"directionally correct"... so you don't know and made up some numbers? Great.
Welcome to the world of chip discussions. I've never taken apart and M4 Pro computer and measured the die myself. It appears no one has on the internet. However, we can infer a lot of it based on previously known facts. In this case, we know M1 Pro's die size is around 250mm2.
AMD doesn't "endorse benchmarks" especially not fucking Geekbench for multi-core. No-one could because it's famously nonsense for higher core counts. AMD's decade old beef with Sysmark was about pro-Intel bias.
The reason is because Geekbench correlates highly with SPEC, which is the industry standard.
Their "main benchmark"? Stop making things up. It's no more than tragic fanboy addled fraud at this point.
That three-year old press-release refers to SINGLE CORE Geekbench and not the defective multicore version that doesn't scale with core counts. Given AMD's main USP is core counts it would be an... unusual choice.
AMD marketing uses every other product under the sun too (no doubt whatever gives the better looking numbers)... including Passmark e.g. it's on this Halo Strix page:
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/ai-pc-portfolio-l...
So I guess that means Passmark is "endorsed" by AMD too eh? Neat.
The industry has moved past Passmark because it does not correlate to actual real world performance.
The standard is SPEC, which correlates with with Geekbench.
https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...
Every time there is a discussion on Apple Silicon, some uninformed person always brings up Passmark, which is completely outdated.
Enough. You don't know what you are talking about.
What's with posting 5 year old medium articles about a different version of Geekbench? Geekbench 5 had different multicore scaling so if you want to argue that version was so great then you are also arguing against Geekbench 6 because they don't even match.
https://www.servethehome.com/a-reminder-that-geekbench-6-is-...
"AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3995WX, a huge 64 core/ 128 thread part, was performing at only 3-4x the rate of an Intel D-1718T quad-core part, even despite the fact it had 16x the core count and lots of other features."
"With the transition from Geekbench 5 to Geekbench 6, the focus of the Primate Labs team shifted to smaller CPUs"
GB6 measures MT the way most consumer applications use MT. GB5 was embarrassingly parallel. It reflects real world usage more.
Your source is an article based on someone finding a Geekbench result for a just released CPU and you somehow try to say its from AMD itself and its an endorsed benchmark, huh.
Those are AMD's marketing slides.