Why is it pissing on everyone's parade to point out what may not be a good comparison? I swear reading many of these posts it's as if Apple has some magical (M1) secret no other processor designers are privy to.
Last edited:
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.
Apple Silicon M1 MacBook Pro Earns 7508 Multi-Core Score in Cinebench Benchmark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know that AMD has been unable to deliver these mobile chips in large quantities. Hard to buy a machine with one and the ones that exist are low-end plastic junk.
We do not know the power envelope. Nobody at Apple has ever confirmed anything. People keep pointing to an interview where the numbers 10-15 W were mentioned, but if you actually watch the interview, those numbers are never actually confirmed.
I'm all for waiting. But in the meantime we should be honest that the M1 is competitive with Intel Tiger Lake and quite a bit behind AMD Ryzen 4000 mobile chips in multicore performance, with 5000 series coming out in 2021.
Actually M1 is 30% faster in single core than the 4600U, and compatible with everything. Rosetta2 is amazing!
That 60% difference in wattage is likely more important than you're giving credit for (also, scales on R20 to R23 are not identical, so it's more than a bit disingenuous to postulate here), not to mention the wattage on the M1 includes the entire SoC.
Additionally, for a pure look CPU, not including any throttling effects, Geekbench is likely the better benchmark, where M1 does handily outperform the 4800U.
Finally, these are Apple's entry level chips -- a fairer comparison against AMD's higher performance laptop chips isn't available, yet. Those will be available likely in the next 6 months.
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn't count.  | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6x 3.70 GHz (4.60 GHz) HT | 1572 |  |
 | Intel Core i7-1185G7 4x 3.00 GHz (4.80 GHz) HT | 1538 | |
| | Intel Core i7-1165G7 4x 2.80 GHz (4.70 GHz) HT | 1504 | |
 | Intel Core i9-10900K 10x 3.70 GHz (5.30 GHz) HT | 1418 | |
| | Intel Core i9-10900KF 10x 3.70 GHz (5.30 GHz) HT | 1418 | |
| | AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16x 3.50 GHz (4.70 GHz) HT | 1371 | |
| | Intel Core i9-10850K 10x 3.60 GHz (5.20 GHz) HT | 1367 |
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
For reference, my 2017 Core m3-7Y32 MacBook gets 606/1458 in Cinebench R23, so its multi core is about the same performance as M1’s single core. 
*only in Mac computers made by Apple... which are less than 10% of the industry.
Apple isn't selling these chips to anyone else in the industry.
Dell, HP, Lenovo and others will have to be satisfied with chips from Intel and AMD...
Time to upgrade. Ryzen 5950X does 28,641 multi-core on Cinebench 23.
"Compatible with everything" That's unverified and we don't yet know what the performance will be like on many compat. apps
That’s like saying Intel can’t compete with Intel because an i5 isn’t as powerful as an i9.
Wait until Apple releases their i9.
I know, but at the same time, the power envelope of the M1 seems to be lower than Intel’s 15W TDP in the previous MacBook Air given the 50% increased battery life when running a web browser. Of course, the lack of a fan and perhaps a more efficient display could also factor here.
Whats the TDP on that Tiger lake CPU? If I was the CEO of Intel I would be a bit concerned at what the next 12-24 months will bring.
So take a cloud Windows pc, problem solved. And seems Parallels is working for Windows support, or just keep your Intel one for the next years.
And no offense but only Zen3 and that R7 4800U is nice, previous versions where not that impressive. Apple made this call years ago when AMD sucked really hard.
Also don't underestimate Intel, if they get their fab in place or perhaps use TSMC i'm sure they hit back.
I'm happy with this performance and all other things possible now which weren't before with Intel or AMD.
It's like F1, you won't win with a customer engine, you need your own factory engine
Yes, that's very disappointing. I think part of it is that for historical reasons intel still has much stronger relationship with device manufacturers, and somehow managed to cement itself in flagship products.
4600U is slightly faster in multicore, but significantly slower in single core.
They don't, they just ditched the technical debt that is the x86 instruction set and didn't worry about compatibility with third-party hardware either. This is what happens when you control the entire pipeline.