[embedding-shape]

Buried in the middle of that article:

> Furthermore, many of the suite’s multi-threaded subtests scale efficiently only to roughly 8 – 32 threads, which leaves much of such CPUs' parallel capacity idle, but which creates an almost perfect environment for Apple's CPUs that feature a relatively modest number of cores

Invalidates the entire comparison really, and should have canned the article if they had any integrity.

[wmf]

AMD has 16 cores, Apple has 18, Qualcomm has 18, Nvidia N1X has 20, and Intel has 24. All else being equal you actually want as few cores as you can get away with because that's less likely to be limited by Amdahl's Law. Arguably Intel/Nvidia CPUs are poorly designed and benchmarks have no obligation to accommodate them.

(I'm not counting high-end workstation/server CPUs because, as others in this thread have explained, Geekbench isn't intended for them.)

[embedding-shape]

> (I'm not counting high-end workstation/server CPUs because, as others in this thread have explained, Geekbench isn't intended for them.)

Yeah but that's the thing, the article is both in the headline and contents of the article comparing a CPU intended for high-end workstations with a consumer CPU meant for a laptop, and using software explicitly not designed for them. That's the issue here!