I don't know why you even compare the two. Compared to something modern, the M1 wins in single-core by itself and probably wins in multi-core / TDP.
(Side note, for readers' reference, your Mac Pro has an X5690 inside.)
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
(Side note, for readers' reference, your Mac Pro has an X5690 inside.)
I'm holding out to see the future offerings when they're actually replacing i7 and i9.
The M1 is replacing i3, i5 offerings, as far as I can tell (i.e., M1's 4 perf cores replacing 4 core version of these chips). AMD comparisons should be limited to their lower offerings (i.e., ignore higher end R5 and all of R7), until apple releases their higher end chips.
Last edited:
Uh no, you forgot your own post, and then contradicted yourself later because you forgot you wrote it.
I didn’t intentionally ignore anything. In fact, I quoted your original short post in its entirety, so it would be pretty hard to miss. Yet you did anyway, even though it was your own post.
Browsing the forum and seeing people say something along the lines of "This person critiquing Apple Silicon has no grounds to do so without hands on experience!" then echoing Apple's performance and battery claims as gospel in the next thread (without extensive hands on experience themselves) is comedy gold!
It is all about the Watts
The M1 integrated graphic is the game changer and the low power draw is great for the environment, soon discrete graphics and mid range graphics will disappear to the loss of other GPU makers dragging there feet to make big money on discrete and mid range gpu,s, reduced electricity consumption and increased battery life is great also. For the average user not sure if single core CPU is needed to increase nowadays using a 7 year old CPU here and surfing the net is fine and watching videos, so most chips are fine for that today, interested to here what other uses single core needs to keep gaining for the average user nowadays?
The M1 integrated graphic is the game changer and the low power draw is great for the environment, soon discrete graphics and mid range graphics will disappear to the loss of other GPU makers dragging there feet to make big money on discrete and mid range gpu,s, reduced electricity consumption and increased battery life is great also. For the average user not sure if single core CPU is needed to increase nowadays using a 7 year old CPU here and surfing the net is fine and watching videos, so most chips are fine for that today, interested to here what other uses single core needs to keep gaining for the average user nowadays?
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.
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
These chips run in comparable laptops. Wattage class only concerns battery life, which I already clearly stated is an advantage of the M1. Performance though... naw. Intel is neck-and-neck while AMD has the M1 beat by a mile, with 5000 series mobile chips due in a few months that will only widen the already large gap.
You got links to the M1 vs the chips you're saying are faster? I'm getting confused by these Cinebench results because they're on different scales. With Geekbench it's clear that they mean version 5 vs 4.
Keep in mind that the AMD laptop cpus have 8 core that run at full power and the tdp is 25 W compared to 4 little and 4 big core on M1 and a TDP of 10-18W
Fair enough, apples naming convention has been a mess for years anyway.
It’s also misleading of the article though to say that it can’t handle it. Pretty sure with those scores it will render video just fine. I had no problem with rendering 4K video on a three year old 15” model with a lower score.
Compared to something "unmodern" the M1 is only able to achieve a 71% increase in performance.
You intentionally ignored what I said in order to misrepresent what I said. That said I have to ask: Do you have some personal interest in Geekbench? You seem awfully protective of it.
I think it is unlikely that a mobile 5000 AMD series will come anywhere near the desktop version. Their mobile 4000 certainly didn't come close to their Zen 2 series.
Ok, and the maxed out MBP only achieves a 100% increase. The low-end 16" only 57%. Moore's Law ended years ago.
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.
You are comparing Apples to Oranges, The M1 chip is a low TDP CPU, its the ENTRY LEVEL chip. The CPU's from Intel and AMD that beat it are much higher TDP chips. You will see the real capabilities of Apples new ARM tech when they release the higher TDP chips next year.
If we look at what the M1 is replacing, the R3 3300x is the highest cpu on those lists in a similar core class (albeit in a desktop offering at 65W). Those claiming that M1 is beating everything are overshooting. But within its' intended class? It looks to be doing quite well.
Edit: 3300x is desktop cpu
Last edited:
Can you provide an example? I don’t really follow Windows offerings (other than ThinkPads as I source them for work) so I’m interested what specific machines are out there that are comparable?
I was thinking about that...
Apple could right now replace the two low-end 21.5" iMacs (dual core and quad core) with M1 chips, and they could add a 27" iMac with M1 as well. I think it's obvious that they just cannot exchange all models at the same time, so this could happen say February.
By that time I'd hope they have an 8+4 chip ready, maybe with more GPU cores, possibly in a slightly bigger package with up to 32GB RAM. That would _not_ be "truly powerful". They might put this into the MacMini and MBP 13", and definitely into the MBP 16" and both 21.5" and 27" iMac. They would keep an Intel 8 core MBP 16" and an Intel 10 core iMac.
And then a few months later "truly powerful". 16+4 cores, 24 GPU cores, separate memory up to 128 GB etc. etc. At that point there will be very few Intel machines left.
I see, multi-core is close to the i7-10850H. Less familiar with AMD's naming scheme but oh well.
Though it's way up high on the single-core list. Only the fattest few desktop CPUs beat it.
The 4 low level cores should impact multicore, but still can't rightfully be compared to an 8 core processor.
There's no "should," it depends on what your goal is. For multi-core, I care about performance/TDP because it vaguely tells me what the high-end AS chips will do. Though I care more about single-core.