5 ms·
Kind of weird to see an article about high-performance ARM cores without a single reference to Apple or how this hardware compares to M4 or M5 cores.
by pdpi 7mo ago
Kind of weird to see an article about high-performance ARM cores without a single reference to Apple or how this hardware compares to M4 or M5 cores.
- SG- 7mo agoSame, I wish Chips and Cheese would compare some of these cores to Apple Silicon, especially in this case where they're talking about another ARM core. A few years ago they were writing articles about Apple Silicon.
- ezst 7mo agoThat would only matter (to me, at least) if those Apple chips were propping up an open platform that suits my needs. As things stand today, procuring an M chip represents a commitment to the Apple software ecosystem, which Apple made abundantly clear doesn't optimize for user needs. Those marginally faster CPU cycles happen on a time scale that anyway can't offset the wasted time fighting MacOS and re-building decades-long muscle memory, so thanks but no thanks.
- pdpi 7mo agoSure. Insofar as Apple Silicon beats these things, "I'll take less powerful hardware if it means I'm not stuck with the Apple ecosystem" is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff to make. Two things, though. First, I don't like making blind tradeoffs. If what I need (for whatever reason) is a really beefy ARM CPU, I'd like to know what the "Apple-less tax" costs me (if anything!) Second, the status quo is that Apple Silicon is the undisputed king of ARM CPU performance, so it's the obvious benchmark to compare this thing against. Providing that context is just basic journalistic practice, even if just to say "but it's irrelevant because we can't use the hardware without the software".
- amelius 7mo agoLet's say my company makes systems for in-flight entertainment, with content from my company. I am looking for a CPU. I don't want to confront my users with "Please enter your Apple ID" or any other unexpected messages that I have no control over. Is Apple M series an option for me?
- rick_dalton 7mo agoThe X925 core is used in chips like the gb10 for the nvidia dgx spark. So it is relevant to compare to apple silicon performance imo. The mac studio is pretty much a competitor to it.
- ghosty141 7mo agoWhy should it be? All he is saying: We currently have products in a similar product category (arm based desktop computers) that are widely used and have known benchmark scores (and general reviews) and it would make sense if I publish a new cpu for the same product category ("Reaching Desktop Performance" implies that) that I'd compare it to the known alternatives. In the end you can just run Asahi on your macbook, the OS is not that relevant here. A comparison to macbooks running Asahi Linux would be fine.
- amelius 7mo agoBut why would an article address _their_ specific usecase?
- buran77 7mo ago> But why would an article address _their_ specific usecase? amelius, if anyone had specific requirements, it was you with your "systems for in-flight entertainment". OP asked a very reasonable question for a very generic comparison to the 800-pound gorilla in the consumer CPU world in general, and ARM CPU world in particular. If the article can reference AMD's Zen 5 cores and Intel's Lion/Sunny Cove, they could have made at least a brief reference to M-series CPUs. As a reader and potential buyer of any of them, I find it would have been a very useful comparison.
- amelius 7mo agoIn industry, people want to take computing parts and build products with them. This is not possible with Apple parts. That's what my example was about. It was only specific because I wanted to have a concrete example.
- bluGill 7mo agoWhy do you need ARM? There is nothing magic, most CPUs are an internal instruction set with a decoder on top. bad as x86 is, decoding is not the issue. they can make lower power use x86 if they want. They can also make mips or riskv chips that are good.
- pdpi 7mo agoThere's nothing special about ARM, sure. Hence "for whatever reason". Still, ARM is a known quantity, and the leading alternative to x86 for desktop CPUs. The article is titled "reaching desktop performance". We know how Apple's hardware performs on native workloads. We know how it performs emulating x86 workloads (and why). Surely "... and this is how this hardware measures up against the other guys trying to achieve the exact same thing" is a relevant comparison? I can't be the only person who reads "reaching desktop performance" and wonders "you mean comparable to the M1, or to the M3 Ultra?"
