What is Reddit's opinion of Geekbench?

John Poole (Geekbench creator), who this YouTuber cites as an expert, is finding the i9 to perform worse than the i7 in his testing...

https://imgur.com/gallery/Q1JDlZD

Edit: this is a CPU taxing only test he is running here too.. and to clarify this is relative to the upgraded i7.

Edit2: details of this new test he is using are found here. It’s a new one he wrote to strain the cpu for an extended period of time.

The developer of Geekbench, John Poole, did some: https://twitter.com/jfpoole/status/1020411113177956353

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

TLDR: MBP with i9 can ~~adequately cool purely CPU intensive workflows~~ only match i7 for CPU intensive, multi core workflows. It falls over for CPU + GPU workloads.

Edit: updated TLDR to more accurately reflect results

It’s crazy how quickly this narrative is getting spun. The original tester wrote an article addressing benchmark results discovered after he replaced his battery noting a distinct improvement in performance.

Apple responded by providing their reasoning behind the throttled CPU stating that high cycle batteries began to be unable to handle peak power draws. This caused an unstable supply of power which would crash apps and in worse scenarios the OS would restart. To address this issue iOS 10.2.1 and newer began to include CPU throttling during uniquely high periods in order to even out the power draw on the battery and prevent the unstable states. This still isn’t planned obsolescence.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

MacBook Pro (Mid 2018) Throttling

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

In this test with several 2018 MacBook Pros by Geekbench founder John Poole, the base i7 model can maintain its Turbo Boost clock speed at 3.0~3.1Ghz. Since the i9’s base clock speed is 2.9Ghz, it should at least be able to maintain base clock speed.

> Isn’t geekbench basically a browsing benchmark tool?

No. It is a collection of commonly used software libraries (e.g. libjpeg, LZMA, SQLlite) and algorithms (fft, raytracing, etc).

https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf

>I wish cinebench could be loaded on iPads for better results

Cinebench is a much less useful benchmark. It is just a single, mostly obsolete program. The advantage of using multiple, widely used libraries is that you get a more representative result.

Geekbench 5 measures speeds in a variety of operations, all listed here: https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench5-cpu-workloads.pdf

Not all of these are relevant for ML, so this metric of average performance cannot be used to judge performance in ML workloads.

That was two days after the Geekbench article that exposed Apple was published. Apple was simply confirming Geekbench's finds so as to keep them from looking even more shady.

Weights/scoring are in the workloads explanation pdf on the Geekbench website:

Total score is weighted average of subsections scores, subsections scores are the geometric mean of speedups over baseline for those workloads.

PDF has the subsection weights at Cryptography 5%, Integer 45%, Floating Point 30%, Memory 20%.

https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf#page6

Weird comment. Again, please read the posts/links people have commented with before commenting yourself. The test he is using here isn’t just running Geekbench, but is a new test he wrote where he is simply compiling the code for geekbench multiple times. You are correct, and geekbench (which doesn’t throttle) actually shows the new i9 with a marginal gain, but that is not the test he is running here which is why the i7 is beating out the i9... Details here:

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

That's not what the research that started this controversy states. They were very explicit that it applied to iOS version 10.2.1.

That publishing date is also inaccurate:

Not OP, but here’s a test done by Geekbench. I believe it’s also due to the fact that the peak voltage that a battery supplies declines as the battery deteriorates, and instead of having the phone crash because the processor is suddenly not receiving enough power, they purposefully throttle the processor to require less voltage. That combined with newer iOS versions that generally use more fancy graphics and processing power makes the phone slower overall.

Ignoring John Poole's positive spin, it can plainly be observed that each new version of iOS results in a greater proportion of iPhones performing poorly: https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

Therefore the effect isn't purely psychological, or possibly not even principally psychological.

After a bit of googling for 'cross platform benchmarking tool' I found GeekBench. They offer binaries for Windows, Mac, and various flavors of Linux, so you should be covered there.

Let us know what you find!

https://www.geekbench.com/

We do have testing results for the i7s - https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-performance-july-2018/?ez_cid=CLIENT_ID(AMP_ECID_EZOIC)

This year’s i7s perform around 1.5x better due to the increased core/thread count.

On paper it isn't bullshit, but in execution, the degree to which some phones throttle is bullshit, especially after iOS 10.2.1 and 11.2. If it throttles by a little bit (let's say 5-10)%? Sure, whatever. If it throttles by say, I dunno, literally 50% (or more)? That's a pretty big problem.

With that said, maybe if Apple sold replacement, genuine OEM batteries themselves and then told people "take it in to a Genius Bar or an AASP", then they would've avoided lawsuits. As it stands right now, if your warranty and/or your AppleCare is out, tough shit for you.

