Apple M1 proves its mettle once again, beats the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS and Intel Core i9-10980HK handsomely in native single-core tests

[Redaktion]

We compared the Apple M1's performance in CPU benchmarks against the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS in the Asus ROG Flow X13, the Core i9-10980HK, and the Core i7-1185G7 and found that native benchmarks such as Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5.3 indicate clear leads for Apple Silicon in single-core performance despite operating in just a 10 W TDP envelope. We see that Intel Tiger Lake Core i7-1185G7 is able to match the M1 in single-core tests but loses out significantly in multi-core tests.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-M1-proves-its-mettle-once-again-beats-the-AMD-Ryzen-9-5980HS-and-Intel-Core-i9-10980HK-handsomely-in-native-single-core-tests.526129.0.html

[8&8]

hope to see M2 for imac or macBook pro 16"
ARM promise well

[Bruh]

What a clickbaity article. So pathetic shilling away for Apple just for clicks and views. Both AMD and some Intel CPUs for that matter beat the M1 in both Cinebenches, yet all you could headline was the M1 coming out on top in Geekbench. Everyone knows at this point that Geekbench is inaccurate at comparing CPUs between different architectures/OS... It's old news at this point. Maybe try and report data more accurately and have a bit of credibility

[Af]

Another click bait article. I have to dislike notebookcheck so Google no longer offers me its articles. It's sad as there was a time its articles were worth the time to read.

[Astar]

Sh1tty click bait CrApple lackey article again from Notebookchat. Is the writer dyslexic or are Notebookchat writers instructed to contradict their own writings?

Just like what I have said many times - this is typical CrApple con job marketing about NATIVE GEEKBENCH results optimised to run well on CrApple Silicon.

"Multi-core has traditionally been AMD's forte, and it is not surprising to see the Ryzen 9 5980HS score a healthy 64% lead over the M1 here. "
- 64% advantage by AMD is not just healthy, idiot! AMD DESTROYS the M1 here!!!

"Cinebench R20, on the other hand, is emulated via Rosetta 2 on the Apple M1, so it is not surprising to see it rank at the end of the comparison."
- TRANSLATION: As expected, when forced to run the SAME software as the x86 competitors, Apple ranks LAST!

"The fortunes reverse once again in Geekbench 5.3, which is available as a native app for the M1. Here, the Ryzen 9 5980HS trails Apple Silicon by 11% though the multi-core advantage with AMD is only about 13% in this test."
- TRANSLATION: Even when running a stupid Geekbench that is natively written & compiled for CrApple's M1, the AMD still beats it on multi-core performance!!!

For good measure, PC Perspective & EETimes have repeatedly stated that Geekbench is a useless app that favours companies with big marketing budgest such as Apple & Intel. This website is just crap, like many of its writers.

[Lin Baden]

wtf is wrong with these comments? Also, wtf notebookcheck? A cpu's performance isn't measured just by the score results you see in benchmarks, but also from the "results" of power draw, that's also an aspect of the performance.

All of these cringy comments here, holy hell...
While your shiny 5980HX or the 5980HS needs to pull ~80W+ (~60W or so for the 5980HS) so that it can reach and sustain its advertised all-core frequency of 4.4Ghz (when the cpu is being utilized at 100%), the M1 pulls just around 13W to do so. There'll rarely be any amd laptop that will sustain 80W+ on the cpu, most of them will (also the already-released ones) lower the sustained power draw to 50-60W, just like with ryzen 4000H series.

While the i7 1185G7 needs to draw ~20W during 1 core 100% utilization so that it can reach its advertised 4.8Ghz, the M1 draws just a little bit ~2-3W so that one of its high-performance cores will reach its advertised 3.2Ghz (on the high perf. cores, the low-perf ones have lower max freq) and guess what? It fckn sustains it, in comparison to the 1185G7 which highly depends on the implementation in specific-laptops and also bcz of how Intel configured it. The 1185G7 pulls around 55-60W during all core 100% cpu utilization so that it can (try to) reach and sustain the advertised 4.3Ghz on all 4 cores.
Similar story when it comes to power draw on 100% single core benchmarks, the 5980HS seems to also draw ~20W or so (from what i've seen so far).

So, 80+W vs ~13W,
~20W vs ~3-4W.

Sure the ryzen 7 and 9 5000H models all will perform better than the M1 which is expected because they draw at least ~3 times as much power that the M1 ffs what is wrong with you all. All this hate towards companies that only care about ways of getting your money.

Most of the time you use your laptop (not for gaming or heavy-work stuff), only 1 or a couple of cores will be active, that's why single-core performance is super important. M1's high performance cores beat the rest, end of discussion. +-2% is in margin of error, that's when power draw comes to play and that's why M1 is better in this regard, deal with it.
This article is unfortunately right but it lacks info and just takes stuff for granted.

