New M1 MacBook Air smokes Core i9 16-inch MacBook Pro in Geekbench

[Redaktion]

A new listing on Geekbench 5 for the M1 MacBook Air posts impressive numbers. The machine handily beat the Core i9-9880H 16-inch MacBook Pro in both single- and multi-core tests by a wide margin. More impressively, the M1 MacBook Air uses a 10 Watt CPU that is passively cooled and still beat the most powerful laptop in Apple's repertoire.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/New-M1-MacBook-Air-smokes-Core-i9-16-inch-MacBook-Pro-in-Geekbench.503856.0.html

[Name]

but can it run crysis?!

[Fufis]

 ;D ;D ;D

[Joe Biden]

C'mon man, you can't compare an ARM chip that uses RISC architecture against an x86 chip that uses CISC.

[DigitalGuy]

Of course you can compared, since they both run MacOS

[SomeoneElse]

C'mon man, you can't compare an ARM chip that uses RISC architecture against an x86 chip that uses CISC.

Donald, is that you?

[rmt.putty]

You can compare anything to everything else, anytime you want; but context is important.

Here Apple chose GeekBench to promote its product & new venture.

Once the product comes out, we'll have worthwhile performance stats anyway.

Like: Ball is in Apple's court  :D as one might say ;)

[Joe Biden]

Of course you can compared, since they both run MacOS

Except, you can't. Two completely different instruction sets for the CPU. MacOS not a deciding factor here at all.

[_MT_]

Except, you can't. Two completely different instruction sets for the CPU. MacOS not a deciding factor here at all.

Of course you can. If the workload is the same, you can compare them. But interpreting the numbers is a different story. If you're doing something that's heavily accelerated on one processor and lightly or not at all on another, it won't make a good general comparison.

[kkk]

Of course you can compared, since they both run MacOS

Except, you can't. Two completely different instruction sets for the CPU. MacOS not a deciding factor here at all.

Can we please put this to rest. Geekbench is build to compare as close as possible to each architecture.

We already saw the iPad Pro outperforming i9 Macbook Pros in real world scenarios, giving pretty much identical scaling to Geekbench results.

ARM is just way faster and more efficient, deal with it.

[_MT_]

Can we please put this to rest. Geekbench is build to compare as close as possible to each architecture.

We already saw the iPad Pro outperforming i9 Macbook Pros in real world scenarios, giving pretty much identical scaling to Geekbench results.

ARM is just way faster and more efficient, deal with it.

One thing one has to keep in mind is that Apple is using a manufacturing node one generation ahead of what AMD is currently using. And that processor is still made on Intel's 14 nm node, albeit very refined - that's far from cutting edge. Even if the Firestorm core had lower potential in generic computing, it could still be very fast and efficient compared to what is currently on the market. Consider what the 4700U can do. And it's a generation behind. There is little doubt they'll be little beasts. I'm looking forward to some comparisons with 4700U, 4800U and 4750U PRO. Native against native.

[xpclient]

Well this definitely stirs up competition further. Both AMD and Intel have to retain their "crown" at least on the Desktop CPUs which don't have strict power constraints - is Apple going to introduce Mac Pros also in the future with high-end ARM SoCs?

It may soon be the case that for performance, desktop x86 > ARM laptops > x86 laptops. And we know for battery life, ARM wins so this gives x86 on laptops some serious competition.

Then again for those who value compatibility plus portability, integration etc, x86 laptops will continue to be the best choice for a really long time.

[005AGIMA]

This is fantastic. Where can I buy this latest acorn archimedes?

[slws]

There are rumors about new MacBook Pro 16 inch in 2-3 weeks. Could it be slower than Macbook air ??? No go!
Ryzen?