Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Geekbench 5 Released With Improved Benchmark Tests, Dark Mode Support, and More

I repeat myself:
A13 will be a nice processor, quite possible the best, but nowhere near quantum leaps over the competition.
[doublepost=1567530576][/doublepost]And, please, do not compare it with x86 ones or the gpu with console quality. Or nvidias, or radeons.
Something interesting has catched my attention, the memory bandwidth for the A13. That is the first place to look for performance increases. And.... Better let you read about it. I have my own conclusions. My opinion is based on A13 geekbench 4 leaks and if they are real.
 
realtuner said:
Logical fallacy. Apples decision not to sell their processors to anyone else has nothing to do with how good the A12 would be in servers (or other applications).
Click to expand...
As a fan of Anandtech you should be aware that they never use Geekbench for comparing the scores for devices on different platforms because these comparisons are pointless (due to the nature of Geekbench).
 
Coffee_Time said:
If that's the case, why we don't see the a12 in servers, data centers, supercomputers, etc given that it consumes waaaay les power? Ask yourself!

Regarding the arm thing... View attachment 855903
Click to expand...

The answer for your first question is quite simple. There simply isn’t enough financial insensitive to outweigh the risks of migration for other company to do so. (Apple certainly isn’t interested in making those) Chip design is very expensive. Scaling up a design isn’t just bundle in more of them. Server grade hardware requiring even more verification. Qualcomm tried to make their own server chip before Broadcom decided to attempt a hostile takeover on them causing the project to shutdown. With AMD now rise back to the throne, there simply aren’t any space left for a third players.

Edit 2: Building server chip business might have risk associated with convincing clients to switch platform. Supercomputer doesn’t. I forgot to mention Japan an Europe are both planning building their exaflops scale supercomputers using ARM. Resulting NVIDIA partnering with ARM.
https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/...-enabling-new-path-to-exascale-supercomputing

For your second point since you like citing Wikipedia,
DA5RrYj.jpg
(Edit 1: Since this post has been brought up down below. I would like to clarify that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source in anyway. I brought this up to mock his lazy effort of citing Wikipedia. Concrete source from ARM themselves detailing Architecture license is in my next post down below.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: realtuner
I am always amused when people say things like "Synthetic benchmarks are crap and useless."

It's like saying "I hate Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood."

Because the response is the same to both statements, which is: "Apparently it wasn't made for you."

I use Geekbench to make decisions about if I should upgrade from one CPU to another. It may not be perfect, but if I see a 15% improvement for several hundred dollars, I don't upgrade.

And I use it most extensively on PCs that I game on. I tweak the OC settings and run Geekbench to see how much change there is. I also use other tools that measure temperature so I can find that sweet spot where I get the most performance without generating too much heat.

So, for phones, it is probably only really useful to get a general sense of how much the next CPU is faster generally. On other platforms it is quite useful, understanding what it can and can't do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSapient and topgunn
realtuner said:
Apple DOES NOT use ARM architecture. Samsung and Qualcomm do that (using ARM cores like the A76 or A53). Apple designs 100% custom cores (micro-architecture). They have a license from ARM to use the ARMv8 instruction set architecture (ISA).

Only BS is your post which shows a complete lack of understanding of "architecture".
Click to expand...
"Apple DOES NOT use ARM architecture"
"They have a license from ARM to use the ARMv8 instruction set architecture (ISA)"
ermmm.. OK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple-designed_processors

Here's what Apple's A12X Bionic chip is based on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMv8

But keep telling yourself "Apple made it"
 
  • Like
Reactions: radio893fm and kkk123kkk123kkk
falainber said:
As a fan of Anandtech you should be aware that they never use Geekbench for comparing the scores for devices on different platforms because these comparisons are pointless (due to the nature of Geekbench).
Click to expand...

Correct. They write their own custom software (benchmarks) to do in-depth testing. Ian Cutress has a doctorate from Oxford in Computational Chemistry. Andrei Frumusanu used to work for Imagination Technologies as an engineer specializing in power measurement in chips/devices.

So when they say Apple processors are far ahead of everyone else in terms of power consumption and performance, you can believe them.

