Apple A17 Pro SoC single-core benchmark score close to the Intel i9-13900K and AMD 7950X

[midian182]

In brief: It's no secret that Apple's new A17 Pro SoC is a mobile powerhouse. The chip is so powerful that its single-threaded performance is within 10% of the high-end AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Intel Core i9-13900K in Geekbench. But Apple's product does have the disadvantage of a much lower frequency and can't match the desktop chips in multi-core performance, of course.

Apple unveiled its iPhone 15 Pro this week, a handset powered by the all-new A17 Pro SoC. The industry's first 3nm chip features 19 billion transistors and is comprised of a six-core CPU, made up of two performance cores and four efficiency cores, alongside a 16-core neural engine that can process up to 35 trillion operations per second.

Tom's Hardware notes that the A17 Pro's single-core Geekbench 6 performance is about 10% faster than its predecessor, the A16 Bionic, which is what Apple said during its Wonderlust event. Apple's latest chip's single-core score of 2,914 puts it in the same category as many desktop processors and is only around 10% behind the Ryzen 9 7950X (3,172) and Core i9-13900K (3,223).

These sorts of synthetic benchmarks don't tell the whole story, though. For a start, the A17 Pro's 3.75GHz operating frequency (according to the benchmark) is far behind the 5.80GHz of the Ryzen and 6.0GHz of the Raptor Lake CPUs. It's also comparing a mobile chip with a TDP of 7.5 - 8W against desktop CPUs with TDPs over 100W.

The other factor is the core count. The A17 Pro's six cores help the chip to a multi-core score of 7,199, which is just 3% more than the A16 Bionic, suggesting that Apple made minimal architectural changes in its latest SoC generation, if any. The Ryzen 9 7950X (16 cores) more than triples the A17 Pro's multi-core score to 22,240, while the 24-core (8 performance, 16 efficient) i9-13900K has an even higher score of 22,744.

The A17 Pro certainly decimates Qualcomm's current most powerful mobile chip, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, in both Geekbench 6 single-core (2,050) and multi-core (5,405) benchmarks.

The A17 Pro also features a six-core GPU with hardware-accelerated ray tracing that is said to offer up to four times faster ray tracing compared to software ray tracing on the A16 Bionic. It allows PC/console games such as Assassin's Creed Mirage, Death Stranding, and the Resident Evil 4 Remake to be played natively on the handset.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100160-apple-a17-pro-soc-single-core-benchmark-close.html

 

[Bobbydpue]

Performance numbers from Geekbench don't equate to any software used.

Greekbench scores on mobile do not equal the same amount of work that can be done with a PC.

Additionally Geekbench is not good for comparing performance on two similar systems using the same OS since the scores don't mean anything. Large performance increases shown in Geekbench rarely show up in real world applications.

Please stop writing articles about Geekbench scores that don't mean anything. I don't care what the scores are whatever modern 7 watt SOC Apple is using in their phones will not come close to doing the same amount of work a modern desktop computer is capable of.

 

[brucek]

I'm confused by the frequency comments. Either the A17 is doing 90% of the same work at ~60% of the frequency, in which case the lower frequency is probably a feature (efficiency) not a bug; or the 90% part only holds if you artificially limit the other CPUs to A17's much lower frequency (in which case it is a very misleading comparison.)

Which is it?

 

[Dimitriid]

And this would be useful for....What exactly?

This reminds me of the ipad pro debacle: It has had the same chip as the imacs for a while but it's os limited the applications it could actually run to take advantage of until very recently a couple months back (IIRC) when stuff like Final Cut were finally available on the tablet.

So nevermind the fact that most people have absolutely 0 use for a 7950x and you need to be specifically used very specialized applications like some types of rendering, compiling very frequently or using a lot of virtualization.

Now we're talking these kinds of numbers on a phone? It barely has USB-C at 10gbps speeds now but what exactly would need a lot of CPU power? Is Apple going to allow Photoshop or Premiere to run on these phones somehow? Do they plan to sell a docking station for that (A very lame one since I'd be limited to USB 3.2 speeds) or how do I get to see the performance specifically of a heavily multithreaded CPU?

Like I get if the comparison was to the 7800X3D instead: even if it's just a phone you can afford to have it be a bit wasteful to be super snappy with very good burst single core performance but the thing doesn't has the ram or the drive space to realistically use any serious multithreading application.

This is like paying for a supercar knowing you will only ever get to drive it on school zones and parking lots: you didn't need more than a budget sedan. It's just sad to see impressive levels of performance going to absolute waste probably for the device's entire life cycle.

 

[Burty117]

Gotta give it to Apple, credit where credits due, they produce some amazing Silicon. Might be limited by their software and only available with Apple Hardware, but still impressed just how much better it is than anything Qualcomm, Samsung, Microsoft or Google can come up with.

