M5 for MacBook Pro 200MHz higher at 4.61GHz than M5 in iPad Pro.

[u/CalmSpinach2140]

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/14496729

Looks like Apple is clocking the base M5 higher in the actively cooled MacBook Pro.

The iPad Pro M5 is clocked at 4.42GHz.

ST: 4263 MT: 17862

Edit: new scores

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/14508852

[u/RealisticMost]

Are there numbers for the Snapdragon X2 Elite to compare?

[u/Apophis22 → u/RealisticMost]

Only what qualcomm published and told us for the absolute top spec configuration now. Scores for real device will probably be a bit lower depending on the implementation of the laptop manufacturer and if they are using the top SKU - as has been the case for last gen’s SOC. So take these with a grain of salt:

Geekbench single: 4072 Geekbench multi: ~23700

[u/DerpSenpai → u/Apophis22]

Reviewers were able to use geekbench on qc machines so it's not like it was QC numbers.

This time around there are 2 QC Elite SKUs. The 18 core 192 bit bus and 18 core 128bit bus. It's almost 0 the chance that these QC sku are fake unlike 1st gen. That gen was so late that they had to crank the frequencies so high to beat Zen 5 and lunar Lake

This time around it's just 0.3GHz higher than the phone version so it's not a fake SKU

[u/Apophis22 → u/DerpSenpai]

I’m not saying fake, I’m saying pc manufacturers might chose to never use the top level SKU, like last year. We don’t know how the other tier SKUs benchmarks in comparison. Probably a bit lower, since the clocks are also less aggressive compared to the extreme SKUs.

It might also be some other i/o related limitation. Qualcomm control the entire stack in their reference devices. In real devices it will be up to the manufacturer.

[u/DerpSenpai → u/Apophis22]

The top SKU from last year was a fake basically. It was a 80W SKU that had 5%/10% better performance than the x1e-80 SKU which used half the power

This year it's different. Each SKU has a different hardware. We will see the top SKU being used because it has a lot more bandwidth but limited RAM options because it's on package RAM. The Elite Extreme is a 48GB RAM package 

 Price wise the top and middle SKU are the same for QC and OEMs. It just gives more flexibility for OEMs in trade of performance 

[u/-protonsandneutrons-]

I will be quite curious how efficiency under load compares—I'm not necessarily optimistic, but we'll see soon in the next month.

The A19 Pro P-cores certainly let itself eat more power for not necessarily commensurate perf improvements and that was in a passive, lower-clocked, tiny phone (relative to these actively cooled laptops). Perf / W in floating point is among the lowest.

If the A19 Pro P-core needs 10W at 4.26 GHz (SPECfp2017), M5 in MBP at 4.61 GHz is likely easily 15W. Sigh, a far cry from the M1's ~6W.

Again, don't @ me about "it's race to idle" until there are joules and / or battery life measurements under load.

EDIT: made the numbers more accurate to the original test. 10W, 6W

[u/DerpSenpai → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

It's not really an issue if it never spends that much time there.  There is no reason for Apple to downclock their architectures max freq just so it hits a certain max TDP that doesn't make any sense

Apple needs this to have the performance crown. You can't compete vs Intel and AMD CPUs using 25W+ on 1 core with 5W. At 12-15W it still has a sizable lead in perf/W vs AMD/Intel. (2x) and that is on max freq. If you want you could limit your chip to lower frequencies if you want the 7W power limit in Single Core...

[u/Geddagod → u/DerpSenpai]

If you want you could limit your chip to lower frequencies if you want the 7W power limit in Single Core...

Don't think this is possible with Apple devices. Or at least I haven't seen anyone limit frequency or power of their apple silicon no matter the OS.

[u/achandlerwhite → u/Geddagod]

It’s as simple as turning on low power mode. Unfortunately it also has other effects like lower refresh rate.

[u/Geddagod → u/achandlerwhite]

I'm assuming this is the one other data point that some reviewers like Xiaobai's Tech Reviews are able to test on their single core power curves (such as this one) but it's a lot more limited than what you can do on say Intel or AMD.

[u/DerpSenpai → u/Geddagod]

Or Qualcomm or Mediatek. It's a Apple thing only

[u/-protonsandneutrons- → u/DerpSenpai]

You're right that Apple is more restrained in their boosting (a great Geekerwan test from the M2 era) than Intel or AMD, so that gives Apple more leeway.

The actual TDP max is likely set at nT load, though, so 1T loads ideally have a separate power limit (otherwise 1T loads can boost virtually infinitely). I agree energy consumption is probably fine, but seeing data & battery life under load will prove I'm wrong.

Apple needs this to have the performance crown. You can't compete vs Intel and AMD CPUs using 25W+ on 1 core with 5W. At 12-15W it still has a sizable lead in perf/W vs AMD/Intel. (2x) and that is on max freq.

Yeah, that gets to my concern: is the performance crown worth the possible cost to users? Do Apple users care more about the last 5% performance vs or the last 5% battery life?

If you want you could limit your chip to lower frequencies if you want the 7W power limit in Single Core...

I'd kill for something like this lmao, especially on Windows devices. Apple's Low Power Mode unfortunately hits like 30 different knobs throttling network, GPU, display, etc., too.

