←back to thread

Apple Silicon M1 chip in MacBook Air outperforms high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro

(www.macrumors.com)
1080 points antipaul | 3 comments | 12 Nov 20 00:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mcintyre1994 ◴[12 Nov 20 07:21 UTC] No.25067338[source]▶
> The M1 chip, which belongs to a MacBook Air with 8GB RAM, features a single-core score of 1687 and a multi-core score of 7433. According to the benchmark, the M1 has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

> The Mac mini with M1 chip that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1682 and a multi-core score of 7067.

> Update: There's also a benchmark for the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 chip and 16GB RAM that has a single-core score of 1714 and a multi-core score of 6802. Like the MacBook Air , it has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

So single core we have: Air 1687, Mini 1682, Pro 1714

And multi core we have: Air 7433, Mini 7067, Pro 6802

I’m not sure what to make of these scores, but it seems wrong that the Mini and Pro significantly underperform the Air in multi core. I find it hard to imagine this benchmark is going to be representative of actual usage given the way the products are positioned, which makes it hard to know how seriously to take the comparisons to other products too.

> When compared to existing devices, the M1 chip in the MacBook Air outperforms all iOS devices. For comparison's sake, the iPhone 12 Pro earned a single-core score of 1584 and a multi-core score of 3898, while the highest ranked iOS device on Geekbench's charts, the A14 iPad Air, earned a single-core score of 1585 and a multi-core score of 4647.

This seems a bit odd too - the A14 iPad Air outperforms all iPad Pro devices?

replies(14): >>25067412 #>>25067414 #>>25067435 #>>25067467 #>>25067719 #>>25067879 #>>25067931 #>>25068427 #>>25068698 #>>25068977 #>>25069217 #>>25069354 #>>25070019 #>>25071266 #
throwaway4good ◴[12 Nov 20 08:30 UTC] No.25067719[source]▶
The results seem a little weird but if remotely true then these machines are going to sell like cup cakes.

Why would anyone (who is not forced) buy an Intel PC laptop when these are available and priced as competitive as they are?

replies(19): >>25067752 #>>25067760 #>>25067775 #>>25067789 #>>25067856 #>>25067866 #>>25067936 #>>25067945 #>>25067976 #>>25068118 #>>25068189 #>>25068589 #>>25068695 #>>25068781 #>>25069148 #>>25070670 #>>25071421 #>>25072755 #>>25074611 #
seunosewa ◴[12 Nov 20 08:37 UTC] No.25067752[source]▶
Many apps optimized for the x64 platform won't run as well as the benchmarks.
replies(3): >>25067793 #>>25067841 #>>25071962 #
Fnoord ◴[12 Nov 20 08:53 UTC] No.25067841[source]▶
They did mention in a presentation some applications ran even quicker in Rosetta 2 than native. Though Wine isn't an emulator, I've seen the same in Wine numerous times. How many, which, etc, who knows? Interesting to figure out regardless.
replies(2): >>25068430 #>>25070173 #
1. AnthonyMouse ◴[12 Nov 20 14:25 UTC] No.25070173[source]▶
This is often because it's translating syscalls rather than emulating them, so for applications that are only asking the OS to do the real work, in those cases it's running native code. And then it's running it on a current day CPU instead of one from two years ago.

Unfortunately, although applications like that exist, they're not the common case.

replies(1): >>25072001 #
2. valuearb ◴[12 Nov 20 17:16 UTC] No.25072001[source]▶
One of the most common operations done in MacOS is retain/release of objects. Rosetta2 translated code is TWICE as fast on the M1 as the original code on x86.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Catfish_Man/status/13262387851813...

replies(1): >>25073842 #
3. AnthonyMouse ◴[12 Nov 20 19:29 UTC] No.25073842[source]▶
Microbenchmarks are meaningless. Where are the benchmarks of real-world applications?