Since this has hardware Ray-Tracing and Image reconstruction, plus they showed off full games running on it, it's a shame they didn't announce a new AppleTV with it in, would make sense to pop this in there, hook up some controllers and you've basically got yourself a nice little console there.

 

[Nanochip]

I think this new 3nm chip is a foreshadowing of what’s to come from Apple on its desktop line. Apple’s desktop M-series chips are derived from the A series. So the A17 Pro runs at 3.77 GHz vs 5.6+ for Raptor Lake/Zen 4. The M3-series may run even faster than 3.77, Apple could possibly push them to 4 GHz for even more performance.

The other thing that’s exciting is the new GPU with ray tracing, mesh shading and other features. It seems that Apple will focus its time and attention on the new GPU architecture and it’s adding hardware features found in RDNA3/Lovelace. It appears to me that Apple is laying the ground work for establishing Macintosh as a gaming platform. It’ll be interesting to see what the new GPU will be in M3 Max.

Like or dislike Apple, you have to agree that it is implementing some seriously cool technology, all aboard the 3 nanometer express.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

I’ll be interested to see a good cross-platform comparison once the phones are out.

 

[Burty117]

It seems that Apple will focus its time and attention on the new GPU architecture and it’s adding hardware features found in RDNA3/Lovelace.

I'd argue they've got more features than RDNA3, they went to the effort to create their own hardware accelerated upscaling (MetalFX).

AMD are now the only manufacturer refusing to put in their own hardware accelerated upscaling technology...

 

[Lew Zealand]

This is like paying for a supercar knowing you will only ever get to drive it on school zones and parking lots: you didn't need more than a budget sedan. It's just sad to see impressive levels of performance going to absolute waste probably for the device's entire life cycle.

How is a very fast Dual core + slower Quad core CPU a supercar? A supercar isn't even a 13900K or 7950X, it's a 64-core Threadripper.

This is a hi-performance sedan you can carry in your pocket. Has the comment section here devolved into complainers who don't like performance? What the hell is wrong with high-performance in your computer, pocket or desktop? If you don't want it or can't afford it, then buy something slower and more affordable.

Techspot: Please only cover performance numbers of slower performing CPU and GPUs that don't "waste performance." Oh! and don't forget to poll the Comment Section to make sure we all agree about those arbitrary descriptions.

 

[The Hardcard]

Performance numbers from Geekbench don't equate to any software used.

Greekbench scores on mobile do not equal the same amount of work that can be done with a PC.

Additionally Geekbench is not good for comparing performance on two similar systems using the same OS since the scores don't mean anything. Large performance increases shown in Geekbench rarely show up in real world applications.

Please stop writing articles about Geekbench scores that don't mean anything. I don't care what the scores are whatever modern 7 watt SOC Apple is using in their phones will not come close to doing the same amount of work a modern desktop computer is capable of.

While Geekbench is far from the definitive word on performance, it does relate to real world performance. There is not a single example of a processor that scores high on Geekbench that does not also often perform well on numerous CPU intensive tasks.

And those mobile cores can do the same amount of work as desktop cores. Feel free to peruse Andrei Frumusanu’s and Dr. Ian Cutress’s articles on Anandtech from 2018 through 2021 to see detailed data.

In fact Apple uses the identical cores throughout their mobile and desktop product stack, usually clocking them 10 to 20 percent higher on their top desktops where they run cross-platform software at similar top speeds as Intel and AMD’s flagship CPUs.

The recognition of this means many sites will continue to do articles on Geekbench results. People who want to avoid the reality of what these cores can do don’t have to click on them.

 

[Dimitriid]

How is a very fast Dual core + slower Quad core CPU a supercar? A supercar isn't even a 13900K or 7950X, it's a 64-core Threadripper.

Don't tell me: Tom's Hardware are the ones who decided to use Geekbench 6 and Techspot are the ones who wrote the headline and article where these comparisons are made.

Besides it's kinda hard to me to accept your points as good faith criticism when you get very nit-picky about a very simplistic analogy, which still supports the overall point btw.

This is a hi-performance sedan you can carry in your pocket. Has the comment section here devolved into complainers who don't like performance? What the hell is wrong with high-performance in your computer, pocket or desktop? If you don't want it or can't afford it, then buy something slower and more affordable.

Techspot: Please only cover performance numbers of slower performing CPU and GPUs that don't "waste performance." Oh! and don't forget to poll the Comment Section to make sure we all agree about those arbitrary descriptions.

Well how about I give you a high performance laptop or desktop PC but no keyboard, no mouse, no controllers whatsoever and none of the applications you'd use like any of your games, any of your productivity applications, etc. Would run at all on it?

