Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

browser.geekbench.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#131

Post by vineyardmike »

blakesterz wrote: post #100

I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…

Disclaimer, I don't have an M1 Mac, but I do have a buggy ubuntu desktop and used Macs my whole technical life.

It seems that you're heavily in the minority with this. Even the weird bugs you mention are very unexpected. I've used a Mac for 15 years and never heard of an issue related to thumb drives. You may just have a lemon. See if you can just replace it (warranty, etc, not just spending more money).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#132

Post by lambdapsyc »

blakesterz wrote: post #100

I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…

Easy, it is likely docker that is making your Mac mini slower than your old linux box?

Docker on macOS is painfully slow, because it is implemented on macOS through what amounts to a sledgehammer to the problem. Docker depends on linux kernel features so on macOS it just starts a linux virtual machine and does other high overhead compatibility tricks to get it to work. Volumes are the biggest culprit.

If you are running docker through rosetta... (don't know the state of docker on apple silicon) then that is a double whammy of compatibility layers.

Regarding bugs, yeah probably teething issues because the M1 was/is such a large departure from the norm. They should really get those things fixed pronto.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#134

Post by wmf »

concinds wrote: post #72
e0m wrote: post #16

Wow does much better than Geekbench's prior top processor ( https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks ) the Intel Core i9-11900K ( https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900... ). 10,997 for Intel i9 vs 12,693 for M1 Max

I wish there were laptop-specific Geekbench rankings because right now it seems impossible to easily compare devices in the same class

The M1 Pro/Max are effectively H-class chips so you can search for 11800H, 11950H, 5800H, 5900HX, etc.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#135

Post by spacedcowboy »

cauk wrote: post #119
jkeddo wrote: post #81

One big thing to consider is that this is just the first m1 Max Geekbench score, compared against the world's greatest 11900Ks. Most 11900K's are nowhere near the levels of the top preforming one. Once Apple starts shipping M1 Max in volume, and as TSMC yields get better, you will see "golden chips" slowly start to score even higher than this one.

Golden chips?

In every manufacturing process there are always chips that perform better than others. They all reach the "bin" that they're designed for, but the actual design is for higher than that, so that even imperfect chips can perform at the required level.

The corollary of that is that there are some chips that perform better than the design parameters would have you expect, they're easier to overclock and get higher speeds from. These are the "golden" chips.

Having said that, it's not clear to me that the M1* will do that, I don't know if Apple self-tune the chips on boot to extract the best performance, or they just slap in a standard clock-rate and anything that can meet it, does. I'd expect the latter, tbh. It's a lot easier, and it means there's less variation between devices which has lots of knock-on benefits to QA and the company in general, even if it means users can't overclock.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#136

Post by IceWreck »

Why does Apple not open up their hardware to other operating systems like Linux. They will already get our money from the hardware purchases, what more do they want.

I know Asahi Linux exists but without Apple's (driver) support it will never reach macOS on M1 level performance.

(If someone disagrees, please compare Nouveau with proprietary Nvidia drivers.)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#137

Post by TheBigSalad »

ribit wrote: post #78
mhh__ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressive but unbelievably expensive considering what will actually be run on it. I kind of want one, but the 5800x for example is about 10x less expensive than a specced out MacBook Pro

Workstation laptops are expensive. These new Macs are priced quite competitively. E.g. the 14“ with the full M1 Pro is $2.5k and is faster, more portable and has a much better display than a 2.7k Dell Precision 5560…

Aren't Dells usually pricer than retail because they include some kind of service plan?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#138

Post by marcodiego »

rgbrenner wrote: post #92
diebeforei485 wrote: post #56

I'm in the situation where I really want to pre-order a 14", but I have no idea if going with the base model would be a mistake. Would upgrading to 32GB RAM make Xcode faster? Or would it be a waste of $400?

Ram is ram. Don’t fall for marketing hype and think M1 means you need less ram. If you think you need it, you still need it on M1… and I say that as someone who owns an M1 Mac.

Consider that you always can download more ram: https://downloadmoreram.com/

/s

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#139

Post by Thaxll »

ribit wrote: post #99
mhh__ wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm waiting to be corrected by someone who knows GPU architecture better than me but as far as I can tell the synthetic benchmarks can trade blows with a 3070 or 80 (mobile), but the actual gaming performance isn't going to be as rosy. Also recall that very few games needing that performance actually work on MacOS

Well, Apple G13 series are excellent rasterizers. I‘d expect them do very well in games, especially with that massive bandwidth and humongous caches. The problem is that not many games run on macOS. But if you are only interested in games with solid Mac support, they will perform very well (especially if it’s a native client like Baldurs Gates 3).

"very well" 45 fps top at 1080p medium settings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROxRQvO-gQ

You take a 3 years old card you get 2x more fps.

Post reply on HN