Probably internal tests?

The software identifies the hardware, performs the benchmarks, and sends the heading and results to the Geekbench DB. Somebody who had the machine at hand must have run it.

People love to tell stories about how stuff is done at Apple, which are often utter bullshit.

Not to mention that Apple has a huge number of teams, and no absolute standards across them. People would be shocked at the things Apple DOESN'T do.

Then again, with the current state of their QA, I think it's becoming clear what Apple doesn't do much of anymore.

+1 . The only case it is allowed is Apple's own marketing team.

It’s happened in the past. Like that employee who left the unreleased iPhone in a bar by accident.

The details of the Apple vs. OpenAI dispute over leaked data show their security is not quite that tight.

I find that hard to believe at Apple

Where does the myth of Apple come from? You should go on blind and ask someone that works there the reality lolol

How does Geekbench even verify what CPU I'm using? Couldnt you inject forged data and add a even faster M100?

Speaking of rumours, Apple is reportedly developing a server box with multiple top of the line chips.

I would love to see macOS replacing Windows in virtual desktop environments.

I haven’t heard about the updated tensor instructions before - got any sources?

If they’re rushing the M7, it’s possible the M6 Pro and Max will be MacBook Ultra only. It would certainly give it quite a halo.

That was a mistake and I updated it - only the M2 Max benchmarks leaked prior to announcement, not the M2.

Those M2 Max Geekbench benchmarks appeared on November 30, 2022. Apple announced the Apple M2 Max chip on January 17, 2023.

Similarly, those M4 Geekbench benchmarks for Mac were leaked on October 6, 2024, prior to Apple announcing the product. Apple announced the M4 Macs on October 28, 2024.

Leak'em right in the eyes!

I thought the rumours were skipping M6 for the Mac Studio. Not for Macbook Pros and Mac Minis.

And how much would it cost?

In the current times performance/price seems to be increasingly important.

(Not to mention several other factors that once did not even exist, or were irrelevant.)

If anything it's the exact opposite. They're ridiculously powerful with more memory bandwidth than pretty much any equivalent PC. It is easy to make sloppy software because you can get away with so much.

Yep, I’ve seen issues like this before. Run it in a profiler and you’ll see it only doing useful work like 5% of the time.

Running something with "Wine" doesn't usually mean "porting", "porting" means making a native binary that doesn't run through an emulation layer.

Anyway, probably you are trying to run a 32-bit executable with Rosetta, that won't be fast, because Rosetta was never meant to run 32-bit things and has got a lot of pitfalls.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

I recommend you try giving your AI an open ended task like, "it's at 4 fps even though it's a 22 year old game and the raw hardware performance is many orders of magnitude higher. Maybe due to running under Wine and Rosetta. Please figure out the simplest way you can unlock usable performance (30-60 FPS) short of decompiling, reverse engineering, and reimplementing the full game yourself natively. Maybe there is something else you can figure out for the performance unlock. The hardware is definitely there, so there has to be a way. The game is running so make sure you don't break it. Keep the same game behavior."

Regardless of which AI you're using, it will be able to figure something out in a few hours. 2004 pc's were 500-800 mhz, 128 MB RAM, and if they had a GPU at all it was 16-32 MB, 0.2-1 GLOP.

Your AI should be able to figure out a way to get it running in realtime.

Something is going horribly wrong. I don't know what it is (without your code I don't know), have you profiled where it's going wrong? There's no way a game for 2004 would be that slow.

If you want help, I've done some similar work, you could pop it up on a github repo or something. What is the game?

How much did it cost you? Or was a subscription-based usage enough?

OS/Software is why I don't like macs.

For me it's like they built a Ferrari with 4 thin bicycle tires. What a waste.

Recently I have upgraded for memory capacity.

The M1 is about 1700 on Geek bench 7 single core.

For context, Intel has yet to ship a core that scores over 3000 on the same test.

AMD beats Intel, but only by a couple hundred points.

Qualcomm beats them both.

Under exactly what cooling conditions? And for how long did it sustain this speed?

Are benchmarks bullshit when comparing different architectures?

Bingo, each CPU is too unique with its own strengths and weaknesses to make broad statements, marketing picks up what they like and ignore rest

Which version of svt-av1 are you using? Neon optimisations were added quite recently in svt-av1, and are still a bit incomplete, so it might make a difference.

Probably AVX-512. AFAIK Apple CPUs are still using ARM NEON instructions with 128-wide SIMD registers. I guess they are banking on you using the GPU if you want to parallelize those kinds of workload.

Remember all those years when people claimed Apple chips were "cheating" on benchmarks because they had crypto instructions that x86 lacked?

Apple chips don't have AVX-512.

They do have media engines, so if you switch to H.265, it will pull way ahead.

There's also the Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme, 3,438 points in single-core and 27,519 points in multi-core, which I think was the record when it was released a year ago.

I guess they'll release an X3 in six months. So it's interesting to see the race is now between Apple and Qualcomm, both on Arm, with Intel and AMD getting left behind, at least on this benchmark.

https://signal65.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Signal65-Ins...

The moment AAA gaming becomes possible on macOS, the floodgates open and windows is dead

Has anyone tried to run Geekbench on POWER11 or a Telum II?