As I said the point remains: why do you need a high performance sedan in your pocket if you are never going to leave the parking lot and live on a town that's like 8 streets wide and can be walked across in 10 minutes for 99% of your life? Like why do you need a car at all let alone any kind of high performing car if you've got nothing to do with it?

You basically only have the potential of a high performance computer in your pocket if you have exactly 0 applications that can actually make use of said high performance at all.

You can try to distract as much as you want with this type of arguments but you have not replied at all to the central argument: an iphone has not a single application that requires that much performance and it is supremely unlikely it ever will given the fact that it has:

1) Almost no disk space
2) Fairly limited ram
3) Extremely limited input options being not only touch only but a really tiny screen optimized for a handful of thumb clicks in the best of cases.

 

[p51d007]

Is your current device fast for what you use it for?
Is your current device not damaged?
Other than being with the "in" crowd so you can say look at me, I've got a new xxx phone.
Never understood this benchmark nonsense, especially when so many vendors have been
CAUGHT throttling the device, except when you run a benchmark, just so they can say they
have the super duper fast device.
99% of users will never approach 1/2 the limit most devices are capable of doing.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Don't tell me: Tom's Hardware are the ones who decided to use Geekbench 6 and Techspot are the ones who wrote the headline and article where these comparisons are made.

Besides it's kinda hard to me to accept your points as good faith criticism when you get very nit-picky about a very simplistic analogy, which still supports the overall point btw.

I see nothing wrong with having a single or dual threaded very high performance CPU in a handheld device which can deliver the fastest performance in all tasks. In CPU reviews from Tom's/TechPowerUp/other places, they still do web browser and unzipping and similar seemingly little or inane tasks, the same things a phone needs to do as well. Why shouldn't a phone be as fast if it can?

Well how about I give you a high performance laptop or desktop PC but no keyboard, no mouse, no controllers whatsoever and none of the applications you'd use like any of your games, any of your productivity applications, etc. Would run at all on it?

It's almost like a phone has different uses than a desktop.

As I said the point remains: why do you need a high performance sedan in your pocket if you are never going to leave the parking lot and live on a town that's like 8 streets wide and can be walked across in 10 minutes for 99% of your life? Like why do you need a car at all let alone any kind of high performing car if you've got nothing to do with it?

Need? Who needs a 7950X or 13900K? Most people buy these because they are the best available and they are enthusiasts. Same goes for phones.

You basically only have the potential of a high performance computer in your pocket if you have exactly 0 applications that can actually make use of said high performance at all.

Again, how many people are taking regular advantage of their 13900K or 7950x vs. a 13600K or a 7700x?

You can try to distract as much as you want with this type of arguments but you have not replied at all to the central argument: an iphone has not a single application that requires that much performance and it is supremely unlikely it ever will given the fact that it has:

1) Almost no disk space
2) Fairly limited ram
3) Extremely limited input options being not only touch only but a really tiny screen optimized for a handful of thumb clicks in the best of cases.

Just because you don't use a phone that way doesn't mean that others are not more creative with their devices. I don't use my phone to it's fullest extent but I bought the best phone available 7 years ago and continue to use it and it still performs well. If it dies tomorrow I'll probably buy either the top or the next bin down because the performance differences nowadays are a small 10%, clearly the support time is more important to me. Why restrict yourself if you don't need to, especially in a device that cannot be upgraded?

 

[TechSavy101]

Well it can run RE Village at 1290 x 2796 resolution which is close to 1440p at 30fps. I'm not impressed. If it was at 60fps then I would be WoW. Gaming on phone is pay to win trap.

 

[HardReset]

OK, here's top three of Geekbench single core results (left out two duplicates):

1. meizu MEIZU 18X ARM Qualcomm 1804 MHz (8 cores): 13189
2. To Be Filled By O.E.M. Synoden Intel Core i3-10100 13537 MHz (4 cores): 5504
ASRock Z690 AQUA OC Intel Core i9-13900K 3000 MHz (8 cores): 4220

Conclusion: Apple's score of 2914 is miles away from Qualcomm scores and even Core i3 is almost twice faster. Intel's 13.th generation loses big against Intel 10.th generation part and since Ryzen 7950X gets in fact 3580 points Techspot's sources suck.

Source: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/singlecore

 

[kiwigraeme]

No one has mentioned the obvious elephant in the room .
look how fast it is , look how little power it is compared to this chip or that chip

Is that if offers really bad price to performance - except for a few hard core users - ie most iPhone pro users just buy if because....
If you are getting this for gaming or production of say video - you need the 1TB or 512GB model.