Edit: even the Geekbench guys agreed that this is most definitely too abrupt to be a true function of actual battery capacity in their expose:

>Second, the problem is due, in part, to a change in iOS. The difference between 10.2.0 and 10.2.1 is too abrupt to be just a function of battery condition. I believe (as do others) that Apple introduced a change to limit performance when battery condition decreases past a certain point.

People tested it. It's not anywhere close to that drastic. I didn't say they were making it up. I said they could be measuring in a low usage state.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

What about https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/ which shows that the new 15” MBP i7 2.6 GHz can run at full throttle, even above base clock speed, for 30 minutes with NO THROTTLING. As long as it’s only the CPU that’s maxed, there doesn’t seem to be an issue with the i7 and thermal throttling. It’s only when the GPU is also maxed that there’s an issue.

There are many hundreds of thousands of “pro” users that do heavy CPU but light GPU workloads (e.g. non-game iOS app dev) for which this is a great workload.

I still feel bad for those that need both GPU and CPU and are throttled, but all the “skip this model” comments on this subreddit don’t apply to all pro users.

You can use GeekBench 3. Look at the multi-core memory performance score.

Subtimings can help a bit but it's up to you to decide whether it's worth investing the time to tighten them as RAM OC doesn't really help that much considering the amount of time you spend on it.

What ICs do you have? You can check with Thaiphoon Burner.

Also, wrong flair.

Even if that were true, Apple didn't really admit it until someone else actually called them out. This, and the fact that Apple doesn't play nice with third parties when it comes to replace any component, makes a case for actual planned obsolescence.

If you can run the following tests and post your results, you should be able to get some idea of where your issue is.

Black Magic Disk Speed Test

Geekbench 5

Also, as this comment says, disable OCSP. Normally, each app launch is verified with Apple's OCSP servers via the internet. If you have slow broadband or poor WiFi signal, this can significantly slow down your app launches. You will most likely notice apps open much quicker after disabling this.

Lastly, some apps are just slow. Microsoft's apps are pretty slow to launch and I believe that the Twitter app is a Catalyst port of their iOS app, making it fairly slow on Intel.

You write ...

> ... that is not what the benchmarks were designed for.

There is strong evidence that you are mistaken.

Primate Labs writes ...

> Designed from the ground-up for cross-platform comparisons, Geekbench 4 allows you to compare system performance across devices, processor architectures, and operating systems. Geekbench 4 supports Android, iOS, macOS, Windows, and Linux.

Source.

Do you have a reason for disbelieving the words of the benchmark-designers themselves?

No they didn't. Geekbench results that really kicked it off occurred around December 2017. Earliest snapshot from Wayback Machine is from March 2017 and includes the release notes for 10.2.1 verbatim.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

https://web.archive.org/web/20170317201937/https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US

https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf Correction! They do use them. However, they don't seem to be getting proper performance out of them which is weird. I'm not entirely sure how that is since most real time tests of those applications that I've seen have shown intel's coffee lake processors to be leaps and bounds ahead of "similar" processors as far as geekbench is concerned. (talking specifically about the i5-8500 as an example which is ~ the same as the score for this ipad.). If I had to guess I would say its due to things like https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpostid=136666 as well as the fact that geekbench relies on excessively small tests which don't allow modern x86 CPUs to boost properly.

I mean honestly this whole thing can be summed up with a quote from my computer engineering professors of a few years back "It depends". If you're curious about just optimizing for extremely short workloads that are sporadic in nature and not necessarily optimized - Geekbench is your benchmark. Otherwise? Use Cinebench or SpecInt or something else which tests performance in a significantly more "precise" manner.

Additional article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2015/06/12/misunderstood-or-inappropriate-mobile-benchmarks-are-hurting-the-industry-and-consumers/#14c2c9142dc6

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

This shows that CPU specific tasks are faster on the new models compared to the old ones. The severe thermal throttling only really happens when the GPU is involved as well.

The Geekbench data shows much more aggressive throttling in 11.2.0 than 10.2.1. Sure, most users' batteries were six months older by then, but it's also possible that iOS 11 made the throttling more severe.

And it absolutely affects normal usage. Until I changed my 6 Plus's battery it was just unusable while playing music. Now it's only a little sluggish (because, yes, iOS 11 in itself is a hog). Apple's line about "smoothing out the peaks" is utter bullshit.

Just in case someone is wondering. . . .

