't listen. There's always a way to make a comparison that makes X look bad.

I mean, these Xeons can't even run my old UltraSparc code as well as my Ultra 500 did! These Intel chips are complete POS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
Too many coordinated benchmark leaks on M1. Let me wait till hit the hands of normal users and wait to hear from them after few weeks of practical use.
 
matt_k said:
<snip>
Actually, no. The throttling effects are important. Geekbench is designed to prevent throttling, but that's only relevant if your real-life usage consists of short bursty loads. Case in point, my i7-1065g7 can easily go over 35W for short periods of time, but that's way beyond sustainable thermal envelope.
Click to expand...
Actually, OP is right. A short benchmark like Geekbench is better for comparing the raw performance of CPUs.

The throttling effects you mention are dependent on the thermals of the system the CPU is installed in. A great CPU installed in a system that has insufficient thermals, thus getting a lower Cinebench score, is still a great CPU. It’s just been let down by a lack of cooling.

An example: compare the Cinebench scores of the M1 MacBook Pro to the fanless M1 MacBook Air.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mescagnus and NetMage
djjeff said:
Just saying that 71% increase in performance over 12 year old technology is nothing to write home about.

Edit: What we're observing with the M1 is the natural progression of technology. As technology advances one expects lower power, higher performing parts / systems.
Click to expand...
Its just the IT industry. Other than SSDs, nothing really has improved over the years. My 2010 Mac Pro 6 core is just as fast as my 2019 i9 iMac with 1080p h.264 Final Cut Pro projects. Only advantage my iMac has is if I want to use HEVC for file size benefits.
 
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