Kind of weird to see an article about high-performance ARM cores without a single reference to Apple or how this hardware compares to M4 or M5 cores.

That would only matter (to me, at least) if those Apple chips were propping up an open platform that suits my needs. As things stand today, procuring an M chip represents a commitment to the Apple software ecosystem, which Apple made abundantly clear doesn't optimize for user needs. Those marginally faster CPU cycles happen on a time scale that anyway can't offset the wasted time fighting MacOS and re-building decades-long muscle memory, so thanks but no thanks.

Those are of almost zero use for people wishing to run Linux etc.

Yes, Asahi exists, and props to the developers, but I don't think I'm alone in being unwilling to buy hardware from a manufacturer who obviously is not interested in supporting open operating systems

Apple does not produce general purpose computing parts.

This is an industry blog, not a consumer oriented blog.

Same, I wish Chips and Cheese would compare some of these cores to Apple Silicon, especially in this case where they're talking about another ARM core.

A few years ago they were writing articles about Apple Silicon.

Apple doesn't expose the kind of introspection necessary to compare with the data the article is about. Any mention would just be about Apple's chips existing and being better

>Kind of weird to see an article about high-performance ARM cores without a single reference to Apple

And Qualcomm.

Perhaps you're not the target audience of the article.

The core they're talking about was released about two years ago. nvidia stuck it on their grace blackwell (e.g. DGX Spark) as basically a coordinator on the system.

Anyway, here it is in GB10 form-

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/14078585

And here is a comparable M5 in a laptop-

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2025

M5 has about a 32% per core advantage, though the DGX obviously has a much richer power budget so they tossed in 10 high performance cores and 10 efficiency cores (versus the 4 performance and 6 efficiency in the latter). Given the 10/10 vs 4/6 core layouts I would expect the former to massively trounce the latter on multicore, while it only marginally does.

Samsung used the same X925 core in their Exynos 2500 that they use on a flip phone. Mediatek put it in a couple of their chips as well.

"Reaching desktop" is always such a weird criteria though. It's kind of a meaningless bar.

Kind of weird that you pick Apple CPU cores when Qualcomm cores would be a far more appropriate comparison.

You make a valid point; Apple has indeed set a high standard for ARM cores in performance. A comparison with their M4 and M5 cores would provide valuable context for these new developments.