For years this has been more of a conspiracy theory and rumor. It wasn't until this week that a researcher got some hard evidence and Apple openly admitted it:

Here's the articles for reference:

iPhone Performance and Battery Age - Geekbench

Apple confirms iPhones with older batteries will take hits in performance

Apple throttles your old iphone batteries, probably why you find that your s7 has better battery life. Huge controversy when they discovered it.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2020/11/geekbench-53/

>Geekbench 5.3 includes a VAES256 implementation of the AES-XTS workload, which will improve performance on processors that support VAES256 instructions but not VAES512 instructions (e.g., the AMD Zen 3 processors). Processors that support both VAES256 and VAES512 instructions (e.g., the Intel Ice Lake and Tiger Lake processors) will use the existing VAES512 implementation of the AES-XTS workload.

> The only thing you have to do to get a good geek bench score is know what they're testing for and optimize your hardware for that.

Lets say for a second that that's the case. Given the wide variety of real world workloads that Geekbench 5 tests for, wouldn't that be a good thing? Manufacturer: "Boy, we sure tricked you! Once we heard that the benchmark tests image compression and editing, HTML 5 parsing, PDF rendering, file compression, SQL queries, image recognition algorithms, and physics simulations we just optimized for all those things! Funny you would never really want to do any of those things on your computer! Oh wait..."

That's kinda the point of a good benchmark. If a processor does well in it, it should do well in real world tasks. If you want the full list of things GB5 tests (including all the things I listed above and a bunch more), you can find it here.

Are you drunk? Antutu says their benchmark is not designed to be compared across platforms.

Geekbench 5 designed their benchmark from the ground up to be cross platform: https://www.geekbench.com

I think the benchmark creators know better than you.

You're using Geekbench 5 which uses a different scoring system. If you want higher scores for single and multi core use geekbench 4 you can get it here: https://www.geekbench.com/geekbench4/

Download and run that and see if the scores are better

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13610685?baseline=13473948

SGEMM and SFFT results are pretty much neck and neck. I looked at what each test does, and it seemed like those would be the best for pure AVX performance unless I'm mistaken.

https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf

I'd love an actual benchmark. A random reddit user means nothing. that is a horrible comparison, gives us no details.

The dude could be measuring in a low usage state for all we know.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

here is an actual benchmark with a large sample size and actual hard numbers rather than hearsay

Miniscule in some cases, but 15-30% in others.

The 560 has 33% more compute units and twice as much RAM as the 555, which will make a difference in many (but not all) circumstances.

Geekbench shows a 15% increase for 555->560, and a 28% increase in 555->555X

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-performance-july-2018/

Here's finally a detailed geekbench and info on the two new GPUs compared to 2017 ones:

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-performance-july-2018/

So it could either be slow CPU, perhaps due to thermal throttling, or slow disk I/O. For CPU tests I'd recommend GeekBench, for disk speed measurement BlackMagic.

Agree with your statements, although I have to comment that the throttling feature is already being utilized for the iPhone 7. As you said, some iPhone 7 units have already aged past a year and the images in the Geekbench blog post is already an indication.

Here is Note Air 1: https://ibb.co/VqGnW0Q

ram=2.68 gb.

geekbench app: https://www.geekbench.com/download/

(play store enabled, 1st run. i turn off notifications for all apps in case that makes a difference)

For sure there are a number of differences between the Go and the phone, but that's literally the selling point of Geekbench -

>Compare apples and oranges. Or Apples and Samsungs. Designed from the ground-up for cross-platform comparisons, Geekbench 5 allows you to compare system performance across devices, operating systems, and processor architectures.

https://www.geekbench.com/

Apparently I was not the first to notice this discrepency between Linux and Windows, and I've found this Geekbench forum thread that really seems to confirm this is due to compilers used. Which are not the same, depending on platforms (Clang 3.9.1 on Linux, Visual Studio 2015 on Windows). Apparently, developers expect close results in scores across OSes (for the same hardware)... except when it isn't, such as for this CPU where the gap is rather big. This probably does not make Geekbench very suitable to compare CPU performance for the same machine across OSes. It's more for comparing different CPUs on the same OS.

5k iMac i7 geekbench score: 18945

Mac mini i7 geekbench score: 23516

There's also every reason to believe that a good eGPU will be tons faster than the builtin GPU in an iMac Pro. Only the absolutely highest end GPU's will ever need more than the 4 PCI lanes that you get on Thunderbolt.

Seeing as you can get a i7 Mac Mini+Gigabyte 1070 EGPU for $1599 and the cheapest you can get a much slower i7 iMac with a far slower GPU than the 1070 is $2299, I think you'd be a fool not to get the Mac Mini.

https://www.geekbench.com/

I guess Windows and Linux results should probably be similar. I've got a single socket E5-2680 v2 that gets around 28000 multicore under Linux.

