This article is based on an article from the Japanese edition of Engadget and was created using the translation tool Deepl.
Benchmark results from Apple's proprietary M1 chip-based Macs with native code (for Arm-based chips, showing their true potential) have recently appeared for the first time. Following that, new benchmark results running x86 code (a program for Macs with previous Intel chips) under Rosetta 2 have begun to be posted.
Rosetta 2 is a way to translate apps built for Intel's x86 architecture (for existing Mac models) into binaries that can be run on the Arm architecture's M1 chip in order to run them. It has been implemented since the latest macOS Big Sur and comes pre-installed on all M1-powered Mac models.
The Rosetta 2 scores posted on the familiar benchmarking site Geekbench Browser are purportedly done on an M1 version of the MacBook Air with 8GB RAM. The results show a single-core score of 1313 and a multi-core score of 5888, which appears to be achieving 78%-79% of the performance of the recent native code run.
While Rosetta 2 expands the range of apps that can be run, the load of binary translation can't help but slow the processing speed. However, the single-core score by Rosetta 2 this time around outperforms other Intel-based Macs, including a 27-inch iMac (2020) with a Core i9-10910 (3.6GHz).
On the other hand, the multi-core score also underperforms the 16-inch MacBook Pro and other high-end models with Intel chips in Arm native code testing, and the gap is even wider under Rosetta 2. Nevertheless, considering the price difference, it seems to be cost-effective enough.
The concern is probably that the Apple Silicon Macs have been found to take about 20 seconds to launch Intel-based apps for the first time. Anyway, all three new Macs will be available soon (November 17), and we'll be waiting for a report on the use of the actual machines.
Source: Geekbench Browser
This article is based on an article from the Japanese edition of Engadget and was created using the translation tool Deepl. The Japanese edition of Engadget does not guarantee the accuracy or reliability of this article.