Does single-core matter much these days? Weird that we're comparing Apple's ARM chips to Intel and AMD's x86 processors once again, from various eras no less - feels a lot like we're comparing microwave ovens and toasters, and claiming one heats food better than the other.

Not to forget Geekbench has always been heavily skewed in favour of Apple's chips, but that's another debate.

Starting with Zen instead of Bulldozer/Piledriver means 2017, not 2016.

These writers are not the best...

In the real world, x86 destroys, GB is a fraud.

we should consider also maybe...the starting point????
that apple was almost HALF of single core perf. in 2016 and this is because their architecture was pretty crap and the score was pretty crap even for that time?
and then they borrowed and implemented a lot of stuff that is done in x86 architectures and they got to basically a similar performance point, with a slight edge because arm is a leener isa?

Ok, good, then go back your job and try better.

Quote from: GeorgeS on October 18, 2024, 02:20:57For AMD, why not the 2016 R5 vs the 2024 'Threadripper' or R9?

Quote from: GeorgeS on October 18, 2024, 02:20:57AMD 2016 R9 vs 2024 R9

Ryzen didn't even exist in 2016.

First Ryzen came in 2017, not 2016.

If you would have bothered to dig up benchmarks for an A or FX CPU you'd get much bigger difference.

Also, comparing a phone chip with a computer chip? Weak.

It's an effective clickbait tho, I give you that. Look at all these nerds who wants to correct you, me included lol

Who comes up with these insane comparisons - Apple? If the author wasn't paid for this he probably should ask Apple for it himself! You're coming from a phone SoC to a full fledged laptop SoC, not to mention the TDP is also vastly different. I'm not even accounting for the fact that in 2016 Intel had the highest IPC for all high end chips! Really poor this, it's like this site is Macrumors lite these days.

A rather SILLY compare of low end to high end chips eh?

Surely not  Grapes vs Grapes at all eh?

For AMD, why not the 2016 R5 vs the 2024 'Threadripper' or R9?
For Intel, surely there's a 2016 Atom that could be vs their current top-of-the-line i9?

Or if we really want Peaches vs Peaches then:

Apple M1 vs M4
AMD 2016 R9 vs 2024 R9
Intel 2016 i9 vs 2024 i9

Otherwise a rather comical article not worth being published.

Not really impressive nor news.

Apple's baseline is from a performance hole in the ground of a tablet part (vs desktop parts) as its starting point to slightly better than the competition in a benchmark in which it excels.
You didn't even manage to remain internally valid/consistent by comparing iPad Gen7 vs iPad Pro M4, but tablet vs MB Pro 16. 🙄

Might as well use Intel's failed cellular chip (Atom Z3580/3560) as its baseline to see some equally 'impressive' (and equally pointless/inflated cherry-picked) gains over a similar time period.

An alternate headline would be... "Despite over a 1000% increase in Multi-Core GB score, Apple stills trails AMD & intel by wide WIDE margin, despite their relatively lowly 400% and 420% respective gains over the same period "

Equally meaningless, and still par for the course.

Must be running out of ideas for 'articles'. 🤨