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.
Clickbait! M1X specs and first benchmarks
- Thread starter Xenobius
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The chart really isn't worth anything, in my opinion. I think it is better to wait for actual numbers, instead of inviting the forum to debate over the theoretical numbers. To me, real world numbers are more meaningful.
Quite a downgrade in multi-core from low end consumer AMD 5950X.
Not sure if this is real, doesn’t look that impressive to be honest considering its for high-end machines. If it’s really limited to 32GB, big meh. Bring on the M2 for the Mac and Mac Pro.
If this is real (which I doubt), then the bottleneck is 2-channel LPDDR4 memory for a 16 core GPU. That wouldn't produce particularly impressive graphics performance.
That entry just combines everyone’s best guess with a bunch of nonsense. Just ignore it. There is nothing to see there.
This is an SEO (search engine optimization) play by this website.
Basically, they're making an educated guess on specs and benchmarks. Then people like you link to it. This helps them rank higher on search engines like Google when people search for "Apple m1x specs".
Basically, they're making an educated guess on specs and benchmarks. Then people like you link to it. This helps them rank higher on search engines like Google when people search for "Apple m1x specs".
like others said they are just guessing and in a bad way, and kind of dishonest since they don’t assume it.
For example with the data that they presented, it is just not possible to obtain a Cinebench multi-core score of 14400. With simple math and using M1 scores to aid: single-core = 1514; 4 little cores minimum = 1700; 8 cores maximum = 12100; Total maximum = 13800. Since more cores don’t increase performance in a 100% efficient way, we would expect something significantly lower than 13800. My best guess it would be between 12200 - 12800
For example with the data that they presented, it is just not possible to obtain a Cinebench multi-core score of 14400. With simple math and using M1 scores to aid: single-core = 1514; 4 little cores minimum = 1700; 8 cores maximum = 12100; Total maximum = 13800. Since more cores don’t increase performance in a 100% efficient way, we would expect something significantly lower than 13800. My best guess it would be between 12200 - 12800
If you consider a 16-inch laptop “high end”. Rumors also say this is for the entry level iMac. Cool your jets my guy.
Also, the memory limit is to be expected, the m1 has a hard limit of 16gb, doubling the firestorm cores would yield 32gb limit.
They could go quad channel, up to 64GB. That would match the current max spec 16's RAM capacity, and improve GPU performance.
I’m expecting more like a 25% to 50% boost in single/multi CPU speeds and probably a doubling of the memory limit.
Doubling the cores on its own would have no effect on the RAM limit, that would be a function of the SoC design and how much room is allocated for RAM on the die itself. Obviously adding more cores necessitates a larger die size for the SoC. Technically Apple could have supported up to 32GB (even 64GB) RAM with the M1 had they just made the SoC die larger. But they intended the M1 to be the entry level Mac (essentially the gateway Mac for many switchers), which is why 16GB is the upper limit.
A 25% to 50% boost in single/multi CPU (clock) speeds would have a very big impact in power consumption, over the already big impact of increasing the number of cores.
It is not very likely that they would do that for the MacBook Pro since it would probably mean worse power consumption than what AMD laptop processors achieve, and it would also mean a noisy fan and a big battery.
They just don’t need to do something like that, keeping the same clock speed will probably be enough to surpass any current laptop processor performance. At best they would boost just a little bit (<10%) the single-core clock speed to have better single-threaded performance than the M1, but speed would decrease when all cores are active to keep power consumption under 30W for the CPU cores.
Having the bragging rights of achieving better performance while consuming less is what Apple is aiming for, is what made the M1 a success...
So there's a higher end version MBP than the MBP16? Which one is that?
Uhm, no.
True or not, it would meet my requirements for an upgrade from my 2015 MacBook Pro 15. The CPU and GPU are quite a bit more than I would need and I would be quite happy with 32 GB of RAM. The form factor could be Mini, or MacBook Pro or even iMac.