Apple's 18-core M5 Max beats 96-core Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX in Geekbench due to weak benchmark scaling — GPU performance is much less impressive [Updated]
What about real-world workloads?
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Edit 3/8/2026 7:25am ET: Clarified the nature of the benchmark win in the title and moved the analysis of poor scaling to the second paragraph.
Apple's desktop and notebook processors traditionally lead the pack in single-thread workloads, as industry-leading single-thread performance has been the company's focus for a long time. However, Apple's M5 Max processors not only outperform rivals by a huge margin in single-thread workloads, but beat all of them — including the 96-core AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX — in multi-thread workloads in the Geekbench 6 benchmark.
There is a major catch here as the Geekbench 6 multi-thread benchmark is a brief, bursty test intended to mimic common consumer tasks such as archive compression, PDF processing, and image editing. Its short runtime and bursty nature prevent it from fully stressing ultra-high-core-count processors like the Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX.
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, but which evolve noticeably in terms of per-core performance from one generation to another. Also, keep in mind that Geekbench 6 is a synthetic benchmark that reflects the potential of the tested hardware but may not reflect its performance in real-world applications.
Article continues belowAdditionally, when it comes to GPU compute performance, not everything is that rosy for the M5 Max.
Single-thread and multi-thread champion
According to recent Geekbench 6 results, Apple's 18-core M5 Max not only beats its direct predecessor, the 16-core M4 Max, in single-thread (4,353 points) and multi-thread workloads (29,644 points), but also the 32-core M3 Ultra that is supposed to be Apple's unbeatable multi-thread machine.
Furthermore, Apple's new flagship CPU beats AMD's 96-core Ryzen Threadripper Pro 9995WX in single-thread (which is not surprising) and multi-thread workloads in Geekbench 6. It should be noted that while most Threadripper Pro 9995WX CPUs score around 26,000 GB6 points in multi-thread workloads, there is one example when this processor hits 30,170 points, which is a bit ahead of M5 Max's 29,644 points.
| Row 0 - Cell 0 | M5 Max | M4 Max | M3 Ultra | Threadripper Pro 9995WX | Threadripper Pro 9995WX | Threadripper Pro 7995WX | Ryzen 9 9950X3D | Xeon W9-3595X | Core Ultra 9 285K |
General Specification | 6SP + 12P at 4.60 GHz | 12P at 4.50 GHz + 4E | 24P at 4.05 GHz + 8E | 96P/192T at 2.50 - 5.40 GHz | 96P/192T at 2.50 - 5.40 GHz | 96P/192T at 2.50 - 5.10 GHz | 16P/32T at 4.30 - 5.70 GHz | 60C/120T at 2.0 - 4.80 GHz | 8P at 3.70 - 5.70 GHz + 16E |
Single-Core | 4353 | 4054 | 3226 | 3122 | 2800 | 2736 | 3466 | 2719 | 3165 |
Multi-Core | 29644 | 26320 | 27551 | 25992 | 30170 | 25899 | 24057 | 24206 | 21014 |
Source | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/16894743 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12812139 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12809531 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12797289 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12773366 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12802127 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12807125 | Row 4 - Cell 8 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12813645 |
Apple's M5 Max processor in its maximum configuration packs six 'super' performance (SP) cores featuring increased front-end bandwidth (i.e., wider decoder?), enhanced branch prediction, and a new cache hierarchy to deliver unbeatable single-thread performance as well as 12 new performance (P) cores designed to deliver power-efficient multithreaded performance in professional applications, up from 16 cores (12P + 4E cores) offered by the M4 Max. We do not know details about microarchitectures of Apple's 'super' performance and performance cores, though the 12% single-thread performance difference between M5 Max's SP and M4 Max's P cores is evident.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
As for the memory subsystem, the M5 Max features up to 128 GB of LPDDR5X-9600 memory connected to the host via a 512-bit interface, offering 614 GB/s of bandwidth, up 12% from M4 Max (546 GB/s). For now, no workstation processor can match the memory bandwidth of M5 Max or M4 Max. Efficient cache and memory subsystems are crucial for single-thread performance, so this part of the M5 Max also played a significant role in its performance boost compared to the predecessor.
