Hacker News Reader

Intel (or AMD for that matter who are using TSMC) isn't falling behind, it's just that geekbench is completely unrepresentative of real world performance across architectures, as Linus points out here[0] due to the test including hardware accelerated tasks that benefit specifically these modern arm chips.

[0] https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpost...

View on HN

>There’s been a lot of criticism about more common benchmark suites such as GeekBench, but frankly I've found these concerns or arguments to be quite unfounded. The only factual differences between workloads in SPEC and workloads in GB5 is that the latter has less outlier tests which are memory-heavy, meaning it’s more of a CPU benchmark whereas SPEC has more tendency towards CPU+DRAM.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...

That's 7 years old

still relevant

In Geekbench5, they benchmark html5, SQLite reads, pdf rendering, text rendering etc. Seems somewhat relevant. They are providing an upper bound on this activity, and that’s good to know.

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

Still relevant to people running Geekbench 3, unlike this topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com