Edit: How much was the mobo, by the way?

I think you’re missing the point. Most of the tests showing throttling are from combined GPU-heavy plus CPU-heavy workloads. Not just CPU-heavy only workloads.

Disk performance can degrade as the disk fills, so free drive space IS relevant.

Who is purchasing this CPU to not use its power? Certainly not me!

Here’s a test showing repeated compiles of the Geekbench source code (not running the Geekbench tests, but compiling the code that runs them). This test runs for 30+ minutes, maxes out all cores and does NOT show significant throttling. It also doesn’t use the GPU.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-mid-2018-throttling/

Granted, this is on the faster i7 of the new 15” MBP, but this test shows no significant throttling. If the CPU was going to generate significant heat (i.e. detrimental) under load wouldn’t it do so after 30 minutes running hard? This test is relevant because many others are claiming the i7 throttles under load and this is an example of a workflow similar to my own where it does NOT.

There are a number of other tests that show similar results but I’m on my phone and tired of typing. I can add them later if you’re interested.

I guess we just disagree about whether a stress test has to produce a lot of heat and that’s OK.

An article on the i7 (2.6GHz base / 4.3GHz turbo) linked here.

>Even under sustained load, the i7 processor was running at 3.0-3.1 GHz, well above the processor’s base frequency of 2.6 GHz.

It looks like the 2.6Ghz i7 is not throttling below base clock which is promising. Is this amount of throttling expected or shouldn't be acceptable?

Literally from Geekbench's website:

"Geekbench inserts a pause (or gap) between each workload to minimize the effect thermal issues have on workload performance. Without this gap, workload that appear later in the benchmark would have lower scores than workload that appear earlier in the benchmark."

According to synthetic benchmarks it is considerably faster.

Edit: https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-performance-july-2018/

Open CL tests show the 555X to be slightly faster than the 560, and even though there’s a typo, the 560X seems to be almost 10,000 points higher. Admittedly this is not real world, but it’s the best we have right now.

You mean this story?

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

An article posted December 18th, 2017 exactly 1 year, 3 months, and 2 days after the release of the iPhone 7.

Batteries naturally degrade, that's fine, to build a CPU so close to the battery degradation that within about a year you'll lose performance and thus experience shutdowns is bad. A design flaw. If Intels processors throttled to the same extent because the CR battery was 1 year 3 months old everyone would cry design fault.

Batteries are expected to degrade, if it is expected to degrade Apple should have made it so the margin error was large enough such that the degradation wouldn't be causing issues 1 year on. However to build said barrier they'd have to have lower performance and wouldn't get as high a geekbench 4 score.

> I’ve been telling people for years that apple is slowing down your older phones and no one listened

Well, you were lying. Geekbench, with all the data they have from all the phones ever tested, only found evidence that it has been happening for a year.

Yes.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

Compare the two iPhone 6S graphs between 10.2.0 and 10.2.1. The underclocked clusters of Geekbench scores show up in 10.2.1 but not in 10.2.0.

Okay I will try this one more time. Let's look at the Geek Bench blog post. It begins with:

> A Reddit post from last week has sparked a discussion regarding iPhone performance as a function of battery age.

Let's quickly have a look at that Reddit post that started everything. It mentions:

> How do I fix this? You must replace your battery.

So clearly, the person that kicked all of this off believes the battery change works like Apple has said and countless other sources too. But maybe they are wrong like eeeeveryone else. So let's go back to Geek bench

> However, users with older iPhones with lower-than-expected Geekbench 4 scores have reported that replacing the battery increases their score (as well as the performance of the phone).

Now, once again, IF you are making the claim that this is not true and every single source is just wrong even the ones YOU'VE mentioned, please actually link to or quote your own sources which explicitly back up what you are saying.

Otherwise, once again, you're just making things up.

"State of the art" lmfao. "Reliable" LMFAO. Please tell me this is trolling.

The power delivery system requires the battery to provide some minimum amount of power. After some mild degradation, the battery can't meet these requirements, and to avoid critical instability, the devices have to be throttled. This problem is entirely foreseeable (you know, "physics"), and to my knowledge, IS NOT experienced by any other non-Apple devices on the market.

We're not talking about some insignificant amount of throttling either - based on the Geekbench data, it's a reduction in performance of 30-50%, and it's affecting a significant number of devices.

So you can call it an "engineering tradeoff" if you want. In reality, it's a design flaw caused by Apple cutting corners, and there's nothing "state of the art" or "reliable" about a phone that shits itself after 1-3 years of life.

