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

191–200 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#191

Post by 28933663 »

alpha64 wrote: post #25
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

You sorted by single core performance, then compared multi core performance. Sort by multi core performance, and you will see that the i9-11900K is nowhere near the top spot. For example, the Ryzen 9 5950X has single/multi core scores of 1,688/16,645 - which is higher in multi core score than the M1 Max, but lower in the single core.

Perhaps they were referencing the highest 8C chip. Certainly, a 5950X is faster, but it also has double the number of cores (counting only performance on the M1; I don't know if the 2 efficiency cores do anything on the multi-core benchmark). Not to mention the power consumption differences - one is in a laptop and the other is a desktop CPU.

Looking at a 1783/12693 on an 8-core CPU shows about a 10% scaling penalty from 1 to 8 cores - suppose a 32-core M1 came out for the Mac Pro that could scale only at 50% per core, that would still score over 28000, compared to the real-world top scorer, the 64-core 3990X scoring 25271.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#192

Post by colinmhayes »

runeks wrote: post #161
marricks wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1834 ST / 17370 MT [1] But that's also for something which has a TDP of 125W [2], unsure if that's the right number for a mobile chip? Also no clue what M1 Max's TDP is either. [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/9510991 [2] https://cpu-benchmark.org/cpu/intel-core-i9-12900k/

The Intel CPU is pretty underwhelming. It has twice the number of high performance cores (16 vs 8) but is only 37% faster for multi-core tasks.

I guess that's what happens when Apple's process is a generation ahead of Intel's.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#193

Post by lostmsu »

alpha64 wrote: post #25
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

You sorted by single core performance, then compared multi core performance. Sort by multi core performance, and you will see that the i9-11900K is nowhere near the top spot. For example, the Ryzen 9 5950X has single/multi core scores of 1,688/16,645 - which is higher in multi core score than the M1 Max, but lower in the single core.

Which is still not that much higher. Of the "consumer" CPUs only 5900X and 5950X score higher. And their stress power draw is about 2X of speculated M1 Max's.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#194

Post by oneplane »

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.)

Because Apple intends to sell UX, not just some hardware.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#196

Post by DeathArrow »

jzb wrote: post #186
jzb wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

>Hackintoshes notwithstanding, but even those are going to go away when Apple ditches Intel hardware for good

Maybe people will find a way to build ARM hackintoshes. :)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#197

Post by oneplane »

pornel wrote: post #149
mhh__ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The memory is unified, and very high bandwidth. No idea what that means in practice, guess we'll find out.

It's very high bandwidth for a CPU, but not that great for a GPU (400GB/s vs 440GB/s in 3070 and 980GB/s in 3090).

On the other hand, it's zero-copy between CPU and GPU.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#198

Post by johnboiles »

josephpmay wrote: post #91
thebean11 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16GB of RAM seems so low in 2021. OTOH, hard drives are so fast on these things that maybe 16 is good enough with the SSD as overflow. I ended up shelling out the extra $400 for 32GB, but didn't feel great about it!

I've heard from people with M1 laptops that they perform surprisingly better than Intel laptops with less RAM (on the Mac). I imagine the same will hold with the Pro and Max, although it will depend a lot on what type of work you're doing.

I am one of those people. I bought an 8gb M1 Air last month for a project (while I waited for the new models to be released). It baffles me how well this little computer performs with less RAM than I've had in a computer since 2009. I'd love an explanation of how that works. Maybe the SSD is so fast that swapping isn't a big deal?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#199

Post by EugeneOZ »

mikhailt wrote: post #117
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…

Many folks are comparing it to previous Macs with macOS, not PCs nor other distros. If you have an Intel Mac next to it, there's a clear noticeable difference assuming macOS is on it. If you put W10 on the Intel Mac, it is much faster than macOS on it (from my own experience). If we could run W10 or Linux on M1, it will be much faster than Intel Mac. Another example, Windows 10/11 on ARM in Parallels on my MBA m1 is…

I’m comparing Windows PC (i7-6700k, nvme) with MBA m1 and MBA is noticeable faster in just everything. Compilation time of JS and Java code is literally 2 times faster on MBA M1 than on desktop i7 CPU.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#200

Post by bichiliad »

icosahedron wrote: post #195

I'm not exactly proficient with GeekBenchery, but what I see here is that the M1 Max per core barely outperforms the M1? https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseli...

I think this kinda makes sense to me — the M1 Max has the same cores as the M1, just more of them and more of the performant ones, if I understand it right. The fastest work on the fastest core, when only working on a single core, is probably very similar.
Post reply on HN