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

[PickUrPoison]

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.

The M1 has a lot of compute power that isn’t recognized by Cinebench, starting with the 11 teraflops of machine learning acceleration, the 2.6 TFLOPS of GPU, or the video encoding performance. There’s a bunch of co-processors that contribute to the incredible overall performance of the M1.

 

[ian87w]

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.

Can you share the Lenovo model? Their local website is not helpful in informing there models they’re selling...

 

[PickUrPoison]

I wasn’t knocking the chip, I was just knocking the naming convention. The article said “It's worth noting that the new M1 Macs are lower performance machines that aren't meant for heavy duty rendering tasks.”

My only point is that if that’s the case, it shouldn’t have pro in the name. It’s still a big leap from the previous base 13 inch MBP, don’t get me wrong.

Do you have any idea how few pros need heavy duty rendering at all? And the ones who do, almost certainly aren’t using a 13” MacBook Pro with sub-20 Watt silicon.

The 13” MBP is plenty Pro for many pros.

 

[Ethosik]

People also are not including the Neural Engine in their comparisons. Things like image stabilization or increasing the image size dips in those 16 cores of the Neural Engine. So if your workflow (which Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut, Affinity Photo are all shown to do) uses any machine learning, it is essentially a 32 core system with the CPU, GPU and Neural Engine all working together. I do not think these benchmarks would use the Neural Engine.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Zen 2 to Zen 3 IPC improvement will erase that single-core advantage while pulling even further ahead on multi-core plus additional gains with 7nm to 5nm node shrink while retaining 100% compatibility with existing software. M1, though, is good enough for grandma with limited software requirements.

I have asked you this before, but still have not gotten an answer, so I will try again:

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

 

[keyofnight]

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.

Thank you for saying this. It seems like people are resisting reality in this thread.

 

[Analog Kid]

I just ran the test and this version doesn't just run a single pass.

Still too short. We won’t know if we’ve fully penalized the M1 for throttling if the benchmark finishes before the sun does.

 

[dahn]

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.”

Are you Gru's mom? If a base $999 MBA with 18 hour battery life that's faster than the $3000 16" 8-core i9 MBP is "Meh," you're either trolling... or you're Gru's mom.

 

[HiRez]

They're going to sell about a dozen 16" MacBook Pros until an M-whatever model comes out.

 

[The Cappy]

Just to be clear, for anyone who has used Cinebench in the past— this is the new version, so the scores have different values from before.

My 10900k in my PC just benched 14,217 multicore. So... M1 is not the PC crusher yet, in Cinebench at least.

Did you really just try to compare your 10900k? Intel's page says that's a 10-core processor with a TDP 125 W. Which means you're cheating. (And how much RAM have you got?)

The article is talking about the benchmarks of a fanless laptop running a chip with only 4 performance cores (and benchmarked on battery) and 8 GB RAM. This is astonishing. To help you with a little perspective...

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

www.anandtech.com

Look toward the bottom of that page, at the relative trajectories of the intel line vs the Apple ARM A-series. They appear already to have crossed at the A14, prior to the M1. Without dramatic changes in trajectory of both of those lines, the situation should be clear. Your machine is only "not crushed" because there's no equivalent processor out yet. AMD's thread ripper has an astounding 30k on the Cinebench. And yes, I'm in envy of those numbers. It blows everything away. But that's with a mind-boggling 64 cores. None of us know what Apple is planning for its Mac Pros but... that's 2 years away. Look again at that graph. Two years away.

 

[HiRez]

I can't think of how this makes Intel look good in any light.
The M1 is also fanless, no?

The M1 is just a chip, the fan is on the machine. In the case of the MacBook Air, there's no fan. The MacBook Pros do have a fan.

 

[Analog Kid]

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...

Actually what makes Apple‘a feat so amazing isn’t that they can carry a house, but that they scaled the ant to human size.

Ants don’t scale, and for a long time people argued that Arms couldn‘t either.

 

[emmiranda]

*Rumors of Apple silicon computers exists*
- Lol good luck with ARM thats only for phone/baby apps not real programs

*Apple silicon computers get announced*
- Lol it wont run my Windows program from 20 years ago that hasn’t been optimized all this time nor I have found an alternative yet and transition would be very hard

*Apple silicon benchmarks show up*
- Lol my 125W desktop chip (not SoC) is still faster good try Apple / I dont care about TDP / Their market share is so small anyway

Apple keeps raising the bar. I want to see comments next year.