Not quite a GeForce RTX 5090
In addition to its revamped CPU subsystem, Apple's M5 Max also boasts a new GPU that is based on a PowerVR-derived microarchitecture developed by Apple. As it turns out, a big integrated GPU and plenty of memory bandwidth can deliver serious GPU compute oomph: the M5 Max scores 232,718 points on the GeekBench 6 GPU compute benchmark when using the Metal API. Apple's previous-generation M4 Max scores up to 204,453 points in the same tests. Evidently, the new GPU is better than the predecessor, but not that significantly.
| Row 0 - Cell 0 | M5 Max | Ryzen AI Max+ 395 | GeForce RTX 5070 | GeForce RTX 5070 Ti | RTX Pro 6000 WE | GeForce RTX 5090 |
Score | 228,081 | 133,447 | 207,061 | 253,890 | 368,219 | 376,858 |
Background Blur | 103,297 | 70,030 | 92,405 | 104,494 | 63,762 | 75,075 |
Background Blur | 427.5 images/sec | 289.8 images/sec | 382.4 images/sec | 432.5 images/sec | 263.9 images/sec | 310.7 images/sec |
Face Detection | 150,790 | 45,779 | 82,638 | 95,969 | 60,254 | 73,968 |
Face Detection | 492.3 images/sec | 149.5 images/sec | 269.8 images/sec | 313.3 images/sec | 196.7 images/sec | 241.5 images/sec |
Horizon Detection | 187,002 | 135,939 | 261,064 | 332,704 | 684,753 | 637,294 |
Horizon Detection | 5.82 Gpixels/sec | 4.23 Gpixels/sec | 8.12 Gpixels/sec | 10.4 Gpixels/sec | 21.3 Gpixels/sec | 19.8 Gpixels/sec |
Edge Detection | 285,273 | 142,598 | 302,787 | 408,073 | 864,739 | 838,261 |
Edge Detection | 10.6 Gpixels/sec | 5.29 Gpixels/sec | 11.2 Gpixels/sec | 15.1 Gpixels/sec | 32.1 Gpixels/sec | 31.1 Gpixels/sec |
Gaussian Blur | 401,667 | 161,926 | 227,152 | 281,342 | 832,815 | 795,994 |
Gaussian Blur | 17.5 Gpixels/sec | 7.06 Gpixels/sec | 9.9 Gpixels/sec | 12.3 Gpixels/sec | 36.3 Gpixels/sec | 34.7 Gpixels/sec |
Feature Matching | 59,861 | 33,663 | 45,780 | 47,976 | 57,199 | 57,464 |
Feature Matching | 2.36 Gpixels/sec | 1.33 Gpixels/sec | 1.80 Gpixels/sec | 1.89 Gpixels/sec | 2.25 Gpixels/sec | 2.27 Gpixels/sec |
Stereo Matching | 694,884 | 572,700 | 1,030,792 | 1,394,629 | 2,797,728 | 2,802,350 |
Stereo Matching | 660.6 Gpixels/sec | 544,4 Gpixels/sec | 979.9 Gpixels/sec | 1.33 Tpixels/sec | 2.66 Tpixels/sec | 2.66 Tpixels/sec |
Particle Physics | 527,500 | 518,413 | 522,239 | 673,633 | 1,114,648 | 1,069,886 |
Particle Physics | 23215.7 FPS | 22,815,8 FPS | 22984.2 FPS | 29647.2 FPS | 49056.6 FPS | 47086.6 FPS |
When compared to non-Apple GPUs, the one inside the M5 Max easily beats the iGPU inside the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, which scores 133,447 points when unconstrained by thermals. When it comes to discrete graphics cards, Apple's flagship iGPU is ahead of Nvidia's GeForce RTX 5070 (207,061 points, Vulkan), but trails the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (253,890 points, Vulkan) and has no chance against the GeForce RTX 5090. Still, building an integrated GPU that delivers compute performance comparable to one of the best graphics cards is a breakthrough.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
Gururu Why is there a comparison between a laptop integrated GPU and a 5090? Its faster than 8060s and panther lake (probably), leave it at that and call it the fastest CPU in the world.Reply -
andrewzortiz I decided to create this account to just leave this comment. This is the most click bait article I've ever seen from Tom's Hardware. Please do better.Reply -
