Same nonsense posted each year with each new release. How about doing actual benchmarks with actual applications instead of running the same 2 benchmarks that are literally the most best case scenario for apple, that are the most optimized for apple?
How about being realistic with the workloads so that people can stop parroting pure propaganda by utilizing software that doesn't at all represent real world scenarios?

"For potential customers of the M5 Max, however, the situation is different, because the new M5 Max CPU is not really much faster than the old M5 Max."

Typo / than the old M4 Max.

I think the M5 Pro Efficiency/Power analysis might be off? It has the same CPU as the M5 Max which you contend, not unreasonably is thermally constrained int the 14" model, but you claim the CPU draws over 100W? While the 14" M5 Max draw 85W and gets a better score. As @bert22 points out other reviews (with 16" M5 Maxes) get 2300 in CB R24.

Finally in your M5 Pro review article you write:

QuoteAs shown in the table above, the CPU consumes up to 72 Watts under load and settles at 62 Watts under sustained workloads, so the overall performance is very stable.

So it sounds like it was running with significantly less power than you quote here - even if the above is powermetrics rather than wall power (unclear) I don't see how it gets to 100W. It seems like there may be an error somewhere.

I've seen from other reviewers the M5 Max is faster in the 16". Ars Technica got over 2300 MT in cinebench 2024.

 

Quote...new M5 Max CPU is not really much faster than the old M5 Max....

Typo.
Should've read "old M5 Max"

They're comparing the M5 Max in the 14-inch MacBook Pro with the M4 Max in the 16-inch laptop...