I just don’t know why you guys keep trying to convince people that just don’t get it and/or just come to talk how Apple is not doing a good job... on a Mac forum. Just ignore them.

 

[HiRez]

Hopefully all this Apple chips prowess also works its way down to the Apple Watch, a full week of battery life seems like a challenging but somewhat reasonable goal at this point, that would be huge.

 

[Gru]

Are you Gru's mom? If a base $999 MBA with 18 hour battery life that's faster than the $3000 16" 8-core i9 MBP is "Meh," you're either trolling... or you're Gru's mom.

My mom is dead, thanks for asking. They look like great entry level notebooks. From what I've seen on Youtube, the 16" 8-core I9 MBP is still faster though, at least when it comes to filters in FinalCut Pro. Haven't seen other direct comparisons yet.

 

[iKrivetko]

Hopefully all this Apple chips prowess also works its way down to the Apple Watch, a full week of battery life seems like a challenging but somewhat reasonable goal at this point, that would be huge.

It's the other way round really. This efficiency would not have been possible without all the work that they put into the watch.

 

[HiRez]

It's the other way round really. This efficiency would not have been possible without all the work that they put into the watch.

Yes, that's true, but continuing to build more chips, they should get even more experience, and with smaller process sizes it should continue to extend battery life since compute power doesn't seem to be a big barrier in the Apple Watch. Multi-day or week-long battery life is the holy grail for watches, it's the one thing your $25 Timex from 40 years ago still does better.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Compared to something "unmodern" the M1 is only able to achieve a 71% increase in performance.

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

 

[iPadified]

I was in the camp of people hoping this was a sea change, but I'm just not seeing it.

Apple basically made their own 11th gen Intel Core i7 chip, which itself has fallen behind AMD's Ryzen mobile chips.

Battery life may be a game changer for many, and I applaud Apple for that. But performance? I'm just not seeing it. There are other chips from Intel and AMD that are as good or better.

So make some extrapolation and you might be happier. a 10900k yes 10X wattage compared to a M1. Multiply the M1 multithread performance with 10 (power and number of cores roughly scales 1 to 1) and you have a decent number to look forward to (7000) in and iMac Pro/MP.

The key here is the M1 set the bar high for the lowest performing computers.

 

[iPadified]

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.

So you are disappointed that Apple did not start with a Mac Pro level chip? So am I, but the future looks great.

Start a compute heavy job like a several hours of render and your 20h battery life is all of a sudden 2-3h using intel chips.

 

[kurosov]

This is impressive much like first generation Ryzen was. The start of being competitive but not quite there yet.

It took two more generations for AMD to really beat out Intel and then one more to embarrass Intel, it will be interesting to see how Apple silicon matures.

 

[benjo765]

We’re definitely looking at an M1+ chip (or M1x, M1s) in 2021, depending on how fast their chip development team can turnaround. I could see a likely tick-tock chip cycle playing out like this, as they have played with A/AX on the iOS chips. Timeline aside, they are surely aiming to knock performance out of the park, given how impressive the low-power/low-end model chips are proving to be.

Apples game plan hear broadly seems to be to ensure that Macs are not only prettier, more premium and costly, but internally - operationally - undeniably superior in performance as well. Under Intel chips, accomplishing such a differentiation with the rest of the computer market was always a race between a leashed pet and its owner.

 

[Robospungo]

This is impressive much like first generation Ryzen was. The start of being competitive but not quite there yet.

It took two more generations for AMD to really beat out Intel and then one more to embarrass Intel, it will be interesting to see how Apple silicon matures.

Except the M1 is already better than any Intel mobile chip. AMD vs. Apple is the real competition for top spot.

 

[Coconut Bean]

Remember that the M1 has four high-performance cores and four efficiency cores. Comparing it to an octa-core where the cores are running at mostly full performance, the M1 would lag between compared to other octa-core processors.

Lol. This is what you can buy, so this is what will be compared. It's like saying, remember the CPU compared to is on 10nm, if it was on 5nm it would be better.

That's not how it works.

 

[PickUrPoison]

It has precisely zero hours of battery life. Imagine calling a 10-15w laptop chip a failure because it can’t outperform a 10 core Intel desktop chip that draws 125w

And while it may be rated at 125W I think you’ll find it’ll pull more like 200-300W at 100% util., if you let it. And as long as you can cool it.