Reminds me of these tweets from i0n1c

https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/943199369628708865

https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/943198462354579457

I'd like to know what story he's referring to.

EDIT: Found it. https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

So looks like iOS will throttle down CPU performance if your battery is degraded. According to this post, replacing your battery will restore performance.

Apparently, it only happened on iphone 6s and 7. So, 5s users, if your phone feels slow, your phone is not affected, it just too old to run the latest version of iOS ^(weep at my old 5s 😭)

First, did you actually read the Geekbench blog post?

That’s pretty relevant to this discussion.

After all, they’re taking data from a large sample size. You’re using your phone.

If you wanted to obtain useful data, you’d have to at least compare your results with a phone with a battery with less wear and one with more wear.

Then you would have to compare the results at equal battery percentage levels.

Your results suggest that your phone is being throttled back more than 33% at a battery percentage of 65% (btw - that’s a lot, especially at that charge level).

Now, if an identical phone with a fresh battery was also throttling 33% at 65% battery, you could be on to something.

Without direct comparisons (and a control), your data only tells us that Apple is throttling it’s phones.

You can go with the most standart and easy one then: https://www.geekbench.com

You can give it a try for free, simply download and run. It will also provide you with a results link that you can share here!

No he’s not. He’s taking 2 separate issues and mixing them to intentionally confuse people about what happened.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

The code in question didn’t exist prior to 10.2.1, the release that has the release notes you’re quoting. You were correct.

I know what the problem with 10.1.1 was and it wasn’t that they were slowing down phones. That code literally didn’t exist until 10.2.1 and I’ve already provided proof of that. You just keep ignoring it because you know it proves that you’re wrong.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

https://www.geekbench.com/download/

Just download the program, when it opens it will say do you want to purchase, just hit "use trial" or something like that. Then it pops up, there's only a few things you can press, "run cpu benchmark" is one of them. Make sure nothing else is open. I really appreciate it

I wouldn't, but if you want a sure way, first check the ram and SSD size to make sure you got what you payed for, and then run https://www.geekbench.com/ and compare results to their existing data. Nobody is going to be able to fake M1 benchmark scores right now

Don't use User benchmark they are known for being pro Intel and AMD will always perform worse.

Use Geekbench or Blender Open Data instead to measure the real CPU power.

^(Also using Linux will increase your CPU performance by ~25% - 50% too)

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/5580579.gb5

Adding .gb5 allows you to see more details.

>Geekbench 5.2.3 Pro

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2020/11/geekbench-53/

5.3.1 is the latest version, not sure why people don't update their benchmark software.

The GB5 overall score is 65% int, 30% float, and 5% crypto, so the AES scores have no almost no effect on the final score.

More info on page page 7: https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench5-cpu-workloads.pdf

Performance on benchmarks decreased after iOS update.

Source

Comparison between benchmark scores of old iphones before battery swap. It includes all charges from 100% to 15%. The old phones with the factory batteries were running well below new phones even at 100%.

> With a comparative OpenCL score I can determine how slower than Nvidia is for a rendering

How is it a comparative score? Geekbench is only using OpenCL 1.1 using different workloads when AMD supports OpenCL 2.1 - and CUDA is a different API. If you care about rendering, you should compare a benchmark made for rendering.

I recommend reading this Anandtech article. It's vintage Anandtech and the best deep dive yet made about the Zen 3 architecture.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested

Crypto performance increase is mostly explained by AES operations moving from 128bit AVX to 256bit AVX2.

N-body physics is done using a Barnes-Hut simulation of 16,384 bodies orbiting a black hole. Computational complexity is O(N^2 ) . Someone who knows more about scientific computing probably knows why this is seeing such a massive speedup going from Zen 2 to Zen 3. But since it's a floating point workload, my guess is it has to do with the wider FP dispatch (from 4 to 6) and issue, larger FP scheduler and faster 4-cycle latency (5-cycle in Zen 2) FMAC.

Geekbench 5 CPU workloads are explained here: https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench5-cpu-workloads.pdf

> A better benchmark would be more real world and complex tasks like "render these 100 webpages".

Have you looked at the workloads Geekbench 5 uses? It's a huge variety of tasks, many of which are pulled right from real world workflows. Image compression, PDF rendering, SQL queries, parsing HTML5, etc. You can see the whole list here.

I doubt Geekbench is a good OpenCL benchmark. It uses OpenCL 1.1

The only benchmark I think can show the optimal GPU performance is Sisoft Sandra.

TL;DR Tom's gives zero methodology, so it could be run-to-run variance, not enough standardization (e.g., battery % ), or a genuine difference (i.e., more RAM means higher power consumption, so less power available for the CPU).

