Except then, Apple was at the mercy of IBM and Motorola for the design and manufacturing of chips. Now Apple designs their own class leading chips and is at no ones mercy.You mean like what the PPC processors didn't have when they migrated to the technically laden debt of the x86 instruction set?
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
No, they don’t control the entire pipeline.
The ARM architecture is licensed.
Uh really? Right here.
I agree with the second point but your first point is what I took issue with in the first place.
Very true because haters can't stand good news about Apple.
My 2010 Mac Pro with a single six core 3.46GHz x64 CPU achieves a Cinebench 23 multi CPU score of 4,376. That's 42% slower than this system. Given my Mac Pro is over 10 years old and the processor technology used within is even older I'm not sure performance is anything to write home about. I would expect over 12 or so years technology to improve.
Apple uses only the ARM instruction set. The chip architecture is their own.
Fair point.
But then we should talk about Qualcomm if we're expanding the topic beyond just laptop and desktop chips, right?
Qualcomm sells more chips than anyone thanks to the billion Android phones sold every year.
Will Apple Silicon still "dominate" if we include ALL mobile phones and tablets?
My point was... Apple-made chips are a fraction of any industry. Though I do agree that they are amazing.
Whoops, good catch on the 40% 👍. I still stand by my initial assessment; it's disingenuous because we simply don't know how cinebench scales have changed between r20 and r23, other than the fact that they do. Cinebench even says not to compare across generations. Simple arithmetic scales don't always translate. (Try doing this in a high quality peer-reviewed journal, I dare ya! I've made similar mistakes in the past, and was ripped by reviewers.)
I don't disagree that throttling effects are important, but I thought the conversation was about the chips themselves, not the machines they are embedded in (I imagine the air having worse R23 and the mini better); hence, Geekbench scores would be the better metric in comparing pure performance -- we still don't have any concrete picture of the M1's TDP; the best we know is something along the lines of 10-18W.
The bottom line is that the M1 appears to be roughly equivalent to the Intel i7-1185G7 (the latest Intel i7 mobile chip manufactured on the 10nm process).
As I said earlier, this is nice effort from Apple, but it's not anything crazy (apart from battery life).
As I said earlier, this is nice effort from Apple, but it's not anything crazy (apart from battery life).
The second point is related to the first. You intentionally ignored the second point in order to misrepresent what I said. In the future do try and be honest when having a discussion with me.
Well, It's Intel that didn't improve much in that time. I don't think you want to compare battery life.
its faster than base 16" mbp in terms of cpu performance. and ur mac pro cpu consumes 80W tdp, M1 is faster than ur cpu and only consumes up to 15-18W. Single core also better on M1
There are a lot of people in these forums who have unrealistic expectations or are simply so misled by the rumors and speculation as to not be able to understand the true sea change that is happening at this moment.
Instead, they are simply looking at performance number x and not seeing it outperform number xxxx and calling it a disaster.
Anyone thinking the M1 is supposed to outdo a 12- to 28-core Xeon is clearly delusional or just screwing around.
There are also a lot of people who think their rig is just the bees knees and pride won’t shut them up when they really should.
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 instruction set is all they have from ARM. I don't know what the terms are, but probably they can do whatever they want with it.
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 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.
M1 is not designed forEntry level...in a Macbook PRO.
I boxed up my iMac Pro and am using this PC build specifically because the iMac Pro didn't reach the ceiling of performance that I needed. So if M1 is going to make me switch back at some point, it will need to far surpass the performance of my power-hungry, hot, desktop PC.
Can you link to these chips for us uninformed? These all run in the same wattage class right?
As someone pointed or it already outperforms the most expensive 13” Intel variant that’s still on sale as well as the base mode 16” variant. That’s without taking into account you can get through two full business days on a single charge.
For an entry level model it’s plenty “pro”.