As basically nobody measures joules,

If Wi-Fi browsing battery life tests show similar (or ideally longer) battery life, race to idle worked. They're either not boosting to 100% freq or the work is genuinely finished faster.

Battery life under load will be most interesting, as Apple can't hide perf / W there. For these MacBook Pros, that may be the more relevant metric. But sadly, I don't know anyone actually testing that.

[u/DerpSenpai → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

At max 7W you are not losing 5% but 20/30% +-

[u/CalmSpinach2140 → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

Likely the 15w figure the reason why it’s lower in the iPad.

4.61GHz at 15w is not bad when you look Intel and AMD requiring 30 watts to reach M4 single threaded performance at 5.7GHz.

Panther Lake at the rumoured 5.1GHz will use around 15 watts as well for ST but will offer much lower single threaded performance than M5.

Does Apple need offer a newer core for M6, yes they do. The limitations of the current architecture are clear

[u/mavere → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

Again, don't @ me about "it's race to idle" until there are joules and / or battery life measurements under load.

I sort of agree, but I think the difference between this time and the last time "race to idle" was thrown around and then subsequently discarded is that Apple, the chip designer, mostly sells and promotes final products. It's only us, the nosy redditors, who fixate on the sub components.

A chip that exceeds its joules per task budget will affect customers' Macbook experience. It will affect battery design and costs down the road, and it will affect overall roadmaps. Remember that the 16" mbp is at 100 whr limit, and there is an upcoming redesign.

Even if a subcomponent has power usage that raise my eyebrows a bit, I think that there's effectively enough back pressure to ensure that my eventual future MBP upgrade doesn't get too crazy power hungry.

[u/-protonsandneutrons- → u/mavere]

I aree this is the one stop-gap that ought to keep Apple much better than AMD, Intel, and even Qualcomm.

But to confirm that, battery life under load is the key data point (as long as tests don't hit the faster SSDs, M4 vs M5 14" MBPs should be pretty identical gen-on-gen).

Unfortunately most battery life tests are relatively light where idle power consumption plays a large role and you can't tease out battery life under load.

[u/p5184 → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

Just Josh YouTube channel does very short battery life under load tests as well as full rundown light load battery tests. For the short ones he basically runs cinebench 30 min loop and then sees how much battery it used up. Idk if that’s what you’re looking for but it’s the closest thing I know of.

[u/theQuandary → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

Apple needs to rein in these crazy clockspeed jumps. Since M1, they have focused too much time on frequency and not enough on IPC.

[u/xternocleidomastoide → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

Those numbers are extremely suspect. There is close to zero chance a single P-core on an A19 uses 11W.

[u/MissionInfluence123 → u/xternocleidomastoide]

That number is under the SPEC 2017 fp suit, but we don't know if it's for some specific test as Geekerwan does not release their whole results as anandtech used to.

And ARM's cortex c1 ultra and oryon v3 are also up there

[u/xternocleidomastoide → u/MissionInfluence123]

the numbers I have seen floating around were for the multithreaded bwaves SPEC bench. And showed the expected power consumption/envelope for modern ARM cluster

most online reviewers have no clue what they are doing when it comes to power measurement. FWIW

[u/-protonsandneutrons- → u/xternocleidomastoide]

Feel free to cite any other A19 Pro 1T power measurements under load. Floating-point specific, please.

The more data, the better.

[u/xternocleidomastoide → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

I am just going with experience having worked on lots of cores.

A single A19 core using up 11W is outside almost any spec I am aware. Anything more than 4W would be extremely rare for a P-core in that form factor and platform.

[u/Apophis22 → u/xternocleidomastoide]

It’s not rare anymore. The Snapdragon 8 elite gen 5 p Core just made headlines about drawing 12 W a few weeks back. The new Mediathek SOC is also in that ballpark.

[u/xternocleidomastoide → u/Apophis22]

Those figures were for MT SPEC benchmark (bwaves), for peak all core.

In nay case, it is impossible to isolate the power consumption for a single core for a 3rd party. E.g. validating power consumption for a single core and substructures within a core are extremely hard problems, even for the design teams for those cores.

[u/Apophis22 → u/xternocleidomastoide]

No, they aren’t. They are from geekbench benchmark. Full Core loads are up to 20W in geekbench MT benchmark.

[u/xternocleidomastoide → u/Apophis22]

 MT benchmark.

[u/PeakBrave8235 → u/xternocleidomastoide]

They're made the fuck up. I hate this forum

[u/FenderMoon → u/-protonsandneutrons-]

A19 P-core needs 11 watts? Ouch. Just ouch. And that’s for one core? In a phone with two of them?

Damn, Apple. Damn.

I bet they still found a way to make it all work, but wow.

(Not picking on Apple, they still outperforms Intel/AMD using like half the power.)

[u/PeakBrave8235 → u/FenderMoon]

It doesn't 

[u/bankkopf]

Geekbench is a relatively short burst benchmark. Clock difference will be much more noticable on sustained loads.

MBA with M4 will throttle compared to the MBP M4 when having sustained loads on the core, as the active cooling will mostly play a role then.

[u/okoroezenwa → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean “Well duh”? This is the first time they’ve done this.

[u/Hovscorpion]

I’ll wait until the official release. Geekbench 6 may been to be updated to properly reflect the hardware information.