Tom's Hardware is seemingly reluctant to post any methodology, unfortunately. No discussion on temperatures, battery percentage, recent applications in RAM, etc.

The most common errors in benchmarking Apple's A-series seems to be equalizing temperature & battery charge: from the throttling scandal, we know these are key drivers.

As even on brand-new batteries, you lose ~10% of SoC performance at 10% battery charge vs 100% battery charge. It is because to reach the higher performance states, Apple A-series CPUs requires high voltage (a longer read here). Anandtech shows the A13 had, without question, the highest power consumption out of any Qualcomm SoC.

Of course, the A13 is much faster and much higher perf/watt. But the absolute consumption is high -> Apple refuses to let the CPU boost too high on lower battery %= lower voltage to prevent battery wear & tear -> the battery % is critical to standardize.

The Apple A13 consumed 4.6 W to 5.0 W.

The Qualcomm SD855 consumed 2.1 to 2.6 W.

Uhh yes. Yes you can. Especially on the same platform, because it's compiled utilizing the same libraries. It's the exact same tests. Unless you literally believe it's impossible to objectively determine the performance differential between something like an x86_64 Linux server and an ARM64 Linux server. Dumb!

https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench5-cpu-workloads.pdf

Run https://www.geekbench.com/ on your current machine and then compare it to previously uploaded results of particular machines.

I would also wait for the possible announcements of the new ARM macbooks, I think next month.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220244791_More_on_Finding_a_Single_Number_to_Indicate_Overall_Performance_of_a_Benchmark_Suite#read

This 2004 paper does not assume "one true workload" according to what I think you mean. Even if its not what you mean, Geekbench 5 suite of compute workloads falls within one of the categories examined in this paper according to their benchmark suite setup. That much is clear.

You could run Geek Bench which will give your computer a score and then you can compare with other computers. It won’t tell you if somethings wrong but at least you can see how it compares to similar machines

okay so i assume you are refering to the geekbench scores out for the new apple cpu.

so lets try to understand one thing. the geekbench workloads are as follows. https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench5-cpu-workloads.pdf

while these are valid benchmarks, they may be irrelevant benchmarks for the average user. so while these scores do present some what of a relative performance picture between different cpu's, the comparison is only valid if you are comparing similar architectures. because, there is a lot more going on in a processor than these benchmark workloads, and it's super easy to optimize a processor to do well in these type of workloads and be bad for everything else.

i'm not saying apple didn't design a good processor, worthy of praise, i'm saying that take the benchmark results with a grain of salt. it's incredibly hard to compare two processors using super specific workloads.

it's like trying to compare a tennis player and a basketball player and determining who is better. it just comes down to what it is you're trying to do. and i understand that everyone needs "something" to compare. so maybe we'll see who can run a 100m faster out of the two, but that says nothing overall about who does better in their respective sport.

https://www.geekbench.com/

Test your current machine and compare it to potential purchases.

I'm on a 2020 MBA i5 right now. I think if you are considering that base pro and its got a 8th gen CPU vs the 10th gen i5 in the MBA, so I think its a little slower in bursts. I think a rule of thumb is that MPA is for bursty performance and MBP is for sustained performance.

I'm using it for dev and I find that 128G storage is no way enough, but 256G storage is more than enough. I couldn't imagine needing 512G unless I was filling it with porn.

Who knows, performance isn't just the CPU.

But you probably find out, benchmark your current machine and compare the results to their data.

https://www.geekbench.com/

Run the cpu benchmarks with your current machine and compare it with the data on the site, maybe you'll see an obvious upgrade.

btw, I'm assuming the CPU benchmark will match up with your needs, but I'm not sure how much of your audio processing is offloaded to coprocessors like the T2 chip on newer macs.

Do you mind running a GeekBench and see if it crashes for you with the latest opencl-amd?

Warning: It crashes bad for me, with graphical glitches and freeze and everything bad you can think of :P

Other things that crash for me are: Radeon ProRender with Blender. Becomes completely unresponsive with 20.10 - a bit more recoverable with 19.50 - but still not working.

Things that work with both versions: LuxMark

But iSheep always are referring on Geekbench to propagandize iPhone superiority.

Now because they aren't in their interest throw away Geekbench. 😂 Hypocrites.

