3 ms·

Is that supposed to be fast guys? Isn't that still slower than some ryzen 5 5600x? (my pc uses this but below is not my benchmark) https://browser.geekbench.c

Is that supposed to be fast guys? Isn't that still slower than some ryzen 5 5600x? (my pc uses this but below is not my benchmark) https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/8238216 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/8238216 I'm not sure how fast or good is that number.. But i've heard good things about m1 and planning to probably upgrade. edit: Not sure what's with the downvotes, i'm genuinely curious. I'm in the apple ecosystem with many apple products, windows pc, basically a tech enthusiast without any hate towards 1 brand. geez

mciancia 5y ago
> Base Frequency 4.72 GHz > Maximum Frequency 6.03 GHz This was seriously overclocked, wouldn't be surprised if with liquid nitrogen. So probably poor comparison to laptop CPU ;)
- jjcon 5y ago
  We're also seeing slower m1max benchmarks though https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10476727 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10476727
- robertwt7 5y ago
  Ah yes that's true, didn't realise it was overclocked. Probably good to compare to those ryzen in laptop..
defaultname 5y ago
It's very fast for a mobile form factor, and still very fast for a desktop processor. The benchmark you linked is grossly overclocked, as are many others people have linked throughout this thread. Which is fundamentally the problem with the Geekbench browser and people searching around for something to prove a point, when the numbers on there are completely unverified (and sometimes wholly fictitious), unproven, and often under ridiculous scenarios. Use actual reviews from credible reviewers and extract the GB results from that. e.g. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/17 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-di... And FWIW, I don't even put any credibility on these M1 results. I'll just wait until Anandtech or someone similar has a real review with competently created, reproducible benchmarks.

mciancia 5y ago

> Base Frequency 4.72 GHz > Maximum Frequency 6.03 GHz This was seriously overclocked, wouldn't be surprised if with liquid nitrogen. So probably poor comparison to laptop CPU ;)

jjcon 5y ago
We're also seeing slower m1max benchmarks though https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10476727 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10476727
robertwt7 5y ago
Ah yes that's true, didn't realise it was overclocked. Probably good to compare to those ryzen in laptop..

defaultname 5y ago

It's very fast for a mobile form factor, and still very fast for a desktop processor. The benchmark you linked is grossly overclocked, as are many others people have linked throughout this thread. Which is fundamentally the problem with the Geekbench browser and people searching around for something to prove a point, when the numbers on there are completely unverified (and sometimes wholly fictitious), unproven, and often under ridiculous scenarios. Use actual reviews from credible reviewers and extract the GB results from that. e.g. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/17 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-di... And FWIW, I don't even put any credibility on these M1 results. I'll just wait until Anandtech or someone similar has a real review with competently created, reproducible benchmarks.