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

251–260 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#251

Post by r00fus »

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.

The vast majority of that 6 years is very gradual or minimal improvements. Then M1.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#252

Post by neogodless »

czbond wrote: post #238
parhamn wrote: post #19

Anyone know how this compares to the M1 Pro? Curious if it's worth the additional $400. The search doesn't seem to allow exact matches.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10479712

Overall only 5-15% increase.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseli...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#253

Post by tedunangst »

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.

That's maybe not a bad way to sort? Most of the time I'm interacting with a computer I'm waiting for some single thread to respond, so I want to maximize that, then look over a column to see if it will be adequate for bulk compute tasks as well.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#254

Post by jacurtis »

vineyardmike wrote: post #131
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).

I have both, and use both everyday.

I use an M1 MacBook Pro (16Gb Ram) for personal projects and as my standard home/travel computer. It is amazing and fast.

I use a Lenovo Carbon X1 Laptop with similar specs (i5, 16Gb Ram, m.2 ssd) for work that runs RHEL 8 (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). It's insanely fast and stable.

The overhead to run RHEL is so small it would blow your mind at the performance you get from almost nothing. Mac or Windows are crazy bloated by comparison. I know I am sparking an eternal debate by saying this, but I personally have never found Ubuntu to be as stable for a workstation (but ubuntu server is great) as RHEL is.

With that being said, I still think the M1 mac is the best computer I have ever owned. While linux is great for work, I personally enjoy the polished and more joyful experience of Mac for personal use. There are a million quality of life improvements that Mac offers that you won't get in Linux. The app ecosystem on mac is incredible.

When most people make comparisons for the M1 Mac, they are comparing windows PCs (generally Intel-based ones since Mac previously used Intel) and they compare intel-based Macs. I have never seen someone comparing it to linux performance. The speed of the M1 mac is far better than Windows and far better than old Macs. There is no question. Before my M1 mac I used a MacBook Pro with an i7, 16Gb RAM, and the upgraded dedicated graphics card. The little M1 MacBook outshines it at least 2 to 1. Best of all, the fans never turned on, and my old MacBook Pro had constant fan whine which drove me crazy.

The other incredible feat of the M1 Mac is the battery life. I run my laptop nearly exclusively on battery power now. I treat it like an iPad. You plug it in when it gets low, but I can use it for about a week between charges (I use it for 2-3 hours each day). I don't turn the screen down or modify my performance. I keep the screen fairly bright and just cruise away. I love it.

While Linux might be able to outshine on performance, it doesn't outperform with battery. My Lenovo laptop is worth about 2x my MacBook Pro. It is a premium laptop and yet running RHEL I will be lucky to get 6 hours. Compare that to ~20 hours of my MacBook.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#255

Post by shados »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #234
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…

That's Docker for Mac versus native Docker. Docker only runs on Linux, so Docker for Mac spins up a linux VM to run your containers. When you mount your Ruby or Python projects into your containers, Docker for Mac marshals tons of filesystem events over the host/guest boundary which absolutely devastates your CPU. Docker for Mac is really just bad for your use case. No idea what's going on with the thumb drive, bluet…

> Beyond that, it's a little silly to compare a desktop (presumably many times larger, ~500+W power supply, cooling system, etc) with a Mac mini (tiny, laptop chip, no fans, etc).

You're totally right, but I see a lot of folks around me making absolutely bonker claims on these M1 devices. If I believed everything I'm told, I'd be expecting them to run complex After Effect rendering at 10000 frames per second.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#256

Post by minhazm »

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).

It's not quite apples to apples. The 3070 only has 8GB of memory available, whereas the M1 Max has up to 64 GB available. It's also unified memory in the M1 and doesn't require a copy between CPU & GPU. Some stuff will be better for the M1 Max and some stuff will be worse.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#257

Post by masterof0 »

walls wrote: post #146
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.)

Nobody wants the Linux desktop experience associated with their brand.

^ I agree, and also the support burden of N distros, for N -> inf.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#258

Post by smiley1437 »

jchw wrote: post #213
mhh__ wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M1 chip is actually probably extremely expensive. The top of the line one is literally 60 BILLION transistors! My current machine has like 10 billion (GPU + CPU)

60 billion is obviously a metric ton, but 10 billion is not that ridiculous for an SoC to clear; there are snapdragons at higher transistor counts. The AMD 5950X clears 19 billion, and it is just a CPU with no GPU or integrated RAM. I’ve got to guess the M1 transistor count is inflated a fair bit by RAM. I suppose it’s not likely we’ll know the actual price of the M1, but it would suffice to say it’s probably a fair…

Not sure if these numbers can believed, but apparently a 300mm wafer at the 5nm node costs about $17000 for TSMC to process

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmcs-wafer-prices-reveale...

Since the M1 is 120 mm2 and a 300mm wafer is about 70695 mm2, you could theoretically fit 589 M1 chips on a wafer.

Subtract the chips lost at the edge and other flaws, you might be able to get 500 M1 off a wafer? (I know nothing about what would be a reasonable yield but I'm pretty sure a chip won't work if part of it is missing)

Anyways, that would be $17000/500, or $34 per M1 chip - based just on area and ignoring other processing costs.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#259

Post by rahimnathwani »

ricardobeat wrote: post #246
rahimnathwani wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i7-6700k is 6 years old. The current equivalent i7 (i7-11700k) is almost 2x as fast when using all cores.

If the latest gen, top cpu is “almost 2x as fast” it will still lose to the parent’s “literally 2 times faster” M1. While using 4x more power.

Right but GP's main points were:

- noticeable faster in just everything

- literally 2 times faster [compiling code]

Neither of these statements is true when comparing against the latest generation, which is the relevant comparison.

The power thing is true, but irrelevant to GP's point and my objection to it.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#260

Post by PUSH_AX »

walls wrote: post #146
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.)

Nobody wants the Linux desktop experience associated with their brand.

Steam hardware?
Post reply on HN