- GoblinSlayer 7mo agoIf you know how your favorite CPUs (and you can have many, even ppc) work in desktop performance units, then you have the numbers to compare. Are you sure you can migrate from Apple?
- wamatt 7mo ago>I can't be the only person who reads "reaching desktop performance" and wonders "you mean comparable to the M1, or to the M3 Ultra?" You're not. IMHO it's a fairly obvious, narrow and uncontroversial observation (and hence why its the top comment). That said, I personally still enjoyed the back and forth as many others one could imagine. There can be value in the counterarguments from multiple other usernames, as this facilitates sharpening reasoning for the conclusion from readers. (even when the original premise stays in tact) The lack of others agreeing could be the result of many reasons. IMHO, a not insignificant one could be the incentive structure skews heavily towards lurking as HN rightfully disincentives "me too" type replies and not everyone always has something interesting to add 2c not an epistemologist ymmv
- amluto 7mo ago
- jayd16 7mo agoThe problem is you can't really compare things apples to apples anyway. You're always comparing different builds and different OSes to get a sense of CPU performance.
- __alexs 7mo ago> the status quo is that Apple Silicon is the undisputed king of ARM CPU performance If your metric is single thread performance yes but on just about anything else Graviton 4 wins.
- guerrilla 7mo agoAre M* chips even beating AMD anyway?
- jakogut 7mo agoOn average according to Geekbench, the M5 compared to the 9950X is ~17% faster in single thread performance and ~30% slower in multithread performance. Individual benchmarks tell the bigger picture. These two are optimized for different use cases, with Apple heavily leaning towards low latency single thread throughput with low sustained power usage. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16833358?baseline=15249230 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16833358?baseli... EDIT: The M4 Max compares much more closely https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16834801?baseline=15249230 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16834801?baseli...
- guerrilla 7mo agoAlright, thanks. Seems like a tradeoff issue.
- pdpi 7mo agoThat M4 Max is in a laptop. The Mac Studio version is a couple percent faster still: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16839304?baseline=15249230 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16839304?baseli... The M3 Ultra sacrifices a bunch of single-thread performance for not that much of a multithreaded gain: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16839654?baseline=15249230 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/16839654?baseli...
- rbanffy 7mo ago> Apple Silicon is the undisputed king of ARM CPU performance The cores, yes, but you can get an AmpereOne with 192 ARM cores (or rent out beefier machines from AWS and Azure). If you need to run macOS, then you are tied to Apple, but if all you want is ARM (for, say, emulated embedded hardware development), you have other options in the ARM ecosystem. I'm actually surprised Ampere maxes out at 192 cores when Intel Xeon 6+ has parts with 288 cores on a single socket (and that can go up to 4 sockets). I wonder how many cores you'd need to make htop crash.
- flembat 7mo agoWhen purchasing any ARM based computer a key question for me, is how many of those can I purchase for the cost of a Mac mini, and how many Mac mini can I purchase for the cost of that, and does that have working drivers...
- ezst 7mo agoAnd the answer there may absolutely be "none", which equates to doing away with ARM, which is totally fine. I don't have a horse in the x86 vs ARM race, especially since it's pretty clear that performance per watt stands within a narrow margin across arches on recent nodes.
- spiderfarmer 7mo ago> represents a commitment to the Apple software ecosystem I don't see how that's holding you back from using these tools for your work anymore than using a Makita power tool with LXT battery pack.
- ezst 7mo agoPretty simply because I don't want to use MacOS, its terrible window management, quirks and idiosyncrasies. In your comparison, my gripe wouldn't be about the hassle of finding 3rd-party compatible batteries, but about the daily handling of the Makita while knowing the DeWalt to be more ergonomic and better suited to my needs.
- BlobberSnobber 7mo agoAs someone who uses Linux, macOS and Windows interchangeably, I'm curious to know what you're using. I learned to live with macOS, but I also like and use Gnome, which many Linux-only people hate. I tried most WMs on Linux, like Hyprland, Sway, i3, but none ever felt worth the config hassle when compared to the sane defaults of Gnome.