Although it's interesting that their own extensive testing aligns fairly closely with Geekbench results. Take that any way you like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickName99
kkk123kkk123kkk said:
The answer for your first question is quite simple. There simply isn’t enough financial insensitive to outweigh the risks of migration for other company to do so. (Apple certainly isn’t interested in making those) Chip design is very expensive. Scaling up a design isn’t just bundle in more of them. Server grade hardware requiring even more verification. Qualcomm tried to make their own server chip before Broadcom decided to attempt a hostile takeover on them causing the project to shutdown. With AMD now rise back to the throne, there simply aren’t any space left for a third players.

For your second point since you like citing Wikipedia,
DA5RrYj.jpg
Click to expand...
These cores MUST COMPLAIN FULLY WITH THE ARM ARCHITECTURE.
Also, you do realize that here are so many fanboys saying that Apple has nothing to do with arm, yet from your quote things are clear like water?
Fully means just like Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin.
[doublepost=1567533220][/doublepost]Another SIMPLE question, judging by the arguments from pro geekbench and synthetic benchmarks:
What about ANTUTU?
 
Last edited:
Coffee_Time said:
These cores MUST COMPLAIN FULLY WITH THE ARM ARCHITECTURE.
Fully means just like Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin.
Click to expand...
Architecture in the same way Intel and AMD both comply to X86, so the same code can run on both CPUs. I find a better chart directly from ARM. The case is closed.
1.PNG
 
kkk123kkk123kkk said:
Architecture in the same way Intel and AMD both comply to X86, so the same code can run on both CPUs. I find a better chart directly from ARM. The case is closed.
1.PNG
Click to expand...
It's anandtechs chart.
Tell me what you feel about ANTUTU.
Also answer me
You do realize that here are users saying that Apple has nothing to do with arm, yet from your quote things are clear like water?
 
Anyway, HAVE FUN PAYING the marketing geekbench for the iphone11, cuz I am having watching others!
[doublepost=1567534020][/doublepost]
kkk123kkk123kkk said:
From ARM’s presentation slides
Click to expand...
Yes, from that slides we can put Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin in the same boat with A13. What's hard to understand? Why the androids needs to be similar and the A13 different? Why not all 4 different? Because they aren't! Point! They are more similar than different!
 
GIZBUG said:
Does anyone really base their purchases off a benchmark?

Lets see some tests for what people really are waiting for, to justify spending money on a mediocre iPhone upgrade: better, longer lasting battery.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think apps like this are for?

You may not believe it, but there is a non-zero population of engineers, ex-engineers, and wannabe-engineers, whose primary interest in new hardware is the CORES they contain. And an app like GB is generally the best window we have into those new cores simply because it's easy to run, so it's easy for reviewers to publish the numbers.
 
Coffee_Time said:
These cores MUST COMPLAIN FULLY WITH THE ARM ARCHITECTURE.
Fully means just like Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin.
Click to expand...
Says who? Do you have a copy of the agreement between Apple and ARM to show us?

Apple doesn't sell their processors to third parties, so why would Apple need to pass software compatibility tests? Even if Apple did have to pass these compatibility tests, ARMv8 is only a subset of the entire ISA that Apple uses (which is ARMv8 plus their own Apple-specific extensions). So it could still pass while having additional features beyond vanilla ARMv8.

Coffee_Time said:
Yes, from that slides we can put Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin in the same boat with A13. What's hard to understand? Why the androids needs to be similar and the A13 different? Why not all 4 different? Because they aren't! Point! They are more similar than different!
Click to expand...
You just don't get it. At all.

Does AMD use Intel architecture to build their processors? Do you even know the difference between AMDs latest processor and Intels latest processors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickName99
Coffee_Time said:
Yes, from that slides we can put Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin in the same boat with A13. What's hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Except they aren’t in the same boat. All three companies you mentioned have all move back to license Cortex (e.g. A76 and A53 in their current flagship chips) from ARM in recent years to reduce R&D cost. beside Huawei which due to US ban very likely can’t use the upcoming A77 core, the other two will most likely continue do so.

And I don’t really care what other’s definitions of what a Snapdragons is. It is just a line of SoC Qualcomm makes. It isn’t relevant to the current discussion, and it certainly doesn’t change the fact that Apple has migrated away from ARM’s reference design since 2012 and never went back.
 
Last edited:
Coffee_Time said:
These cores MUST COMPLAIN FULLY WITH THE ARM ARCHITECTURE.
Also, you do realize that here are so many fanboys saying that Apple has nothing to do with arm, yet from your quote things are clear like water?
Fully means just like Snapdragon, Exynos and Kirin.
[doublepost=1567533220][/doublepost]Another SIMPLE question, judging by the arguments from pro geekbench and synthetic benchmarks:
What about ANTUTU?
Click to expand...

