Why? I appreciate your sentiment, lol, but if we are idiots, what is your counter argument. I mean you'd need to be an idiot not to provide one?
Here is why Geekbench is dogshit :
View attachment 175372View attachment 175373
Every time other SoCs inch closer to Apple's the app gets updated and a chasm appears again between their chips and everyone else's.
In 4.4 there was less than 10% difference between A13 and Exynos 990, in 5 that somehow became a colossal 50%. This happens every single time a new version appears, without exception. Only an idiot would take these numbers for granted and not realize that this benchmark is always optimized specifically for Apple's chips.
Unyet most people would look at day to day performance in their hands, majority of people arent benchmark wankers?
I totally agree with you. This is AArch64, not the day-to-day application performance.
Wow, progess is all I have to say, see you on the otherside when other benchmarks confirm the obvious....
You mean like for example SPECint, here showing Apple's previous A14 chip powering Iphone 12?
I'm very curious about Cinebench R23 results of the M1.
It's more than what most normal people need and when the day comes that they need more, they can just buy a new one.
Research yourself, OP clearly dosent understand the differences or I'd argue the argument.
Nonono. Not at the same frequency. At stock. The fanless machine beats your desktop 10900 at single threaded use as is. That's the narrative you're signing under.
The image shows the M1 in the air at 3.2Ghz scores 1739.
The best score I could find for the 10900 (max boost single thread is 5.2Ghz) is 1535.
These people has a vested interest in years of anti-Apple sentiment, you cant expect facts to dissuaded that. This is the equivalent of Trump supporters backing Trump stance on Covid-19.
let's just say we wont be seeing one of their chips hit 4.5+ Ghz anytime soon and the problem is that clock speed does matter
OK, so where is your proof on that q
The problem Apple will face going forward is that their cores will scale horrendously with frequency. We can already see that, 3.2 Ghz is dismal, let's just say we wont be seeing one of their chips hit 4.5+ Ghz anytime soon and the problem is that clock speed does matter.
OK, so whats your authority on that statement? Care to expand with factual evidence? Anything other than what is clearly your own personal opinion?
Can we get a community effort going to just straight up shitlist this bench from any news on TPU? Or alternatively, demand a neutral bench is run alongside it...
Never considered Apple consistently, i.e. yearly unlike Intel improve hardware and performance noticeably. I'm guessing not as you seem to prefer some sort of conspiracy theory as to why .....
