Apple announced the Developer Transition Kit (DTK) for developers at WWDC , which is a Mac mini computer using A12Z. What is the difference between the speed of Mac after switching to ARM architecture? I believe many people also care.
Suspected Mac version for ARM
Today, a mysterious running point suddenly appeared on Geekbench. The running point of the device called VirtualApple showed that the operating system was macOS 11.0 and the model was eperm-d995af6e2ef02771zxad. The processor is called VirtualApple, has 4 Core, the clock is 2.40 GHz, and the memory is 16GB, which is the same as the DTK specification. It is speculated from the name of "VirtualApple" that it is believed to use Rosetta to simulate the X86 environment to run the Geekbench x86 version.
8 suspected DTK running points appeared on Geekbench.
Unsatisfactory running score?
This test uses Geekbench 5.2.0 macOS x86 (64-bit), not the ARM version ! Therefore, the simulation environment will be slow. The running score after using the A12Z processor is Single Core 883, while Multi-Core is 2582. The speed is slower than Intel's 8th generation processor Core i3. Of course, the current running score only shows that the A12Z is an entry-level computer, but the future Apple Silicon processor will have a considerable performance and core number will be significantly improved compared to the A12Z.
A12Z running points.
Mac mini 2018 i3 version score is higher than A12Z.
iPad Pro 12.9 runs much faster than Mac mini with A12Z.
iPad Pro runs faster?
It is worth noting that the iPad Pro 12.9 uses the A12Z processor, but it scores Single Core 1118 and Multi Core 4726, which is significantly faster than the Mac mini version. The reason is that iPadOS runs ARM-based Geekbench.
Wait for the ARM version of the running program to appear
Of course, the current ARM architecture processor simulates x86 running points, which is equivalent to the speed of the i3 level, but if the dedicated Geekbench of the ARM architecture is introduced in the future, the scores will definitely have a lot of room for improvement. However, this also reflects that Rosetta's performance is not ideal, and the software only performs well with the support of Native ARM.