3 ms·
The headline here seems misleading: (1) It's an iPad CPU running x86_64 code in emulation, but it's running macOS, not iPadOS. This is not an iPad, which AFAIK
by chipotle_coyote 6y ago
The headline here seems misleading:
(1) It's an iPad CPU running x86_64 code in emulation, but it's running macOS, not iPadOS. This is not an iPad, which AFAIK can't run x86_64 code in emulation.
(2) It's a two-year-old chip, not a one-year-old one. :)
The whole thing is a little weird; if I'm understanding it correctly, they ran the Windows ARM version of Geekbench natively on the Surface X, and ran the macOS x86_64 version of Geekbench on the ARM-based Developer Transition Kit hardware and it still performed competitively. So Apple's CPUs are pretty good and Rosetta 2 does really good instruction translation, but I don't think we can draw a lot of conclusions from the specific numbers either way. (Even setting aside complaints about Geekbench as a benchmark, commercially available ARM Macs when they start shipping are almost certainly not going to based on the DTK CPU/hardware, just like the original Intel DTK compared to the first Intel Macs.)
- hartator 6y agoYes, the next macbook will probably feature something faster than the 2-year old ipad chip?
- czzr 6y agoYes, all benchmarks right now are highly questionable. Still, it’s understandable everyone is curious - we’ll just have to wait and see.
- fomine3 6y agoIt seems that there's no Geekbench for Windows ARM. So it's comparing between emulated benchmarks? https://www.geekbench.com/download/ https://www.geekbench.com/download/
- doener 6y ago>(2) It's a two-year-old chip, not a one-year-old one. :) The original title I put in was "2 Year old ...". Hacker News just deleted the 2 automatically after posting.