5 ms·

>The M2 is significantly slower in multithreaded compared to the mid-range Dell XPS 13 Plus and a miniscule amount faster in single threaded. You can see this l

>The M2 is significantly slower in multithreaded compared to the mid-range Dell XPS 13 Plus and a miniscule amount faster in single threaded. You can see this list: https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-list/cinebench-scores https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-list/cinebench-scores Cinebench is a terrible CPU benchmark. Geekbench is far better. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_cinebench_is_now_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/pitid6/eli5_why_d... >But in addition the M2 air runs hotter. They both throttle. But the M2 reaches over 100 degrees. I used an M1 Air for over a year. While it can get hot if you run it a maximum, it runs extremely cool for being fanless on normal workloads. Most people aren't pushing their laptops to the max. >That XPS 13 plus settles at around a continuous cinebench scores of ~1515. While the first run was 1795. That means it has a stability of about 84%. Again, Cinebench is a terrible CPU benchmark. >Anyway if you want a fast ultra portable neither Apple nor Intel are good choices. You have to get an and MAD 6000 series laptop. Simply not true. Both Intel and Apple offer faster laptop chips than AMD.

varispeed 4y ago
People tend to focus on raw performance and then pretend the Dell has no fans. I'd take a bit slower laptop but dead silent over a minute faster one whirring like a jet engine.
nicolaslem 4y ago
> Cinebench is a terrible CPU benchmark. Geekbench is far better. People do not run a single benchmark tool when comparing hardware, they use multiple. Each with their own well defined characteristics and make their own conclusions depending on what matters to them. Cinebench is part of almost every hardware review for a good reason: its characteristics (CPU only, not dependent on cache, memory speeds nor timings) are well understood and provide valuable information on a specific aspect of the hardware.
- senttoschool 4y ago
  >People do not run a single benchmark tool when comparing hardware, they use multiple. Most Youtubers base the performance of the CPU on Cinebench. They definitely aren't Anandtech, where CPU is measured with SPEC. >Cinebench is part of almost every hardware review for a good reason: its characteristics (CPU only, not dependent on cache, memory speeds nor timings) are well understood and provide valuable information on a specific aspect of the hardware. Cinebench is being used as an end all CPU benchmark too often. Just look at the author I replied to. Again, if one were to use one single benchmark to denote the performance of a CPU, they should use SPEC. Absent of SPEC, they should use Geekbench. Cinebench is pretty far down the list.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    I didn't use it as a benchmarking tool. I don't care about the relatively numbers between CPUs or even what performance it represents. I only referenced the throttling behavior. I could as well have used a simple C program that adds floating points together as fast as possible.

varispeed 4y ago

People tend to focus on raw performance and then pretend the Dell has no fans. I'd take a bit slower laptop but dead silent over a minute faster one whirring like a jet engine.

nicolaslem 4y ago

> Cinebench is a terrible CPU benchmark. Geekbench is far better. People do not run a single benchmark tool when comparing hardware, they use multiple. Each with their own well defined characteristics and make their own conclusions depending on what matters to them. Cinebench is part of almost every hardware review for a good reason: its characteristics (CPU only, not dependent on cache, memory speeds nor timings) are well understood and provide valuable information on a specific aspect of the hardware.

senttoschool 4y ago
>People do not run a single benchmark tool when comparing hardware, they use multiple. Most Youtubers base the performance of the CPU on Cinebench. They definitely aren't Anandtech, where CPU is measured with SPEC. >Cinebench is part of almost every hardware review for a good reason: its characteristics (CPU only, not dependent on cache, memory speeds nor timings) are well understood and provide valuable information on a specific aspect of the hardware. Cinebench is being used as an end all CPU benchmark too often. Just look at the author I replied to. Again, if one were to use one single benchmark to denote the performance of a CPU, they should use SPEC. Absent of SPEC, they should use Geekbench. Cinebench is pretty far down the list.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  I didn't use it as a benchmarking tool. I don't care about the relatively numbers between CPUs or even what performance it represents. I only referenced the throttling behavior. I could as well have used a simple C program that adds floating points together as fast as possible.