[Girish.B.Pal]

If its not for tdp then obviously ryzen wins with huge margin.

[_MT_]

TDP (putting aside that it's not the same as power limit) is typically not a limiting factor when it comes to single core performance. Even just 10 W is quite a lot for a single core. Of course, there is more than just a core running.

On the other hand, M1 is able to outclass the Core i7-1185G7 by 20% despite featuring only four high performance cores.

And how many cores does the 1185 have? The M1 has four additional cores. The impressive part is that it can produce those scores while being passively cooled. That's truly impressive. Managing to post competitive single threaded scores is also remarkable for an ARM processor. Scoring 20 % more when you have four extra cores (meaning twice as much), albeit of lower performance, isn't in itself impressive. Icestorm cores aren't that weak. So, M1 performs like an exceptional four core processor. It can't bear comparison with good eight core processors. Except for single core/ thread tests which eliminate the difference. But then you shouldn't be surprised it does well.

That brings me to another detail. Single core tests are often single thread tests. Meaning that cores supporting SMT can't take any advantage of that. That's why MP ratios can be higher than core count. Firestorm cores don't support SMT. It's fair if you want to see single threaded performance. But you need to be careful if you want to compare performance of cores. If a core supports multiple hardware threads, you might need multiple threads to reach peak performance, to realize the full potential of that core. In something like Cinebench, SMT can easily make up 30 %.

This also explains why is M1 "only" 20 % ahead of a 1185. I believe Icestorm cores should perform at around 50 % of Firestorm cores. So, M1 should roughly correspond to a 6 core processor with no SMT. If you have a 4 core processor with SMT and you count with 30 % gain from SMT, it's going to be equivalent to 5.2 cores. +20 % and you're at 6.2. The right ballpark. A processor like the 1185 can also be though of as having a kind of 4+4 configuration. The problem with SMT is that the result is very much workload dependent. The impact can even be negative.

[Don Donaldson]

I am a big AMD fan but you have to give it to Apple when you compare performance per watt. MTBF has to come into play at some point. If AMD is diving tens of watts to get decent performance, the die temp HAS to go up (throttling protects the silicon from destructive temps). With the M1 having onboard RAM, the TPD isn't a fair comparison unless one also takes into account the RAM, right? I think what Apple has done is impressive given the comparison to two large processor companies that have been designing and manufacturing silicon for decades longer.

[_MT_]

A cpu's performance isn't measured just by the score results you see in benchmarks, but also from the "results" of power draw, that's also an aspect of the performance.
...
Most of the time you use your laptop (not for gaming or heavy-work stuff), only 1 or a couple of cores will be active, that's why single-core performance is super important.

Energy consumption factors into efficiency. It certainly doesn't factor into absolute performance. They're actually opposed to each other as there are diminishing returns at play. You can increase performance at the cost of efficiency. Of course, mobile chips should in general run in the efficient range.

That's nonsense. Single core performance is important because a lot of software is limited by the performance of a single core. You can add as many cores as you want and it won't run any faster. If you want it to run faster, you need a faster core. If you're doing something light, it doesn't matter because you're not fully utilizing even that one core. And since there is no one heavy thread, you can easily spread the work among many cores. The reason not to spread light load around too much is so that as many cores can sleep as possible which is going to be more power efficient. Up to a point - you don't want to "overload" a core as efficiency is frequency dependant. The sweet spot for efficiency is typically far from maximum performance point.

[_MT_]

With the M1 having onboard RAM, the TPD isn't a fair comparison unless one also takes into account the RAM, right?

You should never compare TDP between manufacturers. Because it means different things to different manufacturers. Each determines it in a different way. It can have nothing to do with power consumption whatsoever. Even though by laws of physics as we know them, what come in as electricity leaves as heat (or sound or light). Really, it's a pretty useless number. Not even cooler manufacturers like it. And it was originally intended to facilitate cooler selection.

[Sumedh]

Pure clickbait. Headline contradicts is own findings. Sigh, how low can notebookcheck fall. Sure M1 is a very impressive CPU but does it really require such lies to market itself?

To all those tauting the power efficiency, two points:

1) Headline and content should have focused on that rather than these lies

2) As per cpubenchmark.net, both Ryzen 5800U and 4800U have higher power efficiency than Apple M1. Go figure.

[nicholai]

These are just single-thread performance benchmarks too, right?
So it's half an AMD core vs a full M1 core and AMD still comes out on top.

[Slobodan]

What a idiot is author o this text. M1 beats ryzen in single core for 7%. Wow! But looses for 64% in multi core. Missleading title of this article.

[StephenJ]

Absolutely love the hate apple is getting on these articles. Look at these internet heroes trying to call out apple. True fanboys who circle jerk anything outside of apple. Pathetic and hilarious to read  ;D