News Apple M1 Chip: Specs, Performance, Everything We Know

Apr 10, 2020
74
11
35
0
Your own Dell Geekbench 5.2 scored 5,319.
Dell uses i7-1065G7 what is 12W, year old CPU.
Not so bad compared to M1 6,292.

Not to forget AMD is faster then Intel and 7nm should be lower power.
 

nofanneeded

Commendable
Sep 29, 2019
1,182
203
1,590
8
Guys, your sister website, AnandTech has done a good review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested

And you are citing some random Geekbench, Engadget and The Verge?
Paid review by Apple .

For example , CineBench R23

in single thread , they put Ryzen 5950X to impress , but in Multi core , it disappears and only the 4900hs is there ..






Funny right ?

More over the Mac Mini is a desktop not a mobile PC , Apple could put 65/100 watts CPU in that case ... and yet they are using it for a 20 watts CPU ..

meh ..
 
Last edited:

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Ambassador
More over the Mac Mini is a desktop not a mobile PC , Apple could put 65/100 watts CPU in that case ... and yet they are using it for a 20 watts CPU ..
It's technically a desktop, but its form factor is similar to an Intel NUC-like device, which typically use ~25W mobile chips. Because of this I think it makes sense to not include the 5950X in the multithread tests. For those you're going to be thermal/power limited, and comparing performance between chips drawing ~30W (maybe up to ~50W for short durations) and chips that can draw ~140W indefinitely really isn't a very interesting comparison IMO.
 
Reactions: shady28

nofanneeded

Commendable
Sep 29, 2019
1,182
203
1,590
8
It's technically a desktop, but its form factor is similar to an Intel NUC-like device, which typically use ~25W mobile chips. Because of this I think it makes sense to not include the 5950X in the multithread tests. For those you're going to be thermal/power limited, and comparing performance between chips drawing ~30W (maybe up to ~50W for short durations) and chips that can draw ~140W indefinitely really isn't a very interesting comparison IMO.
Actually , MAC Mini 2018 had Core i7 8700B CPU , 6 cores 12 threads upto 64GB RAM

With TDP of 65Watts . and in the same case .

apple could put ANY 65 watts in that case.

https://www.mac4sale.co.uk/refurbished-apple-mac-mini-8-1-i7-8700b-32gb-ram-128gb-ssd-a-late-2053.html

full specs

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-3.2-late-2018-specs.html


i7 8700b

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134905/intel-core-i7-8700b-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html

This Mac Mini could take Ryzen 5 5600X , intel i9 10900 (10 cores) , i7 10700 ...

and also the coming 11 GEN with XE Grpahics.

Apple Gone crazy moving to ARM.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TJ Hooker
Nov 20, 2020
2
0
10
0
Paid review by Apple .

For example , CineBench R23

in single thread , they put Ryzen 5950X to impress , but in Multi core , it disappears and only the 4900hs is there ..






Funny right ?

More over the Mac Mini is a desktop not a mobile PC , Apple could put 65/100 watts CPU in that case ... and yet they are using it for a 20 watts CPU ..

meh ..
What's "funny" is you don't seem to realize that, while the Ryzen 4900HS has 8 fast cores, the M1 has only four (plus four efficiency cores). Hence the M1 is expected to be at a disadvantage when compared to a conventional 8-core CPU for multi-core tasks. Note that both the 4900HS and the 4800U have R23 multi-core scores about 8x their single-core scores. Next year Apple will be releasing higher-powered chips, likely including 8 or more high-performance cores. With 8 performance cores, it should be able to score >12,000 on the R23 multithread benchmark, handily beating the 4900HS—and at a lower power consumption. I predict such a chip will be made available for the Mac Mini.

But for now, they offered a lower-end Mac Mini based on the only chip they had available thus far. They could have only offered an M1 Air, but it was better that they also offered an M1 Mini and and an M1 MBP, since that increases consumer choice during the initial introductory period.

It's also unfortunate you are falsely accusing Anandtech -- a very reputable site -- of being shills for Apple, just because you don't like the facts they reported.
 

nofanneeded

Commendable
Sep 29, 2019
1,182
203
1,590
8
What's "funny" is you don't seem to realize that, while the Ryzen 4900HS has 8 fast cores, the M1 has only four (plus four efficiency cores). Hence the M1 is expected to be at a disadvantage when compared to a conventional 8-core CPU for multi-core tasks. Note that both the 4900HS and the 4800U have R23 multi-core scores about 8x their single-core scores. Next year Apple will be releasing higher-powered chips, likely including 8 or more high-performance cores. With 8 performance cores, it should be able to score >12,000 on the R23 multithread benchmark, handily beating the 4900HS—and at a lower power consumption. I predict such a chip will be made available for the Mac Mini.

But for now, they offered a lower-end Mac Mini based on the only chip they had available thus far. They could have only offered an M1 Air, but it was better that they also offered an M1 Mini and and an M1 MBP, since that increases consumer choice during the initial introductory period.

It's also unfortunate you are falsely accusing Anandtech -- a very reputable site -- of being shills for Apple, just because you don't like the facts they reported.
you dont get it , Once you put CPU results in one thread , you should put the same CPU in the multi thread tables. they hidden it because it is embarrassing to Apple ..

More over , as I said earlier , Mac Mini is a desktop capable of having any 65 watts CPU inside. they ruined it when they offered it 2 years LATER with 20 watts CPU ...

it is not a Mobile . MAc Mini is a DESKTOP.

Late 2018 had i7 8700b with upto 64GB of RAM ..

Two years after they gave us 16 GB RAM MAX and some tiny 20 watts CPU ? while they could put i9 10900 inside and upto 128GB of max ram ?

