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

Robospungo said:
People were comparing the M1 to desktop chips last week when geekbench results started to leak. It’s clear now that the M1 can’t hang with desktop processors and Apple has a LONG way to go to be the market leader in performance.

Currently: AMD > Intel > Apple
Click to expand...
How can you compare M1 to desktop chips to beginning with? These are Laptops and Mac mini. There are way more powerful than their previous counterparts, They are also beating some desktop class chips from couple years (which even from couple years is an achievement when we don't forget that M1 is a laptop chip)

Your comparison is flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage, Vazor, swerve147 and 3 others
beppedessi said:
How many threads has the M1? Because the i9 in the Macbook Pro 16" has 16 threads and this is why it has a score around 8500 points. My impression is that the M1 scores almost 8000 points with "just" 8 threads! Or Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
True...but hyper threading, even on Cinebench, only adds around +25% to the the performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mojo1019
Do you have to keep doing this in every thread? It gets boring. Either say something productive or don't say anything at all maybe?
Or is your ego scratched from past few months that you now have to come in every thread to compensate?

I think M1 is amazing but its not holy grail. For low end chip its truly astonishing what Apple managed to get but the real test will be with the more Performance and GPU focused M1X (or however they call it) so I literally cannot wait to see what "Lifuka" will bring to the table. I almost bought 27" iMac but after this I'm set to wait till next year for the AS update as it bodes well that we will get some truly amazing performance. On top of that, the software will catch up too so it will probably be a great time to update. I guess next WWDC we will find out more and we might even hear Apple talking about Windows support as they mentioned that they are "aware" the need so it maybe was a hint that they might have some sort of solution for those that need it but for now we are just reading tea leaves here.

For me, it doesn't matter but I know some need this so lets hope everyone is happy after all.

The question mark for me is the GPU now as the M1 delivered already (especially given the low level factor). I'm excited for next year - this seems to be much better transition than the last one (judging so far - my opinion might change but for now they surprised us pleasantly)

;-)


cmaier said:
Now waiting for all the normal complainers to say it’s meaningless because cinebench is too short a test.
Click to expand...
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and Mojo1019
iAlexandre said:
How can you compare M1 to desktop chips to beginning with? These are Laptops and Mac mini. There are way more powerful than their previous counterparts, They are also beating some desktop class chips from couple years (which even from couple years is an achievement when we don't forget that M1 is a laptop chip)

Your comparison is flawed.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t my comparison.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: mymacrumorsname
Rigby said:
Well, that remains to be seen. I haven't seen any systematic power consumption tests yet, but I think Tiger Lake is also quite efficient. But M1 will probably be slightly better due to the smaller process node.
Click to expand...
I am very interested in the reviews of these new systems. Given the low price I've almost pulled the trigger and purchased one myself but just haven't done so yet.
 
I wonder what the result will be once he’s running the latest software and the Mac finishes indexing and all the background tasks that occurs during the initial setup. - seems he’s just removed from box, plugged in and ran cinebench to be the first
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid and Vazor
Side note: Did Apple actually say M was for Mac in the video? If not, maybe M actually stands for Mobile? The MacBook Pro 16" could have an M1X and maybe the desktops could have D1 on the iMac and D1X on the iMac Pro and Mac Pro? I know the Mac Mini got the M1 but I think it has always used mostly mobile parts.

mikethebigo said:
Hahaha suck it my 16" MBP still has a tiny bit better prolonged multicore performance

please just let me have this so I don't buy a new Mac today
Click to expand...

And it's also burning up our laps. But yeah, don't do it. I'm going to upgrade to the second or third generation of the high performance chips. By then there will be a lot more third party software support, fewer bugs, and even nuttier performance with M2X or M3X running most everything native.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajfahey
theroaringbadger said:
Does every pro need crazy high end video editing graphics Vm etc. Like come on. High end pros are not the only ones. There are freelancers, business professionals, writers, small time video editors or producers and need I go on. It’s not that hard to understand
Click to expand...
I would expect a professional system to be more capable than a "consumer" oriented system despite who uses it. To call an entry level system a "professional" system seems foolish. I agree with the OP, MacBook would be suitable.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: NetMage
iAlexandre said:
How can you compare M1 to desktop chips to beginning with? These are Laptops and Mac mini. There are way more powerful than their previous counterparts, They are also beating some desktop class chips from couple years (which even from couple years is an achievement when we don't forget that M1 is a laptop chip)

Your comparison is flawed.
Click to expand...
Wait till he finds out they run at a wattage less than his USB fan.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: zapm, 2Stepfan, mymacrumorsname and 6 others
I wonder how long the fanless Air and the Pro (which I think has active cooling) can go before thermal throttling kicks in, and what the level of performance is at a steady state after that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mojo1019
johnalan said:
and to have a faster multi core, you have to go with maxed out 16.

