Geekbench 5 Released With Improved Benchmark Tests, Dark Mode Support, and More

Tuesday September 3, 2019 6:27 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
Primate Labs today announced the release of Geekbench 5, the latest major version of its popular benchmark software.


For CPUs, Geekbench 5 features new benchmark tests and it also increases the memory footprint of existing workloads to more accurately account for the effect memory performance has on CPU performance:
The Geekbench 5 CPU Benchmark includes new benchmark tests that model the challenges your system faces when running the latest applications. These tests use cutting-edge technologies, including machine learning, augmented reality, and computational photography.

Geekbench 5 also increases the memory footprint of existing workloads to more accurately account for the effect memory performance has on CPU performance.

Finally, the Geekbench 5 CPU Benchmark includes new modes of multi-threaded benchmarks, allowing threads to work co-operatively on one problem rather than separately on different problems. With the addition of different threading models, Geekbench 5 better captures the performance of different multi-threaded applications on personal computing devices.
As for GPUs, the Compute benchmark now supports Vulkan in addition to Metal, CUDA, and OpenCL.

Geekbench 5 also has a refreshed user interface with full support for Dark Mode on macOS Mojave and later. Support for ‌Dark Mode‌ on iOS 13 will be available later this year, according to Primate Labs.

Geekbench 5 is available now for macOS, iOS, Windows, and Linux, with an Android version coming later this week. The software is 64-bit only, dropping support for 32-bit processors and operating systems.

Through September 10, Geekbench 5 and Geekbench 5 Pro for Mac are on sale for $7.49 and $49.99 respectively, down from $14.99 and $99.99. Geekbench 5 for iOS is also free until that time, while Geekbench 5 Pro for iOS has introductory pricing of $4.99, which will rise to $9.99 after the sale ends.


Tags: Geekbench, Primate Labs
[ 110 comments ]

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

Avatar
simonmet
25 weeks ago
Wouldn’t mind a MacRumors dark mode...
Rating: 35 Votes
Avatar
topgunn
25 weeks ago
With each version of the software, they choose a baseline machine and set the score to some number. Your device scores relative to that baseline device. With Geekbench 4, it was a Microsoft Surface Book with an Intel Core i7-6600U and the score was 4000. If you scored 2000, it was approximately half the processing power as that Surface Book. Likewise, 8000 would be twice as much computational horsepower.

Geekbench 5 scores are calibrated against a baseline score of 1000 (which is the score of an Intel Core i3-8100). Higher scores are better, with double the score indicating double the performance.

I use Geekbench to quickly relate potential performance between machines. For example, I see Apple has a new MacBook Air with a dual-core 1.6GHz 8th generation CPU. Well, how does that compare to my 2012 MacBook Pro with a 2.5GHz quad-core processor. With the Geekbench results, I can get a quick idea of the difference.
Rating: 10 Votes
Avatar
GreenPixel
25 weeks ago

I think they have butchered the scores or something.
[doublepost=1567516101][/doublepost]
I am facing this similar problem too. Unusually low benchmarks.


Score calculations change between app versions. You can't compare to version 4. Only compare to other devices also tested on version 5.
Rating: 9 Votes
Avatar
justin216
25 weeks ago

Does anyone really base their purchases off a benchmark?

Lets see some tests for what people really are waiting for, a better, longer lasting battery.


It's useful in-so-far as to compare two machines within the bubble that the test itself represents. Generation-over-generation performance improvement being one of the most common.

Ultimately, however, the individual's use cases have to be called into consideration, because a user with a primary application of Mail.app probably wouldn't see much difference between a dual-core machine and a 20-core machine.
Rating: 6 Votes
Avatar
realtuner
25 weeks ago

Just so much BS. Apple uses the ARM aritecteture for it's processors. Yes they give them sexy names (A-series!, Bionic-series!. Matrix-series!) but all Apple does is take a reference design (an ARM chip that has to do everything) and REMOVE the parts that Apple has no business in.

BTW "compared to Samsung" it's a chip everbody can use; it's f@@k all to do with Samsung


Apple DOES NOT use ARM architecture. Samsung and Qualcomm do that (using ARM cores like the A76 or A53). Apple designs 100% custom cores (micro-architecture). They have a license from ARM to use the ARMv8 instruction set architecture (ISA).

Only BS is your post which shows a complete lack of understanding of "architecture".
Rating: 5 Votes
Avatar
realtuner
25 weeks ago

Don't get me wrong for my simple response with that fake word.
I'm sure a13 will be a nice processor, but, apple can't have something much better than arm designed. It can have something within 5-10%. But judging how greedy and lazy they are, I think it's with minus - 5-10% AIso Apple can't have something that arm has not designed yet. That will be like traveling into the future.
I'll suggest you look deeper into the arm thing. Yes, arm cores are nice processors, but nowhere near x86.


This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen posted today regarding Apple processors.
Rating: 4 Votes
Avatar
smetvid
25 weeks ago
I understand some people like benchmarks but who pays that much for a benchmark tool?
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
GIZBUG
25 weeks ago
Does anyone really base their purchases off a benchmark?

Lets see some tests for what people really are waiting for, to justify spending money on a mediocre iPhone upgrade: better, longer lasting battery.
Rating: 3 Votes
Avatar
kkk123kkk123kkk
25 weeks ago

And way faster then an amd threadripper with 32 cores.
This tells me enough about this stupid benchmark...

Anandtech had already show A12 run almost toe to toe in single core perf with 20 cores Xeon 8176 sever chip in “important industry standard benchmark”(as Anandtech put it), SPEC2006 benchmark test. Server chip usually trade single core performance for efficiency, and mobile chip has been laser focus on push single core perf for years. It isn’t really that surprising that it can run faster than a 32 core chip.

What is quite astonishing, is just how close Apple’s A11 and A12 are to current desktop CPUs. I haven’t had the opportunity to run things in a more comparable manner, but taking our server editor, Johan De Gelas’ recent figures from earlier this summer ('https://www.anandtech.com/show/12694/assessing-cavium-thunderx2-arm-server-reality/7'), we see that the A12 outperforms a moderately-clocked Skylake CPU in single-threaded performance. Of course there’s compiler considerations and various frequency concerns to take into account, but still we’re now talking about very small margins until Apple’s mobile SoCs outperform the fastest desktop CPUs in terms of ST performance. It will be interesting to get more accurate figures on this topic later on in the coming months.


Sources:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-review-unveiling-the-silicon-secrets/4
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12694/assessing-cavium-thunderx2-arm-server-reality/7
Rating: 2 Votes
Avatar
realeric
25 weeks ago
iPhone XR scores 1116 single and 2556 multi core. Not free or $1? Too bad.

Edit) It socred 1111/2563 on second run. Each test took 2min 30sec.
Rating: 2 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]