Quote from: TKay on September 25, 2021, 15:58:52
So you're saying this new chip will be faster than a two year old chip AND it will be the fastest Apple laptop chip?
Um.. ya.
That is like saying the PS5 is going to faster than all models of PS4.

Hypothetical benchmarks are useless,  but in this case, even the actual measured numbers will be useless..  With software designed specifically to take advantage of these chips, the real-life performance comparison between two systems running the same software will likely be much greater than the simple difference in benchmark scores.

Quote from: xc68000 on September 26, 2021, 18:28:09
Dear Apple,

I'm not intersted in any of your new, upcoming computers until you support/foster/grow a credible gaming ecosystem that supports the use-case/lifestyle needs and wants of pretty much every home computer user over the age of 12. 

It was easier to overlook this huge gap when bootcamp gaming was a thing, but now it's not.


Thanks

Apple isn't interested in making gaming computers.  It's been that way for about 30 years, it's time to let it go.

Dear Apple,

I'm not intersted in any of your new, upcoming computers until you support/foster/grow a credible gaming ecosystem that supports the use-case/lifestyle needs and wants of pretty much every home computer user over the age of 12. 

It was easier to overlook this huge gap when bootcamp gaming was a thing, but now it's not.


Thanks

Quote from: Tridents on September 26, 2021, 01:04:31

Quote from: Whytho on September 25, 2021, 20:53:31
A14 and A15 use the same core design, dogshit article.

Why do you say something like that?
Apple actually mentioned they were new cores. Doesn't mean they changed them too much, but there are differences.

A15 have 'new' cores because these faster A14 cores have different codenames. Intel did that before with Skylake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and Comet Lake.

Apple 8 core gpu has 1024 ALUs. 1024 alus is actually more than the amount of cuda cores in gtx 1650. Doubling of the gpu cores usually results in roughly 50% better performance. 4x gpu cores should provide a 2-2.5x jump but not 4x.

Quote from: Ish on September 25, 2021, 16:27:07

Quote from: TKay on September 25, 2021, 15:58:52
So you're saying this new chip will be faster than a two year old chip AND it will be the fastest Apple laptop chip?
Um.. ya.
That is like saying the PS5 is going to faster than all models of PS4.

This "article" is horseshit, but that aside... you do realize a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro are two entirely different things, right? That one is a laptop and one is a desktop? That desktop and laptop CPUs are entirely different things having different power requirements? It really doesn't sound like you get the distinction because the PS4 to a PS5 comparison doesn't even make sense... at all.

Oh I am aware. How do pre-release laptop chips from intel now compare to those in a consumer ready desktop from two years ago in a highly asymmetrical test?  Intel will tell you 5x faster and pull some test data like this junk out of their butts.
These benchmark articles are just marketing bs unless they are comparing available devices in real world test scenarios.

Quote from: CraigC on September 26, 2021, 03:58:44

Quote from: Tridents on September 25, 2021, 12:52:59
I would say his CPU numbers are not at all realistic.
He is way underestimating the performance of the efficiency cores and its historic impact on the multicore score, which throws his calculations completely off-course. He also doesn't seem to realize that Geekbench doesn't scale very well with increasing number of cores. Geekbench M1X multicore score should hover around 12,500-13,000, maybe less, certainly not 15,000.

I agree with you that many of the youtube celebrities and this article are extrapolating as if the only cores operating during the multicore score are the p-cores and no performance is coming out of the e-cores.   I did a rough calculation using e-cores providing about 70% the performance as the p-cores (which I have heard elsewhere of what they are capable of) and without taking any degradation of just adding more cores the maximum likely would have to be less than I think 14,750ish if I remember right...  I don't think there would be much of a degradation, so I would expect somewhere around 14,000 as my best guesstimate... which still is a really really good performance number for a laptop chip (especially in a 14" MacBook Pro).

It has already been observed in other benchmarks that the efficiency cores can represent around 20-25% of the CPU multicore performance on a M1.
You can also easily see, going through other CPU results, that Geekbench does not scale very well with the number of cores. With increasing number of cores the scaling "efficiency" decreases quite a lot!
Using this information, if you do the math for the expected 8+2 M1X cores, you would not even get to 13,000, even assuming the same scaling efficiency achieved by the M1.

Quote from: Bojan on September 25, 2021, 16:24:14
These interpolations are making a big assumption by going from the A15.

It's also possible that Apple has started with Cortex-X instead of Cortex-A core for M1X.

Apple does not use any cores from ARM...  If you are talking of architecture, the Cortex-X is still v8+ ISA (instruction set architecture)... the M2 series is the earliest you might see Apple use v9 ISA... but it would still be Apple cores.

Quote from: Tridents on September 25, 2021, 12:52:59
I would say his CPU numbers are not at all realistic.
He is way underestimating the performance of the efficiency cores and its historic impact on the multicore score, which throws his calculations completely off-course. He also doesn't seem to realize that Geekbench doesn't scale very well with increasing number of cores. Geekbench M1X multicore score should hover around 12,500-13,000, maybe less, certainly not 15,000.

I agree with you that many of the youtube celebrities and this article are extrapolating as if the only cores operating during the multicore score are the p-cores and no performance is coming out of the e-cores.   I did a rough calculation using e-cores providing about 70% the performance as the p-cores (which I have heard elsewhere of what they are capable of) and without taking any degradation of just adding more cores the maximum likely would have to be less than I think 14,750ish if I remember right...  I don't think there would be much of a degradation, so I would expect somewhere around 14,000 as my best guesstimate... which still is a really really good performance number for a laptop chip (especially in a 14" MacBook Pro).

Quote from: Whytho on September 25, 2021, 20:53:31
A14 and A15 use the same core design, dogshit article.

Why do you say something like that?
Apple actually mentioned they were new cores. Doesn't mean they changed them too much, but there are differences.

A14 and A15 use the same core design, dogshit article.

yeah i wrote a bullshit! However I wait for anandtech review,.

6-10% of more improv don't come from a new arch.
Higher clock? LPDDR5 instead LPDDR4?

the GPU arch maybe yes because is around 15%. 

Quote from: TKay on September 25, 2021, 15:58:52
So you're saying this new chip will be faster than a two year old chip AND it will be the fastest Apple laptop chip?
Um.. ya.
That is like saying the PS5 is going to faster than all models of PS4.

This "article" is horseshit, but that aside... you do realize a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro are two entirely different things, right? That one is a laptop and one is a desktop? That desktop and laptop CPUs are entirely different things having different power requirements? It really doesn't sound like you get the distinction because the PS4 to a PS5 comparison doesn't even make sense... at all.

These interpolations are making a big assumption by going from the A15.

It's also possible that Apple has started with Cortex-X instead of Cortex-A core for M1X.

Why waste time on hypotheticals from random YouTube nitwits when there are actual useful things to report on? Do these clowns pay NBC to post this kind of garbage so they get more viewers and ad revenue? I love NBC for reviews and benchmarks, but just about everything else is simply trash.