Maybe because Geekbench creator exposed the illegal, unethical and planned obsolescence Apple forced for 8 years to all iOS devices... https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/apple-slows-down-older-iphone-battery-issues/&ved=2ahUKEwjiv6_Z14XpAhVNqJ4KHXazBpcQFjAGegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0lL-GI8q5Cio0kYe09Oatm&ampcf=1

Incorrect, Geekbench 5 scores are comparable cross-platform/CPU architectures, it’s a big selling point. From geekbench.com:

> Compare apples and oranges. Or Apples and Samsungs. Designed from the ground-up for cross-platform comparisons, Geekbench 5 allows you to compare system performance across devices, operating systems, and processor architectures

These batteries weren't really aged. Look, there were a large number of 6S that were throttling within a year or two of release. https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

On the Android side, this is similar to the Nexus 6P.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

As we can see 11.1.2 had no throttling code, 11.2 had throttling code which resulting in the throttling of iPhone 7 performance.

iPhone 7 was throttled to prevent random shutdowns.

iOS 11.2 was released December 2, 2017

iPhone 7 was released September 16, 2016

The difference in between these dates is 442 days or 14 months and a half.

>Dude why are you so fixated on 14 months? I never had an iPhone go bad after 14 months, what the fuck. So no, I wouldn’t consider that normal, especially because that literally does not happen.

There we have got to the bottom of it. You didn't know the full facts.

A phone randomly shutting down after 14 months would be abnormal, i.e defective.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

As we can see 11.1.2 had no throttling code, 11.2 had throttling code which resulting in the throttling of iPhone 7 performance.

iPhone 7 was throttled to prevent random shutdowns.

iOS 11.2 was released December 2, 2017

iPhone 6s was released September 16, 2016

The difference in between these dates is 442 days or 14 months and a half.

Ergo by what you've said and actual hard evidence the iPhone 7 was a defective product. The iPhone 6s patch difference was 16 months and also defective.

We have evidence that it does in fact happen, so I guess you are a bit bold to claim it literally does not happen.

this happened on iphone 7 within 6 month of release

benchmark https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

fix that "cure" the shutdowns but fucks the phone https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-6-6s-sudden-shutdown-weve-almost-fully-cured-issue-with-ios-10-2-1-says-apple/

of course they didn't repeat the same mistakes in newer models

I am still pretty busy but here is a teaser from my bookmarks.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/20/16803190/iphone-slowdown-is-needed-but-also-a-problem

This article more or less outlines that the slowdown takes place at roughly the one year mark. Which is exactly what I am pointing out.

A cell phone battery stays good for up to three years if taken care of properly and even in bad care generally two years is the minimum. But iPhones were being slowed down as Soon as one year after production. Which shows the battery was already having trouble keeping up with the too high clock speeds and too tight voltage tolerances after just one year.

This guy on geekbench goes over it in detail, proving conclusively that the slowdown a started at one year old. It continued to get slower and slower progressively as the phones got older and older. But what I think is very important here is that it proves that the iPhones were only capable of the full speed they advertised for one year.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

"Many iPhone 6s devices were shutting down unexpectedly, even after the battery replacement program."

https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7inu45/psa_iphone_slow_try_replacing_your_battery/

> It was to prevent spontaneous shutdowns on phones with old batteries

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

It wasn't just old phones. They were throttling newer models as well, particularly the 6S. The 6S had notoriously poor quality batteries, so this allowed them to avoid paying for repairs/replacements.

> The above practice is 100% commonplace among all smartphones. It’s incredibly normal. Apple was far from the only company doing this.

No, that is an outright lie. Apple was and is the only company doing such throttling.

> At the time, other smartphones did not have the option to disable such a feature. Nobody was requesting it either.

Because they didn't, and still don't, have it to begin with.

> Apple did communicate this feature

No, they did not. Unless you considering something like "miscellaneous featured and performance enhancements" to mean "we're throttling your phone now".

> In fact, the only reason it was picked up by the media was because they put out a public statement explaining it.

Another lie. The geekbench testing I linked above first exposed the throttling.

> Even after all this, when the tech journalist websites blatantly and deliberately misrepresented the situation

Ironic, given how many lies you've needed to support your claim.

I'm not an iphone user, but when i googled it, the news story said it wasn't discovered until someone ran actual battery tests.

Tests here (ironically, apparently after reddit posts complaining).

No it didn't happened on any other phone or Android. You spread misinformation. Lawsuits from E.U. were coming and they released iOS 12 to escape from this situation It's was a scandal and it not disclosed anywhere in any documentation. Apple, iSheep, and their cult media always denied it as tin foil hat theory. It was a dirty trick to slow down your device through the correlation of CPU and battery cycles.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/

If it was for users benefit why did Apple keep it secret? You obviously believe their explanation. I do not.

Apple only revealed the information after a lot of people speculated about the slowdown issues.

