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

[Analog Kid]

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.

First post: April Fools Day 2022.

You were not the first one to quote benchmarks on the M1.

 

[blazerunner]

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)

Yah... And how much does the M1 Ultra going to cost you? With a gimped GPU?

 

[Retskrad]

People talk about these topics on other forums, like Reddit, Anandtech.

 

[ttyRazor]

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

It’s very likely, but not set in stone. Focusing on performance per watt makes sense for laptops, but desktops could afford to go a little further. I wouldn’t be surprised that the only thing to break the pattern is the Mac Pro, though.

 

[Madhatter32]

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.

Not sure it is correct or helpful to say Geekbench results are entirely useless. It's just one benchmark -- true -- and I agree people need to take it for what it is and no more. But the idea that the a more useful test is "how well does any particular computer fulfill the needs of its targeted audience in relation to the price point" is not really very helpful when comparing the speed between devices. I say this because I firmly believe that 95% of the general public -- the target audience -- would be just fine with an Intel i5 Mac or PC device from 2013. They would be cheap and can fulfill many, probably the vast majority, of use cases. That test has nothing to do with the speed of a particular device, which the benchmark are trying to measure.

 

[jdb8167]

Yah... And how much does the M1 Ultra going to cost you? With a gimped GPU?

With a gimped GPU it is $4000. With the non-gimped GPU $5000. I thought we were lumping all classes of machines together. The only thing to care about is single-threaded performance, apparently.

 

[StellarVixen]

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

i9 is the desktop CPU. How does the Mac Studio compare? I think many people on desktop would be ok with higher power draw to get more performance.

 

[pastrychef]

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

Don't forget about the power to keep the fans and water pump running to prevent it from igniting.

 

[MayaUser]

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.

when M1 came out you were not on macrumors forum...you are a newbie...so there is no proof of that
Stop making things up, it doesnt help anyone...its irrelevant at this point this topic...
125W and how its Intel iGpu compared to the M2 gpu power since im more interested on that

 

[Homy]

The future of PC is out and it's not looking good for Intel.

 

[Homy]

i9 is the desktop CPU. How does the Mac Studio compare? I think many people on desktop would be ok with higher power draw to get more performance.

You asked:

 

[hagjohn]

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.

Oh here we go again. A user with 20 posts. I'm so shocked. Are we going to do this on every CPU release? Give us a break. If intel interests you, go buy a windows box and be happy.

 

[blazerunner]

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.

Oh snap, aren't you a rebel! Good on you man, you sure showed the entire PC industry!

 

[Apple_Robert]

A Geekbench score in and of itself is rather meaningless.

 

[StellarVixen]

You asked:

I do not even have to watch to know that i9 in that form factor is a big NO!

 

[skaertus]

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)

Well, performance can also rely on software, but hardware plays a very important part in it. I have watched some other videos, and Adobe software, such as Premiere, tends to be faster on Macs indeed. However, other software (most of them) will run faster on a PC with better specs. Overall, the performance will loosely follow the benchmarks, although there may be some variations.

The bottom line is that the custom-built PC is faster than the Mac. In terms of performance-per-watt, the M-series processor in the Mac is faster, as it is more efficient. However, in terms of performance-per-dollar, the PC is better, as PC manufacturers charge less for their faster (although less efficient) components than Apple.

There are, however, specific cases in which the Mac may be faster. But they are not the rule.

 

[Ethosik]

Shouldn’t this be good news instead of bad news? We don’t want Apple to get stale. This will keep them on their feet and do more improvements. This is how Intel fell off the wagon. AMD didn’t compete well for a long time, so Intel just did the minimum work.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

This would compete with the M1 Ultra, and it’s very close. M2 Ultra could very well beat this in both power and efficiency. Especially if 3nm come to the M2 Pro and up, as it is rumored to.

 

[jimmirehman]

This is great! Competition is key

 

[leman]

I really hope that those are not the real scores since it would mean that Raptor Lake brings no improvements over Alder Lake. In fact, it seems to me that those are scores from a 12900K. Raptor Lake is likely to be faster.

 

[MauiPa]

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.

So your basic contention is that comparing Intel's latest high end chip to apple's latest low-end chip is anything meaningful. LOL. that is really funny. Keep up the good work!

 

[Captain_Mac]

A 15W CPU compared to a 125W one....

 

[MauiPa]

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.

Obviously you haven't priced a high-end competitive windows laptop lately. the Apple Silicon Macs are very price competitive

 

[DCohen726]

An I9 beating an M2?!? How is this not good for Apple? You took Intels to chip against Apple’s entry level. Show me I5 or I3 then I’ll be impressed

 

[skaertus]

Obviously you haven't priced a high-end competitive windows laptop lately. the Apple Silicon Macs are very price competitive

Actually, what I said is that the Mac laptops are very competitive in terms of pricing. They generally deliver a better performance per watt and per dollar compared to a Windows laptop.

I am talking about desktops here. Apple is not competing on price with high-end PC desktops.