Submission + - Does Apple's M5 Max Really "Destroy" a 96-Core Threadripper? (tomshardware.com)
Ecuador writes: Tom's Hardware currently has a front-page article making some wild claims about the 18-core Apple M5 Max versus a 96-core Ryzen Threadripper.
Reading the article, the comparison is based largely on Geekbench 6 multi-core scores. The author briefly mentions that Geekbench doesn't scale well, but doesn't really make clear just how bad the scaling actually is.
From my own experience doing cloud benchmarking for work, unlike previous versions, Geekbench 6 multi-core is essentially useless for large CPUs. Some of the suite's tests (including workloads that are normally very parallelizable) stop scaling beyond 4-8 cores, and the overall score can actually start dropping as you add more and more cores.
I wrote a more detailed breakdown of the issue last year.
Is this a new low for a major tech site, running sensational headlines based on such inappropriate benchmarking, or is this just the new normal?
Reading the article, the comparison is based largely on Geekbench 6 multi-core scores. The author briefly mentions that Geekbench doesn't scale well, but doesn't really make clear just how bad the scaling actually is.
From my own experience doing cloud benchmarking for work, unlike previous versions, Geekbench 6 multi-core is essentially useless for large CPUs. Some of the suite's tests (including workloads that are normally very parallelizable) stop scaling beyond 4-8 cores, and the overall score can actually start dropping as you add more and more cores.
I wrote a more detailed breakdown of the issue last year.
Is this a new low for a major tech site, running sensational headlines based on such inappropriate benchmarking, or is this just the new normal?
Does Apple's M5 Max Really "Destroy" a 96-Core Threadripper? More Login
Does Apple's M5 Max Really "Destroy" a 96-Core Threadripper?
Slashdot Top Deals