4 ms·

Here’s the multi core Geekbench progression: M1: 8350 M2: 9700 M3: 11650 M4: 14600 M5: 16650 (estimated) This is assuming an 8% uplift as mentioned. Also

Here’s the multi core Geekbench progression: M1: 8350 M2: 9700 M3: 11650 M4: 14600 M5: 16650 (estimated) This is assuming an 8% uplift as mentioned. Also nice.

bhouston 1y ago
Will the base core count and mix between perf and efficient cores remain the same? That has lead to different scaling factors for the multicore performance than the single core metrics.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  Possibly, at least compared to the previous M4 generation. For the lowest tier M models to this point: M1 (any): 4P + 4E M2 (any): 4P + 4E M3 (any): 4P + 4E M4 (iPad): 3P + 6E M4 (Mac): 4P + 6E M5 (iPad): 3P + 6E (claimed) M5 (Mac): Unknown It's worth noting there are often higher tier models that still don't earn the "Pro" moniker. E.g. there is a 4P + 8E variant of the iMac which is still marketed as just having a normal M4.
  - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
    Are these cores getting way more complex? Because there should be room for 2x - 3x as many cores with die shrinks at this point.
    - astrange 1y ago
      If you get more space, you need a really good reason not to use that space on more cache. Also, the size numbers are lies and aren't the actual size of anything.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      The die shrinks are less than the marketing numbers would make you believe, but the cores are getting significantly more complex. I think E cores had a 50% cache increase this generation, as an example. The above summary also excludes the GPU, which seems to have gotten the most attention this generation (~+30%, even more in AI workloads).
nodesocket 1y ago
For reference I have a M4 Pro mac mini, top spec model with 14 cores and score: single: 3960 multi: 22521
- bhouston 1y ago
  I think he is showing the base cpu comparison for the MacMini/MacBooks. There are so many M-series multicore variants it is hard to mention them all.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
I wish we could get something other than Geekbench for these things, since Geekbench seems to be trash. For example, it has the Ryzen 7 7700X with a higher multi-core score than the Epyc 9534 even though they're both Zen4 and the latter has 8 times as many cores and is significantly faster on threaded workloads in real life.
- wtallis 1y ago
  There's real value in having a multi-threaded benchmark that doesn't ignore Amdahl's Law and pretend that everything is embarrassingly parallel.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    That's what the single thread score is supposed to be for. The multi-thread score is supposed to tell you how the thing performs on the many real workloads that are embarrassingly parallel. Suppose I'm trying to decide whether to buy a 32-core system with a lower base clock or a 24-core system with a higher base clock. What good is it to tell me that both of them are the same speed as the 8-core system because they have the same boost clock and the "multi-core" benchmark doesn't actually use most of the cores?
    - thyristan 1y ago
      The only valid benchmark for that is to use the application you intend to use as a benchmark. Even embarassingly parallel problems can have different characteristics depending on their use of memory and caches and the thermal characteristics of the CPU. Something that uses only L1 cache and registers will probably scale almost linearly in the number of cores, except for thermal influences. Something that uses L2, L3 caches or even main memory will be sublinear.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        You're essentially just arguing that all general-purpose benchmarks are worthless because your application could be different. Suppose I run many different kinds of applications and am just looking for an overall score to provide a general idea of how two machines compare with one another. That's supposed to be the purpose of these benchmarks, isn't it? But this one seems to be unusually useless at distinguishing between various machines with more than a small number of cores. Your analysis is also incorrect for many of these systems. Each core may have its own L2 cache and each core complex may have its own L3, so systems with more core complexes don't inherently have more contention for caches because they also have more caches. Likewise, systems with more cores often also have more memory bandwidth, so the amount of bandwidth per core isn't inherently less than it is in systems with fewer cores, and in some cases it's actually more, e.g. a HEDT processor may have twice as many cores but four times as many memory channels.

Here’s the multi core Geekbench progression: M1: 8350 M2: 9700 M3: 11650 M4: 14600 M5: 16650 (estimated) This is assuming an 8% uplift as mentioned. Also nice.

bhouston 1y ago

Will the base core count and mix between perf and efficient cores remain the same? That has lead to different scaling factors for the multicore performance than the single core metrics.

zamadatix 1y ago
Possibly, at least compared to the previous M4 generation. For the lowest tier M models to this point: M1 (any): 4P + 4E M2 (any): 4P + 4E M3 (any): 4P + 4E M4 (iPad): 3P + 6E M4 (Mac): 4P + 6E M5 (iPad): 3P + 6E (claimed) M5 (Mac): Unknown It's worth noting there are often higher tier models that still don't earn the "Pro" moniker. E.g. there is a 4P + 8E variant of the iMac which is still marketed as just having a normal M4.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  Are these cores getting way more complex? Because there should be room for 2x - 3x as many cores with die shrinks at this point.
  - astrange 1y ago
    If you get more space, you need a really good reason not to use that space on more cache. Also, the size numbers are lies and aren't the actual size of anything.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    The die shrinks are less than the marketing numbers would make you believe, but the cores are getting significantly more complex. I think E cores had a 50% cache increase this generation, as an example. The above summary also excludes the GPU, which seems to have gotten the most attention this generation (~+30%, even more in AI workloads).

nodesocket 1y ago

For reference I have a M4 Pro mac mini, top spec model with 14 cores and score: single: 3960 multi: 22521

bhouston 1y ago
I think he is showing the base cpu comparison for the MacMini/MacBooks. There are so many M-series multicore variants it is hard to mention them all.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

I wish we could get something other than Geekbench for these things, since Geekbench seems to be trash. For example, it has the Ryzen 7 7700X with a higher multi-core score than the Epyc 9534 even though they're both Zen4 and the latter has 8 times as many cores and is significantly faster on threaded workloads in real life.

wtallis 1y ago
There's real value in having a multi-threaded benchmark that doesn't ignore Amdahl's Law and pretend that everything is embarrassingly parallel.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  That's what the single thread score is supposed to be for. The multi-thread score is supposed to tell you how the thing performs on the many real workloads that are embarrassingly parallel. Suppose I'm trying to decide whether to buy a 32-core system with a lower base clock or a 24-core system with a higher base clock. What good is it to tell me that both of them are the same speed as the 8-core system because they have the same boost clock and the "multi-core" benchmark doesn't actually use most of the cores?
  - thyristan 1y ago
    The only valid benchmark for that is to use the application you intend to use as a benchmark. Even embarassingly parallel problems can have different characteristics depending on their use of memory and caches and the thermal characteristics of the CPU. Something that uses only L1 cache and registers will probably scale almost linearly in the number of cores, except for thermal influences. Something that uses L2, L3 caches or even main memory will be sublinear.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      You're essentially just arguing that all general-purpose benchmarks are worthless because your application could be different. Suppose I run many different kinds of applications and am just looking for an overall score to provide a general idea of how two machines compare with one another. That's supposed to be the purpose of these benchmarks, isn't it? But this one seems to be unusually useless at distinguishing between various machines with more than a small number of cores. Your analysis is also incorrect for many of these systems. Each core may have its own L2 cache and each core complex may have its own L3, so systems with more core complexes don't inherently have more contention for caches because they also have more caches. Likewise, systems with more cores often also have more memory bandwidth, so the amount of bandwidth per core isn't inherently less than it is in systems with fewer cores, and in some cases it's actually more, e.g. a HEDT processor may have twice as many cores but four times as many memory channels.