Testing Apple’s 2026 16-inch MacBook Pro, M5 Max, and its new “performance” cores

M5 Pro Max's "performance" CPU cores definitely aren't just rebranded E-cores.

See full article...

 

[tipoo]

I'd also like to know if the M5 Pro/Max give up any efficiency in low-to-idle use compared to the E-cores.

I wonder if they waited till it was overlapping on a perf/watt curve while being able to just scale up beyond the E-cores, or if there's some sacrifice to efficiency in coasting range. With a 7-issue width, caches between the two, and around 70% the performance of the Super Cores, I would guess for light use it can't get down as low as the E-cores can which just have less execution hardware for light work, but with power gating (which Apple has heavily used since AS and before) it might be close, I'd curious to see these perf/watt curves charted out between E/new P/SC.

 

[tipoo]

TLDR; So they took some performance cores and over clocked them a little and gave them a new name.

Emphasis on the DR. The new Performance cores are an all-new 7-issue design which is not some insubstantial overclocking, the new middle core architecture is truly a third and different core type.

The E cores and Super Cores are the same, latter with a rebadge from Performance, but the new Performance cores are truly new. This is what's interesting here. The Super Cores aren't really overclocked, it's just the move from E cores to a new middle core that's interesting.

Apple marketing may not have done it service with the double retcon to remember.

 

[tipoo]

Makes you wonder if these "efficiency" cores have significant advantages over the "performance" core - or if they are simply smaller - aka "space saver" cores.

I have a M3 pro laptop, and I was originally swayed by the concept of having 6 "efficiency" cores saving battery life.

New's flash - I don't think they do.

The battery life results are also looking very good, and there are some articles about how splitting the chip allows larger total die area at higher yield and lower cost, so maybe the e-cores did also more optimize for die space as well and we're not giving up any efficiency trading them for the new middle cores


Edit: Wow, even with no E-cores the idle is actually lower than the equivalent M4 tier
https://creativestrategies.com/research/m5-max-chiplets-thermals-and-performance-per-watt/