Saying M series is far behind is a wild take when you look at the actual numbers. Check out the benchmarks. The M5 isn’t just keeping up. but literally beating the flagship desktop chips in single-core performance.
Check the latest Tom’s Hardware coverage on the base M5. The M5 is actively humiliating flagship desktop silicon in single-thread performance. In a recent CPU-Z benchmark, a virtualized M5—running through a translation layer on Windows 11, mind you, and still scored roughly 1,600 points. Compare that to AMD’s upcoming gaming king, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which sits around 867.
That’s a roughly 84% gap in favor of a mobile chip running in a VM. While a base 10-core M5 obviously won’t beat a 16-core/32-thread desktop monster in raw multi-core totals, the fact that it’s gapping the fastest x86 cores in existence by nearly double in single-core IPC, while sipping tablet-tier power, is genuinely absurd. The mobile-grade architecture argument actually works against your point here.
but literally beating the flagship desktop chips in single-core performance
See, this is what I despise about x86. AFAIK it’s literally RISC on the bare metal but there are hundreds of “instructions” running microcode which is basically just a translation layer. You’re not allowed to write code for the actual RISC implementation because that’s a trade secret or something. So obviously single core performance would be shit because you’re basically running an emulator all the time.
RISC-V can’t come fast enough. Maybe someone will even make a chip that’s RISC-V but with the same instruction/microcode support as x86. So you can run RISC-V code directly or do the microcode thing and pretend you’re on x86. Though that would probably get the shit sued out of them by Intel because god forbid there’s actual innovation that the original creator can’t cash in on.
Saying M series is far behind is a wild take when you look at the actual numbers. Check out the benchmarks. The M5 isn’t just keeping up. but literally beating the flagship desktop chips in single-core performance.
Check the latest Tom’s Hardware coverage on the base M5. The M5 is actively humiliating flagship desktop silicon in single-thread performance. In a recent CPU-Z benchmark, a virtualized M5—running through a translation layer on Windows 11, mind you, and still scored roughly 1,600 points. Compare that to AMD’s upcoming gaming king, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which sits around 867.
That’s a roughly 84% gap in favor of a mobile chip running in a VM. While a base 10-core M5 obviously won’t beat a 16-core/32-thread desktop monster in raw multi-core totals, the fact that it’s gapping the fastest x86 cores in existence by nearly double in single-core IPC, while sipping tablet-tier power, is genuinely absurd. The mobile-grade architecture argument actually works against your point here.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/virtualized-windows-11-test-shows-apples-m5-destroying-intel-and-amds-best-in-single-core-benchmark-chinese-enthusiast-pits-ryzen-9-9950x3d-and-core-i9-14900ks-against-apples-latest-soc
Incidentally, a good rundown of why RISC and SoC architecture is so performant https://archive.ph/Nmgp3
See, this is what I despise about x86. AFAIK it’s literally RISC on the bare metal but there are hundreds of “instructions” running microcode which is basically just a translation layer. You’re not allowed to write code for the actual RISC implementation because that’s a trade secret or something. So obviously single core performance would be shit because you’re basically running an emulator all the time.
RISC-V can’t come fast enough. Maybe someone will even make a chip that’s RISC-V but with the same instruction/microcode support as x86. So you can run RISC-V code directly or do the microcode thing and pretend you’re on x86. Though that would probably get the shit sued out of them by Intel because god forbid there’s actual innovation that the original creator can’t cash in on.
But you’re using a Mac and my conscience won’t allow that!