Geekbench score for the Intel i9-13900K is out and it’s not looking pretty for Apple …

[Retskrad]

Source

The i9-13900K chip will be out later this year and we now have Geekbench results. Single core: 2133 and Multi core: 23701

In comparison, the M2 in the new MacBook Pro scored: 1919 in single core
8929 in multi core.

Sure, Apple is much better at performance per watt than Intel but it’s not a good look to fall behind in single core performance. Most day to day tasks are single core.

Apple upended the chip industry with the M1 but AMD and Intel came back swinging and it seems like Apple now needs to pull another rabbit out of the hat with the M3.

 

[Zorori]

At 125W it would be an embarrassment if it weren’t ahead.

 

[mr_jomo]

I wouldn't worry too much on Apple's behalf:

Single core improvement 12900K -> 13900K: 1,8%

13900K multicore beats the M1 Ultra by: -0,1%

Not much need for rabbit pulling out of hats on Apple's part as much as normal progression year-on-year IMHO.

That said, Intel and AMD are doing great work currently (Intel on raw performance and AMD on performance/watt)

 

[w5jck]

The mentality that bigger is always better, that faster is always better, etc., is an immature way of looking at things. What counts is the overall package. How well does any particular computer fulfill the needs of its targeted audience in relation to the price point. The CPU and GPU are just two components out of dozens. What is best at a particular price point for a starter computer is not the same for a powerhouse computer. So comparisons of just Geekbench results are useless IMO unless you look at the entire computer and compare it to another entire computer.

 

[ArkSingularity]

They've been able to beat Apple in single core performance for a while. AMD's flagship Zen 3 processors could already do it (scoring over 2000 in GB single core) when clocked in the 5+ ghz range, but these were top-tier desktop processors that required large cooling solutions to keep up. They would never be able to package those kinds of TDPs into laptops and smaller form factors.

If Apple wanted to clock their CPUs up to those kinds of clocks (and use those kinds of power budgets), they could blow both AMD and Intel out of the water, so I wouldn't worry too much yet. Apple is playing softball at this point, they still haven't taken all their tricks out of the bag.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

If it has to be in a Windows machine, then to me it doesn't matter what specs it has. I'm not in the market to ever purchase or care about buying anything that runs that crappy software.

 

[mcnallym]

So compare entry level M2 with top of the range i9 and shocked that top of the range i9 is quicker.

When the high end M2 is out if still beaten by the i9 then let us know.

 

[Colstan]

If it has to be in a Windows machine, then to me it doesn't matter what specs it has. I'm not in the market to ever purchase or care about buying anything that runs that crappy software.

I'm sure other folks disagree, but seeing how this is MacRumors, most of us are concerned with running macOS. I enjoy learning about new technology, so this is of interest, but it doesn't matter how many benchmarks Intel wins, they can toss their overheating sand back into whatever Lake or Cove they came from. I'm a bit more sympathetic toward AMD, but I'm still not buying their products. Mac on x86 is barely on life support, and if I can't run macOS on the machine, then I'm not making a purchase. As I said, others here may have different thoughts on the matter, but that means that are probably stuck using Windows for whatever lamentable reason, which is unfortunate for them.

 

[Basic75]

If Apple wanted to clock their CPUs up to those kinds of clocks (and use those kinds of power budgets), they could blow both AMD and Intel out of the water

It is not self understood that a brainiac design like Apple's processors can just clock to 5GHz.

 

[skaertus]

Source

The i9-13900K chip will be out later this year and we now have Geekbench results. Single core: 2133 and Multi core: 23701

In comparison, the M2 in the new MacBook Pro scored: 1919 in single core
8929 in multi core.

Sure, Apple is much better at performance per watt than Intel but it’s not a good look to fall behind in single core performance. Most day to day tasks are single core.

Apple upended the chip industry with the M1 but AMD and Intel came back swinging and it seems like Apple now needs to pull another rabbit out of the hat with the M3.

I wouldn't worry too much on Apple's behalf:

Single core improvement 12900K -> 13900K: 1,8%

13900K multicore beats the M1 Ultra by: -0,1%

Not much need for rabbit pulling out of hats on Apple's part as much as normal progression year-on-year IMHO.

That said, Intel and AMD are doing great work currently (Intel on raw performance and AMD on performance/watt)

The mentality that bigger is always better, that faster is always better, etc., is an immature way of looking at things. What counts is the overall package. How well does any particular computer fulfill the needs of its targeted audience in relation to the price point. The CPU and GPU are just two components out of dozens. What is best at a particular price point for a starter computer is not the same for a powerhouse computer. So comparisons of just Geekbench results are useless IMO unless you look at the entire computer and compare it to another entire computer.

