201–210 of 917 posts
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?
End result: some chips just end up being better than others.
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.
Jade 4C-Die on a single die only make sense up to 40 Core ( 4x Current CPU Core or 32 HP Core and 8 HE Core ), unless there are some major cache rework there aren't any space for 128 GPU Core.
But then we also know Apple has no problem with only 2 HE Core on a MacBook Pro Laptop, why would they want to put 8 HE Core on a Desktop?
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…
yes, i know the docker on mac has "native" support for the m1 cpu, that doesn't mean its not running a VM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same situation as you, looking at 14". Need to see what the Xcode benchmarks are like for the variety of M1 Pro processors on offer, to see if any upgrades from the base model are worthwhile. If I was sticking with 16GB RAM I think I'd get a M1 Air instead. The smaller screen is the downside, but 300g lighter and substantially cheaper are good points.
I’m upgrading from an M1 Air (16GB) to a 14” Pro base model just for the display. Extra M1 pro performance is bonus but the M1 has already been amazing for development work past year.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
For someone with more knowledge- are these scores dependant on the OS? Like would it have different scores if it ran Linux?