While new ones are still being added to regular users MacBookand Mac mini with the M1 chip, some developers and reviewers are already lucky enough to have the first computers with their own processor from Applu in modern history are already being tested. Thanks to this, the GeekBench results show the results of all newly introduced machines with the M1 processor. Their performance per core is simply incredible. Even the cheapest and most ordinary MacBook Air namely with the M1 processor it achieves 1313 performance points in GeekBench. I myself have the latest iMac with the Intel i9 processor in the highest configuration with 128 GB RAM on my desk and even then the measurement result per core is lower than in the case of MacBook Air with M1.
iMac 27″ 5K s 3,6 GHz 10-core Intel Core i9 of the tenth generation, Radeon Pro The 5700 XT with 16GB of GDDR6 memory and a 1TB SSD and 128GB of RAM only scores 1182 points per core. It's unbelievable what's going on. Applu with its processors. Especially in a situation where we still have to take into account the fact that GeekBench can only be run on the M1 processor via an "emulator" Rosetta 2, which is estimated to reduce maxThe machine's maximum performance is 78 to 79%. If we take this into account, then the performance not affected by emulation should be at the level of 1662 points.
The best in performance right now Apple with the M1 processor offers, it is then Mac Mini, which achieves a score of 1741 points. We are still talking about a computer that is 5 times cheaper than the aforementioned iMac with i9. It is also clear that Apple computers like the iMac, iMac Pro or even Mac Pro It will be equipped with processors that are significantly more powerful than those labeled M1. ProFor now, only the less powerful computers from M1 have received Appyou. Pro iMac Pro It should then not be a problem to achieve more than double the score in GeekBench compared to the same machine with an i9.
- Newly introduced Apple You can buy products for example at Alge, Mobil Pohotovosti or u iStores
Gallery
some such tables already fell here on the first day. So what's new? :) … We all know that, but the question is how to deal with the flow of customers who bought a Maca in the summer :D
Yes, it's nice, but it's important to note that it's a 1-core test. If you take it as a whole, the iMac has more cores and more cores run at a higher frequency than this one. mac mini, which has 4 habitsone cores and 4 power-saving cores.
Of course, there are also multi-core tests in Geekbench, where the M1 is the fastest. Macbooku, the file depends on how relevant Geekbench is today
Certainly? It almost looks like the M1 is a tragedy glorified by Applu to heaven with the performance of a 100 year old intel i5 4 core... And that is cinebench authority and a very real test very recognized.
Vid test M1 in Cinebench R23 pure tragedy
The published Cinebench M1 test is already confirmed to be fake. There is also a different processor frequency. The reality will be somewhere at the level of mobile Ryzen. The real tests will be once the M1 reaches customers.
Do you mean the Cinebench test A12Z (What some media pass as M1) where it compares to the latest 4C Tiger Lake from Intel?
I think that the benchmark never fully describes the performance in real use. We have already seen a few frauds, when the performance increased if the system recognized the wireless benchmark (I do not claim that it did this Apple). We will see how the experience will be used in real life.
I'm VERY CURIOUS about REAL :)
Here is a real shot of mac vs pc.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-performance-PC-Workstation-vs-Mac-Pro-2019-1719/
Sorry, but mac is not faster. See also other tests. Let's wait for the performance in real use.
on the other hand, you're comparing a processor with a 5-year-old architecture made with roughly the same old manufacturing process (14nm) with a processor that has a completely new architecture and is made with a 5nm manufacturing process (which Intel never dreams of). too bad he wants to Apple 8 extra for another 6000GB of RAM. 8GB is embarrassingly low in 2020.
classic 8 GB yes, it is small, but these 8 GB will be directly in the M1 processor, I personally think that the 8 GB will be at least 2x-3x faster than if the 8 GB module was especially on the board, that is apple offer with M1 max16 GB will probably have some justification, why would the MBP give the option to purchase / increase the RAM to 16 GB? I would rather wait for real tests of 8 GB vs 16 GB
Certainly, again the trolling from 8 GB of ram appIs 8 GB actually much more than the competition's XNUMX GB?
Unfortunately, processor performance isn't everything.
No, but without it there will be no powerful computer.
Wait for real-world tests, this is just a guess... these benchmarks will boost the processor for a few minutes and...onec. But it doesn't tell us anything about how it will behave under long-term high load for hours.
Of course it's nonsense that🙄 maybe
Apple for vs. chromeI believe that apple It really has an incredible advantage, but comparing the Mko to the i9 😂😂 made me laugh, and to say that the graphics on the chip are more powerful than a dedicated graphics card, the author must have been very out of it. applu and I'm a fan of theirs and I have de facto all the equipment from them at work and at home, you can always hear screams into the void when new products are introduced, but let's wait for real tests, it takes a while and we'll be more sensible right away, and besides, I personally don't care about consumption, I really care about performance.
Your tribe must be proud of you
These tests just annoy everyone. I would ban all those benchmarks!
I hope you all have been driving for how much it costs Roman on the iMac desk. I definitely did it.
: DDDDDDDD
😂👌🏻🎯
When nest8gb is not important at all how fast the 8gb is... It's just not enough for some things. I'm not discounting the M1 at all... I think it's a great step towards being the third real CPU player. However, I would wait for the next generation with other componenty from 202x. 8gb RAM and 265gb SSD is sad…
And in a week there will be an article claiming the opposite. Then a week of silence and then an article of the same type and it will be repeated like this for the next few weeks. First make a show of how great it is and then start writing about the problems and how you apple he boiled again with nothing. Yeah, yeah… by the sky, we know that.
There are rather interesting tests on anandtech.com, where they tested on Mac Mini M1 and the performance of Rosetta 2 (x64 emulation).. not bad, but definitely not "intel" Intel.. but for BFU it is enough for the rich.
BTW, 8GB of RAM will be just as small on an M1 CPU if needed as it is on an Intel CPU! ARM is not a miracle architecture, as some people here think..
I have an M1 mini 16 GB RAM and where Win on various builds and environments ate up some program, e.g. 4 RAM from the system, then M1 mini It only uses 1 GB of RAM. I'm pleasantly surprised at how much demanding stuff I want from it, and that it handles it very well. The same performance would definitely cost me about the same on an Intel platform. miniAt least 30 thousand more and 1000 hours more nerves. And God forbid they start optimizing for games, which is already happening. ProI'm so sorry. Windows, but tooneEverything works fine for me without any problems.