@Justbustr @paul @gruber No need to consult a genocide apologist ¹. In ascending speed it’s Efficiency, Performance (new multithread focus), Super (previously Performance).

Attached: 4 images John Gruber's "enjoying Palestine genocide" shirt has people asking a lot of questions about tech instead of his shirt.
@oscillik @paul Who cares? 🤔 Max is faster than pro is faster than base. Pay more, get more speed. (Given all other parameters are equal like ssd and ram)
Might be interesting to see some real world comparisons but I stay with: for probably 95% of users the base model is best bang for the buck. Have more to spend? Bump up ram and ssd whatever you think you need more off (for me it’s ssd)
@oscillik @paul You mean that they renamed the performance to super and introduced a new performance in between super and efficient?
I can simplify my take further: the M chips are fast enough for probably 95%+ of what people do. If you are the 5% you know it and choose what you are willing to pay for.
„We“ (my guessed 95+%) shouldn’t care about the naming or amount of Cores 🤷♂️
@mackuba @rhysmorgan @paul because it now is:
Super (the old Performance) > Performance (new one) > Efficiency (yep, the old one, only in the M5)
@paul Someone else asked the same question.
The TL;DR seems to be that super cores are the new name for performance cores, and what they're now calling performance cores are upgraded efficiency cores.
https://www.macworld.com/article/3077260/what-the-hell-is-an-m5-super-core.html
@paul They're different after all - but it's how to say whether they're just „bumped" old-efficiency cores, or „nerfed" old-performance cores with a much lower clock or cache for example.
It might be, that those new "performance" cores are like AMD Zen 4/5c cores - basically the same architecture but nerfed in some areas - mostly cache.
@kaiserkiwi @paul Ars explains: