A20 Pro vs Intel Ultra 7 Series 3
I hope everyone reading this realizes that score chart is misleading at best.
They failed to point out clearly in the posted image in OP that the scores are for burst compute. As in, if the chip sustained that workload for more than a few seconds it would fry itself.
Taken out of context, everything can be impressive. That title is really, really misleading.
They're also comparing arm to x86. Both can do exceptionally well in specific category. I still remember how disappointed I was initially in M chips because of advertisement like "FASTEST CHIP THERE IS, BEATS ALL INTELS", but then I try to play the only cross platform game I know (Minecraft) and it plays worse than on a decade+ older Intel CPU.
I had no idea. What makes that difference? On a quick read M chips don't like OpenGL but I doubt that's it.
From what I've heard, the GPU in the M-series chips are just scaled-up PowerVR derived GPU, with some of the greatest limitations being carried over.
Also the CPU is more optimized for parallel-processing, and many games are still seldom optimized for that.
Instructions something something. I'm not a chip expert, but last I heard ARM excels in media and efficiency, but lacks in gaming that does quite advanced (large?) operations.
They probably optimize for the benchmark.. It's not uncommon
The benchmark itself measures burst compute.
For any sort of sustained workload it's nowhere near laptops, let alone near desktops.
The whole post, and especially the title and image, are misleading.
It generally is with Apple
I used to sell their gear, and there was always a lot of shitty comparisons and even boasts about things that existed on the competition, but they just didn't advertise it (because they had it so long)
Like the G5 Vector computing. Turns out, instructions like SSE on intel / AMD was basically the same thing. They just didn't brag about it anymore
Even as someone who despises Apple for their product philosophy, I gotta admit their new chips are baller... Lots of undeserved hate in this thread
No iCrap gets the hate well deserved. They torpedo their own products.
The chips are good but the company can go fuck itself
I don't really like geekbench. It always feels like it favors apple devices.
Sometimes companies build product to get high scores, rather than to work well in real settings.
Apple has done a remarkable job with their silicon though.
I got an used M1 2020 MacBook Air (base model, no upgrades) back in 2023 and that thing is still going strong. Doesn’t feel slow at all. Not even slightly.
I got a used 2010 thinkpad and it doesn't feel slow at all (I play solitaire and browse the web on it on Linux Mint)
I think I need not explain the parallel here, right?
Yep, still using my M1 MacBook air as well. Amazing that when I got it it was $800, and it performs just as well if not slightly better than the new Macbook Neo.
And can do that for two seconds before throttling.
I'm not familiar with GeekBench, but I assume that, as with benchmarking software that I've used in the past, its benchmark runs for more than two seconds to help make numbers reproducible.
I haven't checked what they do either, but I don't see that as a reasonable assumption.
If they test for short burst performance specifically then the short runtime is the point. You then use multiple iterations of the test run to get a reasonable, reproducible result by averaging.
All of this performance is wasted on Apple's closed hardware and OS. What a shame.
Yes this right here the context the people are actually missing is that these trips are going to be proprietary to Apple products.
The last Apple product that I purchased was a iPod mini in 2008.
On the iPhone, sure, but it would be equally wasted on Android phones because who needs this much performance in a phone anyway. However, I expect them to also use it in next year's Macbook Neo, which is a surprisingly capable laptop for its price with even the A18 Pro chip. It also bodes well for the next generation of their M series chips if the A20 Pro is this fast... and there are TONS of people using Macs for real work. Code compilation in particular got super fast with the M1 Pro and I believe it's great for creative applications too, though I haven't really used those much myself. Creatives types gravitated towards MacOS even before Apple Silicon, especially video editors because of Final Cut Pro.
The more performant the chips, the more you can downclock them (or the faster they finish their tasks), the less battery they use
It should in theory be good for battery life
Theyre wasted on ipads with iPadOS too, maybe even more so than on iOS
I believe the power can be used with Android's Desktop Mode, or even Android's current multitasking capabilities like multi-window and pop-up window.
More cats in my dwarf fortress are never wasted.
Honestly, DF was the last time i thought about single core performance.
Cats are the best source of soap in DF :)
Don't worry guys, we'll get a RISC-V device that blows Apple ARM out of the water any second now.
Annnnyyy second now...
It's honestly amazing what these chips can do.
Unfortunately it's stuck behind the Apple ecosystem.
They always do this comparison and it is always misleading. They are the first to get a processor on the new TSMC node, so of course the processor will be faster.
They’re the first to get the fastest chips, so saying their chips are the fastest is… misleading? But also “of course” it’s true?
I’m confused.
I don’t think anybody was misled into thinking it meant this chip would always be the fastest on the market.
Saying the first new CPU on a new node is fastest is uninteresting from a technical standpoint, as there isn’t any competition yet, even if it is not inaccurate.
The average consumer doesn’t care why it’s the fastest. For a time, they’ll have a faster chip than their peers. Only people on Lemmy would say “yeah but that’s only because new nm process, so it doesn’t count!”
If the conversation is between chip manufacturers talking shop, that matters. For everyone else, it’s irrelevant.
Okay, but that Intel CPU was part of the first family of CPUs on Intel's equivalent node (18A) too. If nothing else, it serves as an interesting Intel vs TSMC lithography comparison. Which one would expect TSMC to win anyway, but at least now we have numbers.
And yet, it can't (be made to) run a full desktop OS or play AAA games. But you can personalise the Siri voice (older phones can do the conversational stuff)... maybe edit photos faster.
Apple went and made a phone you could use for ten years, but next year they'll be telling you why their new phone is so much better than the last one. They don't expect you to upgrade every year, but they expect you to want to, and after a couple of generations, they want you to think that you have to.
I have an iPhone 16 Pro Max (2024), and the 18 Pro/Max presentation definitely gave me a bit of phone envy. But I also have a Galaxy S10 (2019), and that does a few things better than the iPhone, even though it's 5 years difference between them. Apple's keyboard likes to hallucinate weird results (like changing out common words for names of people I don't even have in contacts) and edit after the fact. Gboard just works. When it doesn't, the mistake makes sense (if and of for example). Also, I've used the same wallpaper on both phones. It always looks better on the Samsung. Sharper colors and contrast. Hold both up and ask anyone which looks better, they're gonna point to the Samsung, even if you turn the iPhone's brightness up all the way.
Phone manufacturers are desperately trying to convince you that you need the latest and greatest. You don't — unless you want to do AI stuff. And even then, they're going to charge you for it. And they're sure you'll pay, because you've already shown your hand by opening your wallet again.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
