This thread is about cinenench. Now we have one more generally known synthetic bench available for both AS and x64. All the claims AS being better than x64 competitor are based on geekbench. Why upset for additional benchmark to compare to? I mean it’s not like R23 share same scale of scores as R20 so posting r23 score to compare to means something.
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.
Cinebench R23 with support for Apple M1 SoC is now out. Geekbench scores up too.
- Thread starter EugW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looks to me that the R23 and Geekbench scores strongly correlate though.
I mean looking at the scores of other CPUs. Tiger Lake has quite a commanding lead btw. I wonder whether these are outliers or there is something about Cinebench that just naturally fits the Willow Cove architecture.
We only know A12Z (or what we expected to be A12Z) scores from devkit. A12Z was not officially meant to be used as Mac chip although one can suspect they considered it while designing it. Perhaps M1 results can prove itself in Cinebench, other than Geekbench. As more and more benchmark apps are available for M1 and as many people start to use it, we should get to know more about its true performance. But until then, it's one more stuff to get M1 tested, and who knows? Maybe Geekbench gets proven to be more biased toward Apple chips.
That is a possibility that cannot be discounted. At the same time, it kind of looks like GB5 is slightly biased towards Intel because of the AES-XTS test. Apple CPU seem to lack the cryptographic instructions that makes this test fly on Intel (arguably Apple doesn't need them since they have dedicated encryption hardware elsewhere on the SoC).
Ah, by the way, it kind of seems that Cinebench uses AVX-512 on newest Intel CPUs. If this is true, than it's a huge bias towards Intel and barely a realistic representation of CPU performance (AVX-512 is still extremely niche and is use practically nowhere). It would explain why Tiger Lake does so excellently though.
Per Geekbench score it has 60/70% perfomance advantage on single-core on a Ryzen 9 4800HS. 10% on multi-core.
I have been following all new Ryzen 4000 laptops with some interest. On subreddit AMDLaptops there is a huge frustation with people looking and being unable to buy a Ryzen 7 4800u laptop (Intel Air killers), any Ryzen with a very good screen and models with RTX graphics thanks to lack of stock or model release on their region. Then comes the new Air that goes way overkill for all but RTX folk.
The single-core advantage is not unexpected, Zen 2 is not very good at that after all. But matching a 4800HS in multi-core? Thats completely crazy. We are taking about a 35-45W CPU with full 8 cores and SMT!
Yeah it's a crazy, very complete package, all in all.
I helped a friend buy a new laptop one month ago for CAD and two things bugged me off. The relative lack of perfomance on single-core on Ryzen 4000 compared to Intel added to the fact that so many apps don't use the multi-core gain.
Plus some magic that AI better support on Intel Tiger Lake can do when developers use it. Given Apple sway and Neural Engine I expect another 5x advantage on this when developers begin using it.
While it isn't great to compare a desktop vs laptop, especially in Cinebench, it gives a rough indication of the M1 performance. Geekbench doesn't tax the CPU over a long period of time, Cinebench is better for this.
But I'm wondering why some people can't see that comparing M1 against it's equivalent CPU isn't displaying the punches it pulls. M1 actually needs to be compared against higher end CPUs to get a better comparison of its performance.
Last edited:
I'm sure the displayed Ghz's are not correct. Tiger Lake's (1165G7) single-core boost frequency is up to 4.7 Ghz. That's an extra 2+ Ghz over A12Z.
It seems to me that the frequencies displayed are base frequencies. In 28W mode, base frequency of i7-1165G7 is 2.8 ghz which is consistent with what we see.
Regardless, it also would seem that Tiger Lake performs this well because R23 utilizes AVX-512. It gives Intel CPUs that support it a large advantage. They won't have this advantage when running general-purpose code.
I don't think it's due to AVX-512. That's available on Intel only, and R23 AMD results compared to intel in general are not consistent with so-called huge AVX-512 advantage.
Because we have heard nothing but how the M1 was going to destroy every Intel based system in existence.
The M1 is a hopped up iPad Pro.
3 computers - 1 spec sheet says it all.
BTW, nobody cares about TDP performance.
Core per core, yes, it does destroy every Intel based system in existence. Nobody ever claimed that a 10 watt Apple chip will be faster than a 120 watt Intel 10-core chip in multicore tests.
Well, then enjoy that iPad Pro destroying all the windows 13"-14" premium laptops. Which costs hundreds of dollars more by the way. And have half the battery life.
Well, it does in single core ? - 3 entry level computers with configurable RAM and Storage, all of which provide massive increases in performance and battery life over the previous generation of devices they replaced.
Let’s put it like this - If these SoC’s had Intel Y-series Core i7 branding, would you be singing their praises or poo-pooing them like you are now?
The fact is that these M1 SoC’s seem to delivered on the claims Apple made at WWDC, AND the hype surrounding those created by lots of Apple fans.
The M1 probably is in fact a slightly hopped up next generation A14X iPad Pro SoC. But I don’t actually see how that is a bad thing?
I’ve never understood this devaluing someting because it runs a mobile device rather than a “real” computer. Well, now it runs a real computer. And it runs it leaps and bounds better than those real computers were running one week ago.
BTW - Everybody who owns a laptop cares about TDP performance, I have never ever run into a laptop user that didn’t care about it.
There is a YouTuber out there that said it best, I think. Imagine there was some new battery technology that was released that gave 50% more battery time on your laptop. You would think that is a huge deal. Well that is what the M1 is giving you, AND it is also giving you a massive bump in performance at the same time.
What actually would have impressed you then, in the context of an entry level sub-15” laptop or a sub $700 entry level desktop? I am genuinely curious.