For that money I can buy a complete powerful PC

For that money I can buy a decent android phone , a console , a good camera and have money over

let's split 512 and 1 tb price to $1500 USD

console $500 , phone $300, decent camera with lense $600

Still bodes well for actually useful stuff coming from likes of AMD zen5 APU on 3nm for most people - ie a gaming PC on a SOC

 

[rmcrys]

It appears to me that Apple is laying the ground work for establishing Macintosh as a gaming platform.

To do that, they would have had the software/ games, which they don't...

No one has mentioned the obvious elephant in the room .
look how fast it is , look how little power it is compared to this chip or that chip
...
For that money I can buy a decent android phone , a console , a good camera and have money over

The thing is, to get all that on ONE pocket-sized pocket it's very very difficult

 

[Burty117]

No one has mentioned the obvious elephant in the room .
look how fast it is , look how little power it is compared to this chip or that chip

Is that if offers really bad price to performance - except for a few hard core users - ie most iPhone pro users just buy if because....
If you are getting this for gaming or production of say video - you need the 1TB or 512GB model.

For that money I can buy a complete powerful PC

For that money I can buy a decent android phone , a console , a good camera and have money over

let's split 512 and 1 tb price to $1500 USD

console $500 , phone $300, decent camera with lense $600

Still bodes well for actually useful stuff coming from likes of AMD zen5 APU on 3nm for most people - ie a gaming PC on a SOC

Can you link me to this decent camera with lense at $600?

 

[kiwigraeme]

To do that, they would have had the software/ games, which they don't...



The thing is, to get all that on ONE pocket-sized pocket it's very very difficult

Nah we have Wallabies in NZ - their pockets are pretty good - but Aussies Red Kangaroos and get the TV in as well.

But seroiusly I did qualify it - that for hard core users ( power users ) then it's good value - eg a Vlogger on the road- shooting and editing in phone etc - tax expense to boot
The console is for couch time - your $300 phone for casual games commuting , and snapshots. Your camera will get those frenetic kids and pets in the back yard shots better - though iPhone video will be good as well

Even better if a casual video/photo person you get to keep an extra $600 for something else
Post editing software will get better and better and clean up anything in 5 years with AI

Most snapshots are std F8- 250th of a second from 3m to infinity of yore - any camera can do that well = even those throwaway plastic film cameras - but the iPhone pro will be near instantaneous to get time crucial shots

 

[dneonu80]

Regarding Apple's soon to be released A17 bionic SoC will definitely be the performance benchmark winner with it's 3nm process, and Apple made a smart decision by buying up all of TSMC's 3nm process thus leaving both media tek dimensity 9300 and Qualcomm snapdragon 8 gen 3 with the inferior 4nm process. With that said, the soon to be released iPhone 15 pro is already the performance benchmark winner over the upcoming competition.

 

[toooooot]

I will be happy if they do not fail to deliver on performance because it would mean that companies making CPUs for android phones would have to work harder to deliver similar performance.
How about they do better? A phone pairing with TV and playing current games.

 

[nismo91]

I just replaced my 4yo flagship android phone to a new midranger. months before I sold it I kept it on performance mode and it made zero difference in day-to-day use. yet the performance mode yielded much higher score on geekbench. the new phone was rated lower on geekbench multicore yet it's so much faster in anything, even when if it's running on cpu saver mode.

so yeah, I wouldn't use geekbench scores as a meaningful way to judge performance.

Apple's latest chip's single-core score of 2,914 puts it in the same category as many desktop processors and is only around 10% behind the Ryzen 9 7950X (3,172) and Core i9-13900K (3,223).

what are we in 2003? nobody cares about single-core scores especially when we're talking about windows os. just so people know the 13900k scores average of 26000 as opposed to the 7200 on the A17 chip on the multicore test. do you want to know what else scores 7200? a i3-12100F chip from last year.

"3nm A17 Pro SoC multi-core benchmark score close to 10nm Intel i3-12100F" would be a better timeline. it's definitely not bad for a mobile CPU, but putting it in comparison with the high-end i9-13900 does feel like a stretch.

 

[rmcrys]

Regarding Apple's soon to be released A17 bionic SoC will definitely be the performance benchmark winner [...] With that said, the soon to be released iPhone 15 pro is already the performance benchmark winner over the upcoming competition.

It could have 4x the power that it has now, even the iPad Pro could be as powerful as two current i9s, it DOESN'T matter as Apple limits what can be done. Even if you have a 1000 bhp car, if the software limits it to 120 kmh, it is worthless comparing to a 200 bhp car.

Samsung phones and tablets have DeX and that is very near to a desktop use, which means more power, better use. Even so, it is not the same as W11...

 

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Check.

 

[toooooot]

I think one of the best ways to measure that power will be when Apple adds current aaa games to Iphone.
We will have a very reasonable way to see what that power is compared to PC.