This r/iphone post lead to John Poole of Primate Labs doing some research and posting this blog entry

His conclusions were

>Apple acknowledged the sudden shutdown issue that affected the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s earlier this year. However, does the same issue affect the iPhone 7? Apple appears to have added a similar change to iOS 11.2.0 for the iPhone 7.

>If the performance drop is due to the “sudden shutdown” fix, users will experience reduced performance without notification. Users expect either full performance, or reduced performance with a notification that their phone is in low-power mode. This fix creates a third, unexpected state. While this state is created to mask a deficiency in battery power, users may believe that the slow down is due to CPU performance, instead of battery performance, which is triggering an Apple introduced CPU slow-down. This fix will also cause users to think, “my phone is slow so I should replace it” not, “my phone is slow so I should replace its battery”. This will likely feed into the “planned obsolescence” narrative.

Are the GPU compute benchmarks available on Linux? Per this page it shouldn't be locked behind a purchase, but I'm not seeing any way to run it:

$ ./geekbench5 --help Geekbench 5.0.0 Tryout : https://www.geekbench.com/

Usage:

./geekbench5 [ options ]

Options:

-h, --help print this message --unlock EMAIL KEY unlock Geekbench using EMAIL and KEY --load FILE load and display Geekbench result from FILE --save FILE save Geekbench result to FILE --cpu run the CPU benchmark --sysinfo display system information and exit

If no options are given, the default action is to run the CPU benchmark.

GeekBench supports all platforms, and Intel is currently leading the multi-core benchmark there with Quad 28-core CPU on PowerEdge R840.

I'm sure it's accurate. But it screams "driver cheat to look good in benchmarks" and may not have much real world value.

Looking at the GeekBench Workload PDF:

> Similar to the N-Body CPU workload, but the Compute workload includes elastic collision of the particles and ignores other particle-particle forces.

I believe the main thing that makes N-Body simulation hard is you have to calculate the forces at very small timesteps. Without that there's likely a way to skip anything not a collision.

https://www.geekbench.com/

It describes what it tests.

Basically benchmarks are a set of standardized tests to try and create an easy way to compare different systems. A system with a better benchmark score will likely perform better in the real world when the tasks are similar.

Geekbench too https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf

PCMark as well

The gripe i have with "G" is that there is no explanation on what their workloads actually mean/do. Some are obvious, others dont.

For reference: https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf

My opinion: Geekbench4 isn't completely bogus. But I think the AES results, and the Memory results are a bit artificial. Its clearly a far better benchmark than Geekbench3, but I would be more comfortable with it if it removed the memory benchmarks and AES benchmark.

Add AES to the HTML5 DOM test. Have Geekbench5 (or whatever the next version) decrypt HTML5 before interpreting it. That would improve the test overall.

AES is also in the Camera-test, which makes sense (uploading photos to the cloud would typically use some encryption somewhere). So there's really no need for an individual AES test, as it exists in Geekbench 4.

Just my opinion on the matter though.

Unless you get it at an extremely deep discount I wouldn't recommend going with hardware that old. One of the reasons your 2013 MBP can't keep up is the increasing demands on placed on hardware by your bowser, among other things, and as these demands increase your machine will show its age.

The current MBP is looking a bit into the future with its focus on USB C ports, but with its focus around USB C being its only port it is also the first Mac that has no Apple proprietary ports which is a nice step in the right direction IMHO and hopefully turns into a lot more support for Mac Users (as who used Firewire, for instance...).

You can get a small adapter for when you need USB A or HDMI or other ports, including Mag Safe.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/07/macbook-pro-performance-july-2018/

It sucks how little people understand the things they depend on. Apple has not only been increasing the speed of the phones year over year through software updates, but improving battery life. If your battery sucks after a year, it's your fault for having bad charging practices. It's not Toyotas fault if you break the transmission because you slam on the accelerator after every stop.

Simple tips Keep the phone charged between 25-75 Keep the phone cool Never slowly charge it Never charge it under a pillow Never charge it in direct sunlight Never charge it when it's very hot Don't run the battery from 100-0 and back again

How much do you want to bet that your battery sucks AND you do those things? Every battery on the planet has a life expectancy. It's silly to argue that apple is doing anything different to hurt your battery life or make your phone slower. The performance changes were so subtle that nobody noticed until a a report came out . Everything after that is placebo. Also notice the density on the y axis is very different in every graph, but the majority of scores lie at the exact same spot.

In this case, Geekbench includes the ARM64 compiled binaries for benchmarking, so it's not emulating.

https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2018/09/geekbench-43/

Can run some benchmarks on it? For example: