It's hard to believe, but the Exynos 2600 AP reportedly benchmarks at Apple M5 levels

 

Engineering & handle node

The Exynos 2600 is detailed to be built on Samsung Foundry’s 2 nm Gate-All-Around (GAA) handle. 

Phone Arena

+2

Wccftech

+2

The chip is reputed to include a deca-core CPU (a “1 + 3 + 6” cluster: 1 prime center, 3 execution centers, 6 effectiveness centers) concurring to different spills. 

Wccftech

+2

Wccftech

+2

Some prior benchmarks (building tests) have been spotted on Geekbench 6 with single-core scores of ~3,309 and multi-core ~11,256. 

Notebook check

+2

Android Headlines

+2

There are more current “leaked” numbers appearing 4,217 (single) and 13,482 (multi) for the Exynos 2600—though those have not been freely confirmed. 

Wccftech

Benchmark context

For reference, the Apple M5 is detailed to have Geekbench 6 scores around 4,263 (single-core) and 17,862 (multi-core). 

Wccftech

+2

BGR

+2

The Exynos 2600 tests so distant are underneath the M5’s multi-core result — indeed in the spill of 13,482 vs 17,862 for the M5. 

Wccftech

Yield & generation readiness

Samsung is prepping for mass generation of the Exynos 2600. Reports propose past surrender issues in their progressed handle hubs are being tended to. 

Wccftech

But the benchmarks we’re seeing come from building tests (pre-commercial units) or possibly informal spills. That implies computer program, firmware, thermal/tuning conditions seem vary from last retail products.

 What the claim implies (and what it doesn’t)

When somebody says “benchmarks at Apple M5 levels”, this can be deluding unless carefully qualified. Here’s what we ought to keep in mind:

A single-benchmark score (e.g., Geekbench) is fair one cut of execution. Real‐world execution depends on numerous other variables: thermal/power envelope, supported execution (thermals, throttling), GPU execution, NPU/AI, memory subsystem, computer program optimizations, etc.

Matching or drawing closer M5 in single-core on Geekbench would be striking — it’s verifiably been Apple’s space. In any case, coordinating in multi-core (or real-world execution) is distant harder.

As the spills appear: the Exynos 2600 might approach Apple’s single-core numbers (in one spill), but still trails essentially in multi-core in that same spill. So the feature “at M5 levels” is as it were somewhat accurate.

The spilled 4,217/13,482 result may not speak to the last product’s execution, may be in perfect conditions, may indeed be wrong or fake. In reality, one article banners that the spill may be fake. 

Sammy Guru

+1

Apple’s M5 is utilized in laptops/desktops (MacBooks) with more ideal power/thermal budgets than a smartphone SoC might reasonably have. So indeed if a smartphone chip hits comparative manufactured numbers, it might do so beneath conditions not down to earth in a thin phone.

 How solid is the claim that Exynos 2600 “benchmarks at M5 levels”?

Here’s my evaluation: direct credibility, but critical caveats.

Single-core: The claim is conceivable. The designing spill appears the Exynos scoring ~4,217 in single-core, which is exceptionally near to the M5’s ~4,263. If genuine and if maintained in retail shape, this would without a doubt put the Exynos in the same level for single-core manufactured workloads.

Multi‐core: The claim is less strong. The spill (13,482) is still well behind the M5’s ~17,862 in that benchmark. So whereas it may be “closer” than past Exynos chips, it doesn’t coordinate the M5 in multi-core by this data.

Real‐world execution: The claim doesn’t however hold water until we see full audits of retail gadgets with this chip beneath genuine conditions (battery, warm, maintained stack, over apps/games). Manufactured benchmark prevalence (or equality) doesn’t continuously interpret into prevalent genuine usage.

Verification: Numerous of these spills stay unsubstantiated. For occasion, one source notes “Geek bench's claim database falls flat to appear these results” for a few Exynos 2600 runs. 

Phone Arena

+1

Chip development & gadget setting: Since this is a unused engineering and handle hub (2 nm), things like yields, warm limits, battery affect, and fabricating fetched will matter. If Samsung tunes the last chip more conservatively for power/thermals, the real retail execution might be lower.

 Why this matters

Why is it a enormous bargain if Samsung catches up (or about catches up) with Apple’s M5? A few reasons:

Competitive flow: Apple’s advantage in silicon has for a long time been exceptionally expansive, particularly in single-core and proficiency. If Samsung (through Exynos) can near that crevice, Android lead gadgets utilizing Exynos chips will be more competitive on crude performance.

Foundry trade & tech administration: Samsung Foundry building a 2nm GAA hub that conveys lead execution positions them superior relative to rivals like TSMC. The article notes “this may challenge TSMC’s possess 2nm technology.” 

Wccftech

+1

Samsung autonomy: For Samsung, being less dependent on outside chip originators (e.g., Qualcomm’s Snapdragon) implies superior control of costs, integration, separation. The Exynos 2600 story underpins a more grounded “in-house” lead strategy.

Benchmark arms-race flagging: Indeed if the genuine world delta is littler, the informing things. If Samsung can claim “we coordinate Apple’s chip” it modifies customer and industry recognition of their silicon capability.

 My decision & what to watch

Verdict: The claim that Exynos 2600 “benchmarks at M5 levels” is borderline exact depending on how you parse it. For single-core manufactured benchmarks, perhaps yes (based on spills). For multi-core and real-world, not however proven.

What to watch:

Official benchmark information for retail gadgets utilizing the Exynos 2600 (e.g., up and coming Samsung Universe S26 arrangement) beneath real-world conditions.

Thermal/efficiency conduct: How does the chip perform beneath supported stack (gaming, efficiency) in a phone form-factor?

Battery affect and control utilization: A chip may hit tall scores but deplete battery rapidly or throttle early.

GPU/NPU/ISP execution: CPU benchmarks are critical, but for regular smartphone encounter, GPU, AI, camera preparing matter a parcel – how does Exynos 2600 admission there?

Software enhancement & locale contrasts: Samsung frequently employments distinctive chips in distinctive markets; execution may change by region/variant.

Verification of spills: Numerous of the claims are from screenshots/leaks/unverified data—need caution.