(a) I've no idea what your FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ARM ARCHITECTURE means to you but
- Apple has a HUGE voice in what gets added to future ARMv8. This is not just speculation, it has been confirmed by ex-Apple people. One can't be sure, but it's probably the case that PAC and MTE were suggested by Apple. Things like SVE and TME are more interesting --- who knows where the support for those came from?

- There are certainly Apple mods to their cores at the supervisor level that are NOT part of ARMv8. For example APRR. I've no idea if you'd consider that compliant or not.

(b) Antutu is a SYSTEM benchmark, it is not a CPU benchmark. It solves a different problem.
Antutu is basically useless for the task the GB performs, namely giving you some insight into your CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkk123kkk123kkk
realtuner said:
Says who? Do you have a copy of the agreement between Apple and ARM to show us?

Apple doesn't sell their processors to third parties, so why would Apple need to pass software compatibility tests? Even if Apple did have to pass these compatibility tests, ARMv8 is only a subset of the entire ISA that Apple uses (which is ARMv8 plus their own Apple-specific extensions). So it could still pass while having additional features beyond vanilla ARMv8.


You just don't get it. At all.

Does AMD use Intel architecture to build their processors? Do you even know the difference between AMDs latest processor and Intels latest processors?
Click to expand...
DA5RrYj.jpg

Says him. Read the posts above.
[doublepost=1567535912][/doublepost]Ok, guys, Geekbench is OK, but ANTUTU, not OK.
I'm leaving this thread. Have fun with your A13 CyberBionyk.
The truth is in the memory bandwidth of the IMC of the cpu.
Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
realtuner said:
Correct. They write their own custom software (benchmarks) to do in-depth testing. Ian Cutress has a doctorate from Oxford in Computational Chemistry. Andrei Frumusanu used to work for Imagination Technologies as an engineer specializing in power measurement in chips/devices.

So when they say Apple processors are far ahead of everyone else in terms of power consumption and performance, you can believe them.

Although it's interesting that their own extensive testing aligns fairly closely with Geekbench results. Take that any way you like.
Click to expand...
Their own tests actually use all sorts of industry standard benchmarks, just not the Geekbench.
 
Coffee_Time said:
If that's the case, why we don't see the a12 in servers, data centers, supercomputers, etc given that it consumes waaaay les power? Ask yourself!
Click to expand...

(a) Apple makes the A12. They currently have no incentive to sell it to anyone else. So that's part of the answer.

(b) The A12 is a CORE it is not a SoC. It's a very impressive core, but to be relevant to most server usage, it needs to be part of a more appropriate SoC. This means some obvious things (more cores, more memory channels, more IO channels) and some less obvious things (more effort put into hypervisor performance. There WAS a hypervisor prior to the A10, and it was used [not very much, but used, to provide KPP memory protection]. It's unclear whether the hypervisor is still there in A10 et seq; and a server hypervisor needs not just to be present but to be performant for various tasks page table modifications, which will be a much lower performance priority on the phone.) Likewise the NoC needs to scale. LLC probably needs reservation primitives. Things like that.

(c) Before a server SoC, a PC SoC would make sense. That would at least get Apple started on larger dies, more memory channels, more cores, IO infrastructure, hypervisor, ...

(d) There probably ARE a few A12s in some Apple data centers, used to capture statistics and performance profile, to see where the core is weak for the purposes of future server usage.

BUT new Apple understands (unlike most tech companies) that it doesn't need to rush, and that the downsides of rushing are mostly larger than the upsides. It ships things when they are ready (more so with HW than SW... but even SW is getting better), not to get analysts excited.
And so there will be a progression here. First Apple ARM Macs. Then ARM server cores in Apple data centers. Then, maybe, at some point, visibility of those ARM server cores (perhaps Apple will rent them out to Apple devs, like AWS?)
But until that last stage happens, you won't have a clue. Do you even know how many Apple data centers there are, and where they are? If not, then how do you imagine you know what HW is in them, now or three years from now?
 
WTF happened to this thread?

Yeezus

Hey Geekbench 5 is out just fyi..

bitch bitch bitch bitch complain complain complain knowitall knowitall knowitall insult insult insult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aksala
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