CPU benchmark
Our processor / CPU comparison helps you to compare two CPUs. We use benchmark results from Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5 as well as the FP32 raw performance (GFLOPS) of the iGPU.
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 A14X Bionic specs and results
- Thread starter Xenobius
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
“They’re real and they’re spectacular.”
I think the results are not based on actual benchmarks, but they are still a realistic guess.
You get the same results by scaling the performance of the A14 to A14X in the same way it scales from the A12 to the A12X.
This will probably be the base configuration. Rumors say that there are multiple configurations (t6001, t6002, t6003) of the A14X going into the first batch of Apple Silicon Macs. I wonder how fast the top configuration will be.
You get the same results by scaling the performance of the A14 to A14X in the same way it scales from the A12 to the A12X.
This will probably be the base configuration. Rumors say that there are multiple configurations (t6001, t6002, t6003) of the A14X going into the first batch of Apple Silicon Macs. I wonder how fast the top configuration will be.
going to be definatly interesting to see where the dice roll on this one. Apple silicon is such an exciting move.
I don't know how legit the source is, but as per the results they seem pretty realistic for an A14X: 2 more IceStorm cores (perf ones) than A14 and 100Mhz higher boost clocks, nothing fancy or strange, just perfect for iPad Pro or the entry Macbook line (MBA/MB)
That 2 extra cores would mean the Air/MB getting quite close to Intel MBP 16 in multicore and beating it in single core. Achieving that keeping a low TDP is really impressive and basically fits on what Apple put on that graphic of energy/performance in the keynote.
Wait how would they have this information? Things like the GPU clock and boost being the same as the CPU makes me skeptical to say the least.
Also if this is true then that means no A series chips in the Mac because it says it does not support virtualization.
Also if this is true then that means no A series chips in the Mac because it says it does not support virtualization.
What do you mean variants of the a14x? They will call it something else if they’re not literally an a14x chip in the Macs. Otherwise it would just be confusing.
You’re totally right. I should have said 3 variants of the A14 SOC made specifically for the Mac. My guess is that these “results” are from base variant that everybody calls “A14X”.
A14X has become a bit of an umbrella term in the rumors to represent the new family of SOC for the first batch of Apple Silicon Macs. Meaning that this new Mac SOC will be similar to an A14X, but come in three different levels of power and TDP.
My (a little optimistic guess) is that we’re gonna see:
A14X-like 8-core for the MacBook Air with around the same performance as the next iPad Pro.
A14X-like 8-core clocked higher and with better GPU for the MacBook Pro 13”.
A14X-like 12-core for the MacBook Pro 16”.
Hopefully the 12-core will also be available on the top end MacBook Pro 13” because it’s the machine I want to buy, but with the additional thermal and battery headroom available on the 16” it would make sense to restrict the most powerful 12-core version with beefy GPU just to the 16”.
That said, who knows how those SOC will actually be called.
Maybe A14X, A14X Pro and A14X Pro Max?
Or maybe an entirely new different naming scheme, as WWDC event video seems to suggest when they say that “Apple is developing a new family of SOC for the Mac”. New family = new naming scheme.
Wouldn’t just be better to call them Icestorm and Firestorm core based SoC’s for the time being?You’re totally right. I should have said 3 variants of the A14 SOC made specifically for the Mac. My guess is that these “results” are from base variant that everybody calls “A14X”.
A14X has become a bit of an umbrella term in the rumors to represent the new family of SOC for the first batch of Apple Silicon Macs. Meaning that this new Mac SOC will be similar to an A14X, but come in three different levels of power and TDP.
My (a little optimistic guess) is that we’re gonna see:
A14X-like 8-core for the MacBook Air with around the same performance as the next iPad Pro.
A14X-like 8-core clocked higher and with better GPU for the MacBook Pro 13”.
A14X-like 12-core for the MacBook Pro 16”.
Hopefully the 12-core will also be available on the top end MacBook Pro 13” because it’s the machine I want to buy, but with the additional thermal and battery headroom available on the 16” it would make sense to restrict the most powerful 12-core version with beefy GPU just to the 16”.
That said, who knows how those SOC will actually be called.
Maybe A14X, A14X Pro and A14X Pro Max?
Or maybe an entirely new different naming scheme, as WWDC event video seems to suggest when they say that “Apple is developing a new family of SOC for the Mac”. New family = new naming scheme.
I think it would be proper to call them "A14-based" Mac SOC until Apple announces the official name, but I kind of understand why everybody talks about "A14X" MacBooks: for most people "A14X" means the same SOC as the iPhone 12 but much more powerful. It's a good approximation to understand what kind of SOC will power the new Apple Silicon Macs.
I don't see why folks think that Geekbench 5 isn't a real benchmark. It's what I use to measure our systems and it seems realistic to me.
Mostly because the number is a score of overall performance, not your specific use case tasks.
That, and the general tendency for people on the internet to argue about everything.
That could be likely, it could also be a leak, but it's very likely it's projected numbers based on what we know about the A14 chips as of now.
Within the next couple weeks we should have some real numbers, and we will have a best case scenario number on Tuesday. ?
I have two main applications which are CPU and RAM intensive and I've found a pretty good correlation between Geekbench 5 and how my programs perform. The other stuff, like email, web browsing, watching videos - I think that performance doesn't matter as much. Zoom? That one tends to be a resource hog.
My new desktop has scores of 1,261/8,251. An AS MacBook Pro 16 is pretty close to that and it would mean that I could run my desktop workload on a laptop. Though I'd still prefer a desktop. I assume that they could add cores to get the numbers even higher for a new Mac Pro.
You should know that CPU-Monkey kind of makes these scores up (probably extrapolates them or something like that) and adjusts them post-release. They did the same for the A14 chip before it was released and the scores, clock speed, etc.. were all off.
I see. I just think it’s a bit confusing. Lot of people think they’re definitely going to use iPad chips in the Mac and I don’t think we know that at all. It’s just rumors and speculation that have taken a a life of their own and become fact in peoples minds.
I still think they meant what they said when they said it’s a new family. I think that means a new naming scheme and no sharing of chips with iOS devices.
Geekbench 5 is valid and is even valid across platforms and OSes despite what some people say. A lot of people just can’t believe “toy” mobile devices are as fast as they are these days, but they are.
I mean there’s a reason Apple is switching, don’t overthink it people.
If the new AS MacBook Pro 16" has a 12-core "A14-based" SOC, it will score approximately 1700/11000. That's iMac Pro level of performance in a laptop.