Now if they released a Mac Pro replacement with the M1 chip in it - then I completely understand your reservations. But that is not at all what has happened here.
they said single core performance. Not sure why you are trying to insult the design. I could say i9 is just a hopped up celeron
Just a heads up for those looking at Geekbench, it is strictly an architectural benchmark - you actually cannot use it to accurately compare actual performance in applications, or x86 vs ARM performance. This is why you might see similar Geekbench scores between a 5W ARM mobile CPU and a 45W x86 notebook CPU - obviously, the 5W CPU running at a fraction of the clock speed and getting a fraction of the wattage is nowhere near as powerful as the 45W CPU (that's just physics), but both may have similarly efficient architecture and therefore similar Geekbench scores. This is actually a really common misconception that often gets exploited in marketing materials to claim that X mobile device is as fast as X laptop, when in reality it's not even close. It doesn't mean the CPUs aren't good, they're just built for different applications.
Benchmarks like Cinebech will be more relevant when looking to compare Apple's M1 to existing X86 processors and I think it's a fairly safe bet they are not going to be anywhere near the performance of something like a Ryzen 4800U in games or workstation tasks, but I guess we'll see. I think people want to see how the M1 does in things like Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, Resolve, etc. I'm certainly curious. Also, if you read the fine print on Apple's announcement, they compared it to one of the worst quad-core Intel mobile CPUs you can possibly buy on 6-year-old architecture.
No eGPU support, lack of TB4, and no user upgradable RAM (combined with absurd prices for OEM RAM/Storage upgrades) are a bit disappointing in my personal opinion. It's the first iteration though so it may come later.
Benchmarks like Cinebech will be more relevant when looking to compare Apple's M1 to existing X86 processors and I think it's a fairly safe bet they are not going to be anywhere near the performance of something like a Ryzen 4800U in games or workstation tasks, but I guess we'll see. I think people want to see how the M1 does in things like Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, Resolve, etc. I'm certainly curious. Also, if you read the fine print on Apple's announcement, they compared it to one of the worst quad-core Intel mobile CPUs you can possibly buy on 6-year-old architecture.
No eGPU support, lack of TB4, and no user upgradable RAM (combined with absurd prices for OEM RAM/Storage upgrades) are a bit disappointing in my personal opinion. It's the first iteration though so it may come later.
This is not correct. The simple truth is that Apple has built the architecture that can do more work while using less energy.
Benchmarks like Cinebench are more relevant if you are looking to compare the performance while doing exactly the kind of work that Cinebench does... which is far from being representative for all common workloads. In fact, I think that Cinebench is even "worse" than Geekbench — at least Geekbench tries to use different workloads.
By the way, if you don't trust Geekbench, go to the Anandtech article where they benchmark the mobile A14 using SPEC — the standard industry benchmark for estimating server performance.
You just agreed with me - Geekbench measures architecture efficiency, not RAW performance that you can directly compare. Apple's high scores mean their architecture is very efficient, it doesn't mean their 5W iPhone CPU is as powerful as a 45W laptop CPU when doing an actual task. It doesn't properly take into account things like clock speed and wattage as those are independent to the architecture.
Not once did I say I didn't trust Geekbench. It's just important to understand what it measures. It does not measure RAW performance to compare one CPU to another which can then be applied to various applications, which is what many people (incorrectly) think it does. There are people walking around thinking their iPhone is more powerful than a $4000 workstation laptop haha.
I wish I could find it now, but the actual creator of Geekbench is who was explaining this on reddit some time ago and how it's often misinterpreted.
Last edited:
I'd be extremely interested in more detail here. You're basically saying, I cannot use Geekbench to compare the performance of two different laptops with two different amounts of energy consumption?
I really don’t follow you here. If I compile the same code on two machine using the same toolkit and one machine does it twice as fast, I say that this machine has twice the performance. If I run a machine learning algorithm to categorize images on two machines and one does it twice as fast, I say this machine has twice the performance. The list continues. Which machine consumes more power is secondary dir this question, I care about how fast can it run things.
These benchmarks take some common tasks (like compiling code, categorizing images, compression etc.) and see which CPU can run them faster. The higher the score, the faster the CPU.
Incidentally, Apple CPUs can do the same amount as fast as faster while consuming less energy than Intel CPUs. This is what makes them more powerful according to all definitions of “powerful” I am aware of (unless you mean to say that Intel CPU is more powerful because it wastes more power).
Clock speed and wattage is irrelevant. Apple CPUs have more execution units than Intel CPUs. They can do more work with lower clock speed. Which in turn gives them lower power consumption.
If you compare one Geekbench score to another, you are comparing architecture efficiency only, and not raw performance in an application. That is a very important distinction. Apple's CPUs are extremely efficient, but that does not mean you could pop one in your desktop PC and it would be as fast as a desktop CPU.
As an example, Apple's 3-5W iPhone CPU running at 1.8Ghz or whatever might have a Geekbench score of 1600 single core. A 105W desktop CPU running at 5.3 GHz might have the same Geekbench single core score of 1600. This means their architectures are equally efficient, it does not mean the iPhone has the same processing power as the 95W desktop CPU as the wattage and clock speeds are not being accounted for. The creator of Geekbench used a similar example to explain how it is an architecture benchmark.
What Apple does is take these results, and tell people their iPhones are as fast as a PC/notebook, which is at best misleading and at worst blatantly false.
Geekbench is a great benchmark, it just doesn't work how people often think it does, and you can certainly be forgiven for that because the way companies like Apple use Geekbench scores in marketing materials is highly misleading. Just like how they compared their M1 chip to one of the worst possible 4-core Intel chips running on 6-year-old architecture when they made their "3X" "5X" faster claims in their presentation. They may be technically correct, but they actively tried to hide from people what they were really comparing to.
I hope I am explaining myself clearly.