- lproven 7mo ago> the sane defaults of Gnome. I have to admit that when I read this, my eyebrows went up so far that my hat moved.
- BlobberSnobber 7mo agoI know what you mean, but Gnome was the DE that clicked the most for me (after I gave it a real try). I liked Gnome 2 and then 3 made me switch to KDE, then switched back. So I was actually completely wrong and, while writing this comment, I remembered what a pain it was to learn Gnome back then lol
- spiderfarmer 7mo agoThat’s not what a commitment is though. If I use a Makita because the battery life and resale value is twice that of a DeWalt, I wouldn’t say Makita is asking for a commitment to their ergonomics.
- upcoming-sesame 7mo agostill matters as a benchmark imo
- tucnak 7mo agoFWIW, Apple Virtualization framework is fantastic, and Rosetta 2 is unmatched on other Arm desktops where QEMU is required. For example, you can get Vivado working on Debian guest, macOS host trivially like that.
- ezst 7mo agohttps://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/10/apple-to-phase-out-rosetta-2/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/10/apple-to-phase-out-rose...
- Orygin 7mo agoThey are not phasing it out for virtualization.
- p_ing 7mo agoOnly reference I can find is: "Starting with computers using macOS 28, Rosetta functionality will be available only for certain older, unmaintained games that rely on Intel-based frameworks." https://support.apple.com/en-us/102527 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102527 And "Beyond this timeframe, we will keep a subset of Rosetta functionality aimed at supporting older unmaintained gaming titles, that rely on Intel-based frameworks." https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/about-the-rosetta-translation-environment/ https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple-silicon/abou...
- drzaiusx11 7mo agoBeen using Colima to run mixed architecture container stacks in docker compose on my M3 Mac and the machine barely blinks. I get a full day running a dozen containers on a single battery charge. Colima is backed by qemu, not Rosetta, so if Rosetta disappeared tomorrow I don't think I'd notice. I'm sure it's "better" but when the competition is "good enough" it doesn't really matter.
- renewiltord 7mo agoLast time I tried, getting Linux working on Apple Silicon actually worked better than on Qualcomm ARM machine (which only support strange Windows).
- drzaiusx11 7mo agoAsahi Linux is fantastic these days, but as with most linuxes on laptops the power management / battery life is the worst part. If treating a laptop like a portable desktop is ok for your use case you'd be plenty happy. If you're far away from an outlet for too long however, you'll find it lacking. At least that's my experience. It's possible they eventually figure that out too...
- synergy20 7mo agototally true. for me it's unless until those apple hardware can run linux first-class, till then it's irrelevant. sad to say this but macos sucks.
- truelinux1 7mo agoThis echoed my thoughts exactly - Linux only.
- amelius 7mo agoApple does not produce general purpose computing parts. This is an industry blog, not a consumer oriented blog.
- charcircuit 7mo agoM4 and M5 are literally general purpose computing parts. Apple literally owns the most profitable general purpose computing platform with the iPhone.
- senko 7mo agoPerhaps this was worded poorly, but the parent is referring to inability to source these processors from Apple and use them in other (non-Apple devices). As in, they don't sell you the parts, they only sell you the entire product. If you don't want the entire package, the processors alone are irrelevant.
- llm_nerd 7mo agoNone of us can buy or make an X925 in isolation. We can't get one and stick it in our motherboard. It has literally zero relevance to the desktop space. You can buy a DGX Spark and use it, just like you can buy a Mac Mini. The tested machine is an nvidia GB10 which nvidia makes and sells as a whole unit and various vendors stick it in different devices to try to differentiate (although in the end they're all basically identical). And yes, it is extremely weird for it to never mention the Apple chip, which has a little something to do with who they thank for lending them the device. The arbitrary claims for why they ignored the enormous, class-leading ARM processor in the space is not convincing. I mean, the other claim that this is an "industry blog" and not a "consumer blog" was equally silly. It's basically for curious hobbyists. Zero industry insiders follow this to see about the core in the GB10. It's basically Anandtech.
