>Indeed, Apple's A20 Pro is 7% faster than M5, 20% faster than M4, and 43% faster than M3 in single-thread performance. Its six-core design cannot match its multi-thread performance, trailing the 10-core M5 by 39% and the 10-core M4 by 27%. Yet, it is only 5% behind the eight-core M3.

I wish Apple would become a CPU/GPU vendor.

I would love to see what amazing things that non-Apple people could build with Apple silicon.

I wonder if either (a) high frequency trading firms are going to start running their algorithms on iPhones, or (b) Geekbench doesn't accurately reflect the real world performance in some way.

Assuming Geekbench is a good reflection of real world performance (in e.g. games, video encoding, encryption, decompression, compilation, databases, etc), I'm curious to know what AMD and Intel are doing so wrong that a cellphone chip could outpace their desktop chips. I don't think the A20's lithography is vastly better, nor does the chip have more area. Where's the performance difference coming from?

Didn't last long, a reasonable looking M6 result has come in as well and it slightly edges out on the single core https://browser.geekbench.com/v7/cpu/354109 what a great design from Apple again.

Interesting but not earth shattering.

I’m a Mac user but performance is good enough for most stuff and I’m several generations behind. I don’t neee worlds best performance in my desktop.

It would be super interesting if this was a Linux chip, where the performance is really needed for all sorts of back end applications. Even then its multi core is behind.

Me with my M1 Max wondering where I went wrong, heh.

For how many milliseconds ?