TheyStoppedit There's something we aren't being told. If a 6,000 dollar laptop with an M5 Max can slaughter a $15,000 desktop CPU that has 5x the core count, and 3x the power draw, then there has to be something we aren't being told. I would like to know what that is.... because that doesn't just happen. Is AMD really 10 years behind apple like that? I somehow doubt that. I'd like to know all the details.Reply -
Pierce2623 Geekbench heavily favors ARM and it doesn’t actually scale hardly at all with real workloads. If you look at the tests listed in the article, it’s very obviously aimed at testing cellphones.Reply -
moon2 It's hidden in the article - geek bench doesn't scale well beyond 32 cores. Presumably that means comparisons beyond 32 core are effectively junk.Reply
Maybe they could run four copies of geekbench concurrently and see which CPU as actually scales best - or just run workloads appropriate for a 96 core machine -
abufrejoval Reply
I wouldn't agree, because it's both obviously clickbait and expected performance.andrewzortiz said:I decided to create this account to just leave this comment. This is the most click bait article I've ever seen from Tom's Hardware. Please do better.
Real clickbait plays with the really unexpected and is subtle enough to lead you where you'd never go normally.
Could they do better? Zero doubt! Too bad that doesn't pay, but then I block their ads. -
PEnns Amazing!!! I am so amazed, I am in amazement heaven.....Reply
Now do tell us how that Apple chip bulldozed a comparable IBM chip...or is that reserved only for AMD and Intel is a no-no in such scenarios?? -
abufrejoval Having grown up with Lego, I can't help but like the underlying principle and I'd love to see it also available from other vendors for commodity pricing and perhaps more options for the parts (Lego has more than just the 8-notch block).Reply
Unified memory and flexible expandability unfortunately don't seem to have economical solutions, let's hope that Apple approach inspires some progress and options elsewhere.
In the mean-time I'm just happy that my currently biggest box (RTX 4090, Zen 9 7950X3D, 96GB ECC DDR5-5600, 16TB SSD) still does better for much less anywhere where I need performance, so I'm not even tempted to pay for the potential of the unified address space.
I'd still be interested to see how the Max fares against EPYCs with 12-channel DDR5-6400, which should offer similar bandwidth at 600GB/s, although only the M5 iGPU can reach there, while the EPYC CPU cores may still lack the GPGPU ops M5 optimized workloads might be able to take advantage of.
E.g. even 96 CPUs may not be be able to beat an M5Max GPU at low-precsion LLM inference, but that's not very likely the principal workload these systems would run. And then CPUs are extending their ISAs towards including huge vectors of low-precision data types to retain or regain bigger chunks of that market.
Mostly I'd say that 12 channel external DRAM and on-die DRAM stacks are meeting at a bandwidth point with prices that reflect the technical effort, while the optimum between those two, not entirely exclusive approaches is very application dependent. CPUs with extra HMC and HBM stacks have been made and hybrids remain possible.
Hyperscalers can deploy bespoke variants once the scale is big enough, those who want a box on the desk or at their feet, have to chose and pay up front and bet on it paying off over potentially a long time. -
thisisaname Reply
Aye most things are not 5090, if it is that fast that a comparison between it and the 5090 is valid comparison then they have made something rather special.Gururu said:Why is there a comparison between a laptop integrated GPU and a 5090? Its faster than 8060s and panther lake (probably), leave it at that and call it the fastest CPU in the world.