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

181–190 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#181

Post by dubcanada »

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…

Seems like your computer may have issues, you shouldn't be crashing from USB devices. Sounds like you should go get it checked out tbh.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#182

Post by fnordsensei »

throwawaywindev wrote: post #60
tromp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems kind of unfair with the NVIDIA using up to 320W of power and having nearly twice the memory bandwidth. But if it runs even half as well as a 3080, that would represent amazing performance per Watt.

I believe they compared it to a ~100W mobile RTX 3080, not a desktop one. And the mobile part can go up to ~160W on gaming laptops like Legion 7 that have better cooling than the MSI one they compared to. They have a huge advantage in performance/watt but not in raw performance. And I wonder how much of that advantage is architecture vs. manufacturing process node.

The performance right now is interesting, but the performance trajectory as they evolve their GPUs over the coming generations will be even more interesting to follow.

Who knows, maybe they'll evolve solutions that will challenge desktop GPUs, as they have done with the CPUs.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#184

Post by jzb »

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.)

They have some of your money, but they want more of it.

Mac owners are more likely to buy iPads and iPhones and become embedded in the Apple ecosystem. That draws people into the app stores, which Apple gets a cut of, and into Apple Music and Apple TV...

If they're very successful they get you to sign up for Apple Pay and the Apple Card and get a chunk of your spend for things entirely unrelated to Apple.

If they just sell you the hardware and you can easily run Linux on it, you might not run macOS and move further into their ecosystem.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#185

Post by [deleted] »

jlmorton wrote: post #109
semicolon_storm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Often a single compiler won't make use of more than a core, but it's generally easy to build independent modules in parallel. For example, make -j 10, or mvn -T 10.

[deleted]

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#186

Post by jzb »

jzb wrote: post #184
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.)

They have some of your money, but they want more of it. Mac owners are more likely to buy iPads and iPhones and become embedded in the Apple ecosystem. That draws people into the app stores, which Apple gets a cut of, and into Apple Music and Apple TV... If they're very successful they get you to sign up for Apple Pay and the Apple Card and get a chunk of your spend for things entirely unrelated to Apple. If they jus…

Also - even if they only wanted your hardware money, if you run Linux on Apple hardware, there's less chance your next purchase will be Apple hardware. Linux is portable, macOS isn't (legally, easily -- Hackintoshes notwithstanding, but even those are going to go away when Apple ditches Intel hardware for good).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#187

Post by johncolanduoni »

ArchOversight wrote: post #172
lambdapsyc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if you run x86 images, it will use qemu’s software emulation inside the Linux VM (which is quite slow).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#188

Post by klelatti »

hazeii wrote: post #108
metahost wrote: post #64

This is the comparison to a mid 2015 15" MacBook Pro for anyone who is curios: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10513492?baseli... Summary: single core performance gain is 2x whereas multi-core performance gain is 4x.

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.

Well the 2019 16 inch i9 MacBook Pro scores are 1088 and 6821 so you can see the massive uplift over just two years.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#189

Post by DeathArrow »

giantrobot wrote: post #177
ArchOversight wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Same with Docker Desktop on Windows (I don't know if this has changed with WSL).

Not really. On Windows you can choose if you want to run Linux binaries in a VM or native Windows containers.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#190

Post by watermelon0 »

giantrobot wrote: post #177
ArchOversight wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WSL1 doesn't support cgroups and other pieces needed to run containers, but Docker Desktop can use WSL2, which uses a lightweight VM in the background, so you are correct.
Post reply on HN