So compare entry level M2 with top of the range i9 and shocked that top of the range i9 is quicker.

When the high end M2 is out if still beaten by the i9 then let us know.

This is true, but the M-series is not as impressive as it was when it was first released in November 2020.

Apple may have the edge in performance per watt. But, when looking at high-end computers, performance per dollar is even more important.

Apple charges a premium for its computers. It is fine when Apple sells an M1 MacBook Air for $999, which is faster and lighter than any Windows laptop at the same price point.

Now let us get a high-end desktop. Look at these two configurations:

Mac Studio: Apple M1 Ultra 48-core GPU, 64 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, USD 3,999.00
PC: Intel Core i9-12900K, GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, 64 GB RAM DDR4-3600, 1 TB NVME SSD, USD 3,700

Mac Studio: Apple M1 Ultra 64-core GPU, 128 GB RAM, 8 TB SSD, USD 7,999.00
PC: Intel Core i9-12900K, GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, 128 GB RAM DDR4-4000, 12 TB (3x 4 TB) NVME SSD, USD 6,000

The PC has a far better video card, and yet is cheaper than the Mac Studio in both scenarios. In the second one, the PC is 25% cheaper, even having a better video card and 50% more storage.

If I were a high-end user that needs a desktop with lots of power, I would probably care more about performance per dollar than performance per watt. Perhaps the forthcoming Mac Pro addresses this issue, but we should check the price tag.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

Single core improvement 12900K -> 13900K: 1,8%

What figures have you used for that calculation? wccftech claims a 7% improvement in ST.

In terms of performance, the Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU sample scored 2133 points in single-core and 23,701 points in multi-threaded tests. For comparison, in the same benchmark, the Intel Core i9-12900K (Alder Lake) scores 1987 single-core and 17272 points in multi-core while the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X scores 1686 points in single and 16,508 points in multi-core tests.

The i9-13900K still maintains a decent 7% gain over the 12900K and a 27% gain over the 5950X in single-threaded tasks.

Intel Core i9-13900K 5.5 GHz Raptor Lake CPU Benchmarked, Crushes The Ryzen 9 5950X & Core i9-12900K In Single & Multi-Threaded Tests

Intel's Core i9-13900K 5.5 GHz Raptor Lake CPU has been benchmarked within Geekbench 5 and obliterates the Core i9-12900K & Ryzen 9 5950X.

wccftech.com

 

[rgeneral]

What does it matter. Use what makes you happy. not with some numbers which you will never really notice on real usage.

 

[Falhófnir]

The i9-13900K chip

In comparison, the M2 in the new MacBook Pro

Oh well can't wait to see the thin and light laptops using the 13900K then!

 

[Mactech20]

Compare

M2 with i3
M2 Pro with i5
M2 Max with i7
M2 Ultra with i9

Comparing Apples i3 CPU with intels i9 CPU. Seems legit.

 

[Mr47]

Another BS post, bruh seriously stop these post, this chip is not out yet the mobile variant is miles away. And we are getting most likely a M2 Pro/Max on 3Nm with a better performance then the base M2. So why is it not looking good?
Not to mention the performance per watt, yes that matters in these days where in the EU the prices a sky high and besides that having a QUIET PC.
It is looking fine, I welcome Intel and all their improvement, now AMD need to step up so they can push each other. Can we just stop making post about some geek bench about stuff that is MILES AWAY.

 

[Retskrad]

Compare

M2 with i3
M2 Pro with i5
M2 Max with i7
M2 Ultra with i9

Comparing Apples i3 CPU with intels i9 CPU. Seems legit.

M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, M2 Ultra will all have the same single-core performance.

 

[wonderings]

This is true, but the M-series is not as impressive as it was when it was first released in November 2020.

Apple may have the edge in performance per watt. But, when looking at high-end computers, performance per dollar is even more important.

Apple charges a premium for its computers. It is fine when Apple sells an M1 MacBook Air for $999, which is faster and lighter than any Windows laptop at the same price point.

Now let us get a high-end desktop. Look at these two configurations:

Mac Studio: Apple M1 Ultra 48-core GPU, 64 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, USD 3,999.00
PC: Intel Core i9-12900K, GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, 64 GB RAM DDR4-3600, 1 TB NVME SSD, USD 3,700

Mac Studio: Apple M1 Ultra 64-core GPU, 128 GB RAM, 8 TB SSD, USD 7,999.00
PC: Intel Core i9-12900K, GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, 128 GB RAM DDR4-4000, 12 TB (3x 4 TB) NVME SSD, USD 6,000

The PC has a far better video card, and yet is cheaper than the Mac Studio in both scenarios. In the second one, the PC is 25% cheaper, even having a better video card and 50% more storage.

