Those events tend to happen during my workday, so no I didn't really watch the event.
I fully expect production (or production-test-run) systems to be in the hands of selected folks in advance of release. That was the point of my post.
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: benchmarks and review for Mac Mini, MacBook Air and MBP 13 M1 and comparison with other brands
- Thread starter Henk van Ess
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I fully expect production (or production-test-run) systems to be in the hands of selected folks in advance of release. That was the point of my post.
Got that now, yes. Sorry. Btw, it are over 20 unique users who posted the benchmarks.
Apple Developer Platform, yes. Same naming as they gave the prior transition kit for the identifier
most of the first responses to the event were: where are the specs, what a marketing blurb of apple... Seems they even undersold it
The event was targeting the average customer, and I think the marketing was appropriate. "It's five times faster" is a much more convincing message to the average Joe the hobby family photo editor than a "it's Geekbench score is one 9000!". Not to mention that posting actual benchmarks scores will open them to multiple attacks in case the third party reviewers would measure something different.
Specs, scores and frequencies will be soon released by multiple independent reviewers who are targeting nerds and benchmark chasers.
Fixed that error, specs of MBA are now in https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...marks-lets-analyse-this.2267377/post-29216801
Some of the tech press who already dismissed the M1 will try to save their face now
Probably a reviewer will start to nag that his Intel based WordPerfect clone is 5% slower in Rosetta 2 and that it is now impossible to use an Encryption-dongle from 1982 at that Apple really missed the mark I do will miss the 2 extra ports though.
Last edited:
Is it not entirely possible that Apple have done these tests in the hope that people will see them before next week?
There has been an incredible amount of negativity and bad press over the vague information given at Tuesdays event, and these benchmarks are surely going to ease the nerves of early adopters.
There has been an incredible amount of negativity and bad press over the vague information given at Tuesdays event, and these benchmarks are surely going to ease the nerves of early adopters.
I don't think so, because a. this posting won't go viral and b. the real verdict will already be in next week
I've included a poll at beginning of posting to find out if I am the only one who is jumping up and down.
So what other benchmark would you be interested in, if any, besides sustained load?
People like you tubers tech already have these machines that also benchmark (no wonder we already have some fisrt scores) them and will bring their reviews in a couple of days
Expect them , to test the differences in battery life, final cut pro, logic pro, and some more enthusiasts will test the cooling system and talk about how much colder these devices run under full load compared to the Intel ones
Expect them , to test the differences in battery life, final cut pro, logic pro, and some more enthusiasts will test the cooling system and talk about how much colder these devices run under full load compared to the Intel ones
There is already a huge thread on these Geekbench results:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...erforms-high-end-16-inch-macbook-pro.2267256/
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...erforms-high-end-16-inch-macbook-pro.2267256/
Just a question, am not a conspiracy thinker but it seems on Geekbench the number of results is limited. Could this be "spoofed"?
I have a MBP 15 inch 2018 (2.6 GHz 6 core with 16 GB ram) and it is a powerful machine but too heavy and I hardly use it for anything more than Photos, Safari, Chrome. Office 365, MS Teams and MS Remote Desktop. I wanted to change for the previous Air but something withheld me. The 15 is an overkill for my needs.
The new Air with better screen seems just about right for my limited needs and the M1 processor.... wow! So that trigger will be pulled and will not be disappointed.
But am just wondering why I can see only 5 results for the MacbookAir10,1, where the naming seems off compared to other Macs and where the L2 cache is 4 MB i.s.o. the 8 MB I read somewhere. Or is someone at the Infinite Loop doing some clever marketing? The values look more than magnificent for such device and I was turned already...
Just some thoughts.
I have a MBP 15 inch 2018 (2.6 GHz 6 core with 16 GB ram) and it is a powerful machine but too heavy and I hardly use it for anything more than Photos, Safari, Chrome. Office 365, MS Teams and MS Remote Desktop. I wanted to change for the previous Air but something withheld me. The 15 is an overkill for my needs.
The new Air with better screen seems just about right for my limited needs and the M1 processor.... wow! So that trigger will be pulled and will not be disappointed.
But am just wondering why I can see only 5 results for the MacbookAir10,1, where the naming seems off compared to other Macs and where the L2 cache is 4 MB i.s.o. the 8 MB I read somewhere. Or is someone at the Infinite Loop doing some clever marketing? The values look more than magnificent for such device and I was turned already...
Just some thoughts.
Very unlikely. One can spoof model numbers etc... but it's much harder to spoof performance. I am not aware of any other CPU in existence currently that would have this exact combination with single-core and multi-core performance.
The number of results is limited because the number of these machines in the wild is limited. Probably some folks who got the hands on them earl or maybe some Apple manager or Apple Store employee, who knows. Maybe even Craig himself
Haha thanks for your quick answer. Why didn't Craig get the 16 GB option then just to show off? All of them are them same 8 GB with one of them at a lower frequency (3135 vs 3196 Ghz)...Very unlikely. One can spoof model numbers etc... but it's much harder to spoof performance. I am not aware of any other CPU in existence currently that would have this exact combination with single-core and multi-core performance.
The number of results is limited because the number of these machines in the wild is limited. Probably some folks who got the hands on them earl or maybe some Apple manager or Apple Store employee, who knows. Maybe even Craig himself
I'm still unsure how accurate Geekbench is. Apple has said the new Air is "up to 3.5x" faster than presumably the old (intel Y) processor. The core i9 is MUCH more than 3.5x faster than the intel Y platform. These benchmarks make the M1 seem faster than the i9. Something about the numbers/marketing are not lining up in a way that's logical to me.
I'll wait for real world workflow numbers.
I'll wait for real world workflow numbers.
If I understand it correctly, Apple is comparing the performance to the previous quad-core Intel MacBook Air (https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/4665453?baseline=4651916), so their claims look pretty much spot on, I'd say.
Actually, the link you just sent provides exactly what I don't understand.
Why does the early 2020 benchmark provide so much details when the new one provides almost none (no BIOS data, no mother card data, not a full description such as MacBook Air 10,1 (late 2020), etc.). It just seems fabricated and not random machines that already left the building for review purposes etc.
And yes, I know the earth isn't flat