DragonSlayer101

Posts: 512   +3
Staff
Something to look forward to: Apple just launched new MacBook Pro laptops powered by the M4 Pro and M4 Max chips, and initial reports suggest that the new SoCs not only beat their predecessors by a healthy margin, but are also faster than flagship desktop-grade CPUs from Intel and AMD.

Apple released a spate of new Mac models powered by the M4 chips last month. They include the upgraded iMac, the redesigned Mac Mini, and the all-new MacBook Pro models with Thunderbolt 5. While the M4 Pro features a 14-core CPU and 20-core GPU, the M4 Max comes with a 16-core CPU and a 40-core GPU.

The company had earlier launched the 7th-generation iPad Pro with the vanilla M4 chip that has a 10-core CPU and 10-core GPU.

In Geekbench 6, the M4 Pro scored 3,925 points in the single-core benchmark, which is higher than the 3,450 points notched up by the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and 3,359 points managed by the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X. This is even more impressive when you consider that the M4 Pro is clocked at 4.5GHz, while the Intel and AMD chips have boost clocks of up to 5.7GHz.

In the multi-core benchmark, the M4 Pro scored 22,669 points, which is slightly lower than the 23,024 points racked up by the 285K. However, it is still significantly higher than the 20,183 points scored by the 9950X. It is worth noting here that the M4 Pro has only 14 cores, while the Core Ultra 9 285K features 24 cores. The Ryzen 9 9950X has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Although the M4 Pro's scores are impressive, the M4 Max is even faster. The chip notched up 4,060 points in the single-core test and a whopping 26,675 in the multi-core benchmark, both of which are significantly higher than the scores put up by the 285K and 9950X.

While preliminary scores for the M4 Pro and M4 Max look impressive, it is worth remembering that Geekbench 6 is only a synthetic benchmark and does not necessarily reveal a processor's true performance potential. We will likely have to see how the M4 twins perform in applications like Cinebench or Handbrake to gauge their real-world performance.

Permalink to story:

 
None of these benchmarks matter unless the Mac has been forced to run for long enough to force itself to throttle into Oblivion due to it's terrible cooling. Prove your cooling can keep up because it never has or these benchmarks aren't real.
 
Geekbench scores don't represent any real world software used to do anything, please stop using them to prove anything. Cinebench and handbrake don't measure a CPU's relative performance in every program only those specific ones.

Beating the newest CPU from Intel is something everyone is doing including Intel's previous generation of CPU's, it's not an achievement.

 
Oh I love it. When the brand that you don't like performs great in benchmarks, then the benchmark is always flawed :D

It is quite well known and established that the Apple Silicons are actually GREAT, they've been around for like what, 5 years now? Yet people still have doubts about it. I don't understand.

And I'm saying this as a person that truly HATES Macbooks because macOS and the keyboard layout are driving me nuts within minutes, even after 10 years of trying to get to like them.

But performance and battery life leave everything else in the dust, period. I don't know why other manufacturers can't make comparable laptops, but they just can't.
 
But performance and battery life leave everything else in the dust, period. I don't know why other manufacturers can't make comparable laptops, but they just can't.
Because Apple has the money and influence to leverage the best node processing from TSMC whereas other companies can't...

Apple, at least for the foreseeable future, will always have a huge advantage due to having the best node.

I just wish they cared about gamers...
 
It is quite well known and established that the Apple Silicons are actually GREAT, they've been around for like what, 5 years now? Yet people still have doubts about it. I don't understand
How about memory upgrade? Oh, Apple chips doesn't support that 🤦‍♂️
 
The problem is they are only good for running MAC OS.
 
Because Apple has the money and influence to leverage the best node processing from TSMC whereas other companies can't...

Apple, at least for the foreseeable future, will always have a huge advantage due to having the best node.

Intel's and AMD's current CPUs all use a 3nm TSMC mode like Apple so this tired excuse is dead now.
 

Similar threads