New Mac mini is a downgrade AFTER TWO YEARS. not acceptable at all.
 
Nov 20, 2020
2
0
10
0
you dont get it , Once you put CPU results in one thread , you should put the same CPU in the multi thread tables. they hidden it because it is embarrassing to Apple ..
I get it just fine. I'm a scientist, so it's my job to think about how to present data in a clear and non-misleading manner. When you say that anandtech "deliberately hid" the 5950x multicore result, and did so because it's "embarrassing to Apple", along with your earlier comment that Apple must have paid anandtech off, you're spouting conspiracy theories.

Most likely, the reason they left it off is that they didn't think it was meaningful or interesting to compare a CPU with 4 performance cores and 4 low-power cores to a CPU with 16 performance cores, for a multi-core task! I.e., just because a single-core comparison is meaningful, that doesn't mean a multi-core comparison is as well. If anything, the graph was unfair to the M1. If it were me, I would have added, to each result in the multi-core comparison, a label with the number of performance cores and the number of efficiency cores, so people could clearly see that, in most cases, the M1 was being compared to CPUs with more performance cores.

As further evidence that anandtech isn't trying to "hide" anything, they explicitly wrote, in their article, that "Naturally, in higher power-level, higher-core count systems, the M1 can’t keep up to AMD and Intel designs, but that’s something Apple likely will want to address with subsequent designs in that category over the next 2 years."

More over , as I said earlier , Mac Mini is a desktop capable of having any 65 watts CPU inside. they ruined it when they offered it 2 years LATER with 20 watts CPU ...

it is not a Mobile . MAc Mini is a DESKTOP.

Late 2018 had i7 8700b with upto 64GB of RAM ..

Two years after they gave us 16 GB RAM MAX and some tiny 20 watts CPU ? while they could put i9 10900 inside and upto 128GB of max ram ?

New Mac mini is a downgrade AFTER TWO YEARS. not acceptable at all.
I think you're the one who's not getting it here. I agree, Apple should (and likely will) offer a high-end version of the Mini, with 4 TB4 ports, higher RAM options, and a more powerful CPU/GPU. But think it through: They don't have such a chip now. So they only had two options:

  1. Offer a low-end AS Mini now (keeping the Intel Mini for those who need the added ports and RAM), and add a high-end AS Mini to the line in 2021 when the more powerful chips become available.
  2. Delay offering the low-powered AS Mini until the high-powered one is also available, releasing both together in 2021.
And by complaining they released only a low-end Mini now, you're basically complaining they did no. 1 instead of no. 2. But why on earth is no. 2 better for the consumer than no. 1?? All it does is deny consumers who might benefit from a low powered AS Mini today the ability to purchase that version until the the high-powered one is available. Your position makes no sense.

I.e., they're only offering a low-powered AS Mini for now, because that's the only production AS Mac chip they currently have. Those consumers for whom that works can buy it now. Those that need more power/ports/RAM can wait for the high-powered Mini.
 
Last edited:

nofanneeded

Commendable
Sep 29, 2019
1,182
203
1,590
8
I think you're the one who's not getting it here. I agree, Apple should (and likely will) offer a high-end version of the Mini, with 4 TB4 ports, higher RAM options, and a more powerful CPU/GPU. But think it through: They don't have such a chip now. So they only had two options:

  1. Offer a low-end AS Mini now (keeping the Intel Mini for those who need the added ports and RAM), and add a high-end AS Mini to the line in 2021 when the more powerful chips become available.
  2. Delay offering the low-powered AS Mini until the high-powered one is also available, releasing both together in 2021.
And by complaining they released only a low-end Mini now, you're basically complaining they did no. 1 instead of no. 2. But why on earth is no. 2 better for the consumer than no. 1?? All it does is deny consumers who might benefit from a low powered AS Mini today the ability to purchase that version until the the high-powered one is available. Your position makes no sense.

I.e., they're only offering a low-powered AS Mini for now, because that's the only production AS Mac chip they currently have. Those consumers for whom that works can buy it now. Those that need more power/ports/RAM can wait for the high-powered Mini.

This makes no sense ,

First : Apple Did not promise anything better in the near future for MAC Mini. Nor Any plans for near future CPU.

Second : Apple takes LONG time to update their Mac Mini Line , Minimum 2 years in between.

Third : multi cores i7 10700 Cinebench R23 is at ~12250 , and i9 10900 at near 16000 , while both use only 65 watts and both could fit inside the Mac mini Case and cooling , while Apple M1 is just at 7800 native and 5250 emulated .. in the 2020 MAC mini . This is nothing but a steep downgrade for people who always wait for the next MAC Mini. we are talking about more than 50% loss of performance here .

Fourth : MAC Mini 2018 with the i7 8700B (65watts) Cinebench R23 score is 7969 , so what did Apple give us after 2 years ? cine R23 = 7800 and 5250 (emulation) yea Right .

Fifth : At least Apple could have offered us two versions of MAC Mini , one with M1 and one with Intel i9 10900 ... or maybe some special version of AMD Ryzen 3 with 12 cores tuned down to 65 watts that would score near 20,000 R23 (the 5900X scores 21,878)

and finally , It is impossible for Apple for the time being to make any ARM CPU with 20 Threads or 10 big 10 little , FORGET IT .. we already have the i9 10900 (20 threads) 65 watts and it is a wonderful CPU for the MAC Mini and I was Expecting it (Actually I was expecting the 11th Gen with Xe in the new Mac Mini) . now no more macs for me.

Cinebench R23 Multi cores source :

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_multi_core-16
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY