Your question about responsiveness highlights an interesting debate surrounding perceived speed versus actual performance. I understand that you don’t use Geekbench for real-world tasks, so let’s delve into what is considered “responsive” or unresponsive on Intel systems.
Many users commonly describe their experience as “snappy,” but this term lacks clear definition. Often, it seems to stem from a psychological perspective, as users may convince themselves that their new hardware justifies the expense, rather than relying on concrete performance metrics.
While I do find my Mac to have its slow moments—like Swift Playgrounds, which I attribute to Catalyst technology rather than the Xeon processor—other elements are less about hardware and more about the overall ecosystem. For example, I experience longer sleep and wake cycles on my current system compared to my old machine, taking about 31 seconds for sleep.
This isn’t necessarily a reflection of the processor, but rather the operating system and the number of connected peripherals. While I acknowledge the limitations of synthetic benchmarks, it’s clear that the M1 Pro outperforms my 5,1 model in these tests.
More importantly, it consistently proves faster in real-world applications, resulting in a more responsive feeling overall. My older system, while capable, often falls short in tasks when compared to the M1’s processing power.
For instance, as I type this, my M1 is encoding video in Handbrake seamlessly while utilizing minimal CPU resources. The difference is staggering, especially when considering how much more gradually the older system would respond under similar workloads.
Boot times and software updates also favor the newer models, making them feel significantly faster and more efficient compared to the 5,1. Even if your 7,1 system holds up for now, any future replacement is likely to deliver a distinctly snappier experience.
Leave a Reply