- layer8 7mo agoThe iPhone is anything but a general purpose computing platform. Apple actively prevents many purposes.
- atwrk 7mo agoThose are of almost zero use for people wishing to run Linux etc. Yes, Asahi exists, and props to the developers, but I don't think I'm alone in being unwilling to buy hardware from a manufacturer who obviously is not interested in supporting open operating systems
- promiseofbeans 7mo agoI mean… Apple went out of their way to build a GUI OS picker that supports custom names and icons into their boot loader. So they don’t actively help (or event make it easy by providing clear docs), but they do still do enough to enable really motivated people
- DeathArrow 7mo ago>Kind of weird to see an article about high-performance ARM cores without a single reference to Apple And Qualcomm.
- hrmtst93837 7mo ago[flagged]
- dgacmu 7mo agoMost of your comment history reads like LLM generated trite comments. Are you human?
- hrmtst93837 7mo ago[flagged]
- llm_nerd 7mo agoThe core they're talking about was released about two years ago. nvidia stuck it on their grace blackwell (e.g. DGX Spark) as basically a coordinator on the system. Anyway, here it is in GB10 form- https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/14078585 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/14078585 And here is a comparable M5 in a laptop- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2025 https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2025 M5 has about a 32% per core advantage, though the DGX obviously has a much richer power budget so they tossed in 10 high performance cores and 10 efficiency cores (versus the 4 performance and 6 efficiency in the latter). Given the 10/10 vs 4/6 core layouts I would expect the former to massively trounce the latter on multicore, while it only marginally does. Samsung used the same X925 core in their Exynos 2500 that they use on a flip phone. Mediatek put it in a couple of their chips as well. "Reaching desktop" is always such a weird criteria though. It's kind of a meaningless bar.
- drzaiusx11 7mo agoAfaict the "desktop" target is meaningless these days. Desktops aren't really a thing anymore in the general sense are they? Only folks I know still hanging on to desktop hardware are gamers and even those I see going by the wayside with external video cards becoming more reliable. "Daily driver" is probably a better term, but everyone's daily usage patterns will vary. I could do my day job with a VT100 emulator on a phone for example.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- wmf 7mo agoThe "desktop" market includes laptops but excludes servers, phones, tablets, etc.
- ThrowawayR2 7mo agoThere's a zillion office workers that have low cost mini PCs from the big OEMs on their desk. After all, all those off-lease mini PCs on eBay that are so beloved by home lab enthusiasts have to come from somewhere.
- KingOfCoders 7mo agoPerhaps you're not the target audience of the article.
- cubefox 7mo agoKind of weird that you pick Apple CPU cores when Qualcomm cores would be a far more appropriate comparison.
- Numerlor 7mo agoApple doesn't expose the kind of introspection necessary to compare with the data the article is about. Any mention would just be about Apple's chips existing and being better
- geerlingguy 7mo agoChips and Cheese focuses on architecture and chip design, and I think a lot of the tooling is less refined on macOS, so the comparison graphs can't quite get the same depth on Apple's chips. That's just a guess. But I did some comparisons when I tested the same Dell GB10 hardware late last year: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/dells-version-dgx-spark-fixes-pain-points/ https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/dells-version-dgx-spa...
- GeekyBear 7mo agoIt does make me miss the deep dives for new core designs from Anandtech. Running the SPEC benchmark interger and floating piitnt suites takes all day, but it's hard to game a benchmark with that much depth. It's a shame that nobody has been willing to offer that level of detail.
- hank808 7mo agoThey are talking specifically about ARM cores designed by and licensable from ARM Holdings (the company), not other designs that don't use ARM's designs (like the Apple silicon).
- close04 7mo agoThey repeatedly compare to Intel and AMD cores though, which are x86. If they’re worth a mention, then so are some of the other ARM consumer desktop chips on the market regardless of who designed them. Apple was one of the closest ARM chips they could have compared to. Your “specifically ARM cores designed by and licensable from ARM Holdings” argument doesn’t hold any water.