If I were a high-end user that needs a desktop with lots of power, I would probably care more about performance per dollar than performance per watt. Perhaps the forthcoming Mac Pro addresses this issue, but we should check the price tag.

You are not comparing Apples to Apples as there is more to performance than the hardware alone. Apple's OS, software and hardware are integrated and made to work really well together. I watched a real world comparison using Adobe Premier on a beefy Windows PC with i9, 3090, 64 ram, fast nvm ssd compared to a 14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro base specs in terms of RAM. Video he used was 4K video taken from a camera as well as drone footage. The PC struggled when scrubbing through and overall use handling the footage. The Mac using Adobe Premier with same footage and file was like a hot knife through butter. Where the PC won was in the rendering and encoding. The difference was in favour of the PC but not by massively huge margins and generally the big projects you would set it and forget it over night. So you can't just compare hardware, especially when talking about 2 different OS's.

Referenced video below (I may have had some of the specs wrong)

 

[TopToffee]

M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max, M2 Ultra will all have the same single-core performance.

1) you have no way of knowing that
2) let’s say they follow the same pattern as M1, and the ultra’s single core is ~5% higher than the M2 (as M1 ultra is to M2), and that the % improvement from M1 Ultra to M2 Ultra is about the same as M1 to M2. And further, let’s assume no change to a newer process for the Pro, Max and Ultra (thereby ignoring the rumours of moving to a 3nm process)

That would give the M1 Ultra scores of:
Single core: ~2015
Multi core: ~27,650

I think Apple will be fine.

Although they WILL have the disadvantage of their machines not doubling as space heaters in the winter.

 

[jdb8167]

Oh well can't wait to see the thin and light laptops using the 13900K then!

And on battery power!

 

[PsykX]

The i9-13900K chip will be out later this year and we now have Geekbench results. Single core: 2133 and Multi core: 23701
In comparison, the M2 in the new MacBook Pro scored: 1919 in single core. 8929 in multi core.

You're comparing the highest-end, plugged in, unreleased, desktop Intel processor with the lowest-end, unplugged, released, laptop Apple processor, and saying it's not looking good for Apple ?

 

[Analog Kid]

It would be enough to just post the benchmarks. I think the “Apple is in trouble” text in titles of threads like this are just to motivate people to click and read. I find it hard to believe OP thinks this is a reasonable comparison…

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

Source

The i9-13900K chip will be out later this year and we now have Geekbench results. Single core: 2133 and Multi core: 23701

In comparison, the M2 in the new MacBook Pro scored: 1919 in single core
8929 in multi core.

Sure, Apple is much better at performance per watt than Intel but it’s not a good look to fall behind in single core performance. Most day to day tasks are single core.

Apple upended the chip industry with the M1 but AMD and Intel came back swinging and it seems like Apple now needs to pull another rabbit out of the hat with the M3.

I could see this mindset about a desktop configuration but for small form factor machines manufacturers can barely cool an i7 let alone an i9. Will be curious what Apple’s non-laptop Pro machines can do but as of now all of Apple’s chip are not meant to swing with the big boys.

 

[Retskrad]

When the M1 came out, I was the first one to quote benchmarks and say how ahead Apple was against AMD and Intel's 11th gen chips. For laptops, it was the biggest leap of the last 10 years. Now that Intel will have a chunky performance lead over the M2 later this year, it would only be hypocritical to dismiss benchmarks when they don't favor Apple chips.

 

[Analog Kid]

You're comparing the highest-end plugged in Desktop Intel processor with the lowest-end unplugged Laptop Apple processor, and saying it's not looking good for Apple ?

No, they’re comparing a yet to be released plugged in Desktop processor with the already shipping thin-and-light laptop processor using benchmarks flagged as invalid by Geekbench themselves.

Nothing is being compared, it’s just a newbie baiting the forums.

 

[jdb8167]

When the M1 came out, I was the first one to quote benchmarks and say how ahead Apple was against AMD and Intel's 11th gen chips. Now that Intel will have a chunky performance lead over the M2 later this year, it would only be hypocritical to dismiss benchmarks when they don't favor Apple chips.

We have no idea what Apple is planning for with the Mac Pro. So it's premature to say that Apple is behind. Since we are discounting different classes of machines and lumping everything together then the Apple silicon Mac Pro is highly relevant.