This is insanely fast.
Click to expand...

Yes, when you compare it with what intel has to offer, it's great. But Intel is currently far, far behind AMD in multicore performance on 15-25W laptop chips. So if just being better than intel was the goal, Apple could have gone with R7 4800U, which would mean lot less hassle with porting software and giving up Windows compatibility. For some people this transition is going to be very painful, so I'm really hoping for something that doesn't just beat Intel (that is a dead horse already), but also AMD, with a significant margin to make it worth the hassle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swerve147 and John Calvin Young
dannyyankou said:
But it's called MacBook... Pro

I get it that's it's the base model, but they should just call it "MacBook".
Click to expand...
There is more to a MacBook Pro than the chipset. Speakers, Microphone, Brighter Screen, Battery Life, Touch Bar (for those who like it). These are all features I favour in a laptop.

I'm a photographer and don't do video. This MBP would suit me very well but for overkill, I'll still wait for the upper end model. Meanwhile my 2014 MBP is still hanging on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and Slix
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...
I don’t understand what you are saying. You thought the bottom of the line processor found in a $699 mac mini should blow away a Mac Pro chip?

This chip blows away the chip it was replacing. The chip in the 16” MBP and high end 13” MBP, when those are converted to ARM, will blow away the chips they replace (Apple has indicated they may still call that chip an “M1,” but it won’t be the same chip as the chip running the benchmark today).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage, Vazor, swerve147 and 5 others
zakarhino said:
Performance numbers like these stopped being relevant to me a while ago upon the realization that without any real investment into making faster software experiences most of this performance is irrelevant unless doing something specific like rendering or compiling.

macOS has fundamentally been the same since its debut as OS X. For the love of God, Apple, please do something groundbreaking in the software experience department.
Click to expand...
Kinda agree. it's of passing interest but it honestly doesn't matter to me if something takes 10 seconds rather than 13 seconds to render. Big deal. BUT the specs are impressive and its exciting that consumer models are getting innovation first this time ( there's a reason of course). But I don't want Apple to go down the path of the old "Burn baby burn" days of trying to sell Macs on the basis of comparing processor performance. The Average consumer doesn't give a damn. I mean when's the last time a consumer worried about the processor in their phone? Like you said it has to translate into something that adds value to the experience. I am liking Big Sur though. Nice refresh of OS X.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zakarhino and OdT22
djjeff said:
Cinebench is worlds better than Geekbench. But one must realize it is but one benchmark. Relying on a single benchmark is foolish. The best benchmark is the one testing the application(s) you use.
Click to expand...
Cinebench is not better than Geekbench. Geekbench is a multi-faceted test that tracks similarly to SPEC. Cinebench only does one single task, which is to measure how well a machine would perform in Cinema4D, so its results are less generalizable than Geekbench’s. The main advantage of Cinebench is that it takes a longer time to run, so it’s easier to see throttling effects.

tl;dr:

Geekbench is a better general all around benchmark than Cinebench, but Cinebench runs longer so it can factor in CPU throttling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and Vazor
matt_k said:
Yes, when you compare it with what intel has to offer, it's great. But Intel is currently far, far behind AMD in multicore performance on 15-25W laptop chips. So if just being better than intel was the goal, Apple could have gone with R7 4800U, which would mean lot less hassle with porting software and giving up Windows compatibility. For some people this transition is going to be very painful, so I'm really hoping for something that doesn't just beat Intel (that is a dead horse already), but also AMD, with a significant margin to make it worth the hassle.
Click to expand...
If Geekbench benchmarks are to be believed, then AMD is far, far behind apple in multicore performance on 15-25W laptop chips. Apple could have gone with less powerful/efficient chips such as R7 4800U, but they chose to do one better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
lifeinhd said:
This is pure speculation on my part, but I think Apple is going to add a second M1 chip to the 16" MBP and iMac (and possibly the higher end 13"). I could see them adding even more (4x chips???) to the iMac Pro/Mac Pro.

  • Would give it the extra performance needed to differentiate it from the low end
  • They appear to have the thermal envelope for it, at least on the 16". Could probably make room for it on 13" if needed by sacrificing some of the already super-great battery life.
  • Should enable better GPU performance, meaning support for 2x more external displays
  • Would enable >16GB of ram, probably
  • Means they don't need to develop yet another chip for these products
  • Would explain the delay
It just makes so much sense I almost can't see them not doing it. Then again, they could just crank up the clock speed a little and call it good :confused:
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make much sense to me. I suspect what they will do for the iMac and MacBook Pro is release a different chip with 8 performance cores and a higher end GPU, but will stick with only 4 efficiency cores.

And I suspect it will support 64 GB LPDDR5 RAM.
 
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