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

171–180 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#171

Post by ArchOversight »

runeks wrote: post #168

But does it support running x86 Docker images using hardware emulation? This is what's holding me off buying one since I don't know whether to get 16 GB RAM (if it doesn't work) or 32 GB RAM (if it does work).

There is no hardware in the M1's for x86 emulation. Rosetta 2 does on the fly translation for JIT and caches translation for x86_864 binaries on first launch.

Docker for Mac runs a VM, inside that VM (which is Linux for ARM) if you run an x86_64 docker image it will use qemu to emulate x86_64 and run Linux Intel ELF binaries as if they were ARM.

That means that currently using Docker on macOS if there is a native ARM version available for the docker image, it will use that, but it can and will fall back to using x86_64 docker images.

That already works as-is. There is no hardware emulation though, it is all QEMU doing the work.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#172

Post by ArchOversight »

lambdapsyc wrote: post #132
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 runn…

Docker for Mac Desktop supports the M1 and uses an Linux VM that is ARM.

It is not using Rosetta 2 at all.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#173

Post by gumby »

IceWreck wrote: post #136

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.)

> Why does Apple not open up their hardware to other operating systems

It's extra effort they don't want to go to. They spent a lot of engineering and support time working with MS on boot camp, handling (what are to them) special cases and back compatibility. They really needed it at the time, but no longer need it so make no effort in making it happen. And Apple never did linux support, it's simply that linux runs on most hardware that runs windows.

Among other things, here's a major reason why it's hard: Apple supports their hardware and software for quite a long time, but is happy to break back compatibility along the way. MS considers back compatibility critical, despite the cost. I respect both positions. But getting windows running on intel Mac hardware wasn't automatic, and required developing support for bits of code designed (by MS) for all sorts of special cases. They simply needed it, so did the work, with the cooperation of MS.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#174

Post by destitude »

larrik wrote: post #148
jermaustin1 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the perceivable speedup in M1 Macs is less to do with these benchmarks and more to do with optimizing the OS and Apple software for the M1 and the various accelerators on the SoC (video encoding and ML).

I think you are on the right track, but I think the performance gain really comes from the RAM being on the chip itself, which raw number crunching won't make use (but actual usage will make great use of)

I've used both M1 Macbook Air for work and 2019 16" with 32GB of RAM and the M1 Macbook Air feels as fast if not faster then the 16"..

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#175

Post by giantrobot »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #128
hazeii wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 6 years, 2x the performance in single-core and 4x (for 2.5x the cores, depending how you count) seems surprisingly low compared to stuff I've read (not experienced yet) with the M1.

I think a lot of the perceivable speedup in M1 Macs is less to do with these benchmarks and more to do with optimizing the OS and Apple software for the M1 and the various accelerators on the SoC (video encoding and ML).

My M1 MBA is measurably faster than the i9 MBP it replaced in several purely software tasks. At the very least it performs on par with the i9.

There's plenty of ARM-specific optimization in macOS that gives boosts to M1s over Intel but the chips are just faster for many tasks than Intel.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#176

Post by ukd1 »

semicolon_storm wrote: post #79
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when building large software projects.

What compiler could even make use of 10 cores? Most build processes I've run can't even fully utilize the 4 cores.

Just running the tests in our Rails project (11k of them) can stress out a ton; we're regularly running it on 80+ cores to keep our test completion time ~3 minutes. M1 Max should let me run all tests locally much faster than I can today.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#177

Post by giantrobot »

ArchOversight wrote: post #171
runeks wrote: post #168

But does it support running x86 Docker images using hardware emulation? This is what's holding me off buying one since I don't know whether to get 16 GB RAM (if it doesn't work) or 32 GB RAM (if it does work).

There is no hardware in the M1's for x86 emulation. Rosetta 2 does on the fly translation for JIT and caches translation for x86_864 binaries on first launch. Docker for Mac runs a VM, inside that VM (which is Linux for ARM) if you run an x86_64 docker image it will use qemu to emulate x86_64 and run Linux Intel ELF binaries as if they were ARM. That means that currently using Docker on macOS if there is a native ARM…

Note that Docker Desktop for Mac has always used a VM to run a Linux instance. Same with Docker Desktop on Windows (I don't know if this has changed with WSL). The main difference on M1 Macs is the qemu emulation when a Docker image is only available as x86_64. If the image is available in AArch64 it runs native on the M1.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#178

Post by wmf »

ksec wrote: post #167

I have seen far too many people making comments on MacPro "Pro" Chip. A hypothetical 32 Core CPU and 64 Core GPU is about the max Apple could make in terms of die size reticle limit without going chiplet and TDP limit without some exotic cooling solution. Which means you cant have some imaginary 64 Core CPU and 128 Core GPU. We can now finally have a Mac Cube, where the vast majority of the Cube will simply be a heat…

It's not hard to imagine that "Jade 2C-Die" mean two compute die chiplets and "Jade 4C-Die" means four chiplets which makes 40 CPU cores and 128 GPU cores about the same size as Sapphire Rapids. It could have 256 GB RAM on a 2048-bit bus with 1,600 GB/s of bandwidth.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#180

Post by DeathArrow »

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

What about this? https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821
Post reply on HN