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

281–290 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#281

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

shados wrote: post #255
throwaway894345 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You're totally right, but I see a lot of folks around me making absolutely bonker claims on these M1 devices.

What "but"? The claims are less bonkers with a perspective that acknowledges the significance of those physical differences.

Without the case, would the full internals (motherboard/CPU/GPU/PSU/ram/heatsinks/storage) of your desktop fit in your pants pockets? Because the M1 Mac Mini's fit in mine.

How much fan noise does your desktop produce? How much electricity does it consume? M1s are fast compared to almost everything, but they're bonkers fast compared to anything getting even remotely close to 20 hours on a battery at 3 lbs weight.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#282

Post by Thaxll »

ribit wrote: post #154
Thaxll wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"very well" 45 fps top at 1080p medium settings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROxRQvO-gQ You take a 3 years old card you get 2x more fps.

Which other passively cooled laptop can do it? And what 3 year old card are you comparing it to? Hopefully something with 20W or lower power consumption. 45fps at medium Full HD is not far off a 1650 Max q

Apple compare themself to a 3080m, the perf from an M1 is not even close to a 3 y/o card. I don't care if it takes 10w if I can't even play at 60fps on "recent'ish" games.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#283

Post by jeffbee »

mhh__ wrote: post #103
gigatexal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but I’m only asking for Points per watt to use as a baseline for testing Apple’s claims.

Peak wattage is apparently 330W on a super heavy test, not really sure how to extrapolate that to geekbench.

Wow, there's a power virus for Alder Lake client that can make it draw 330W? Reference?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#284

Post by jjcon »

camillomiller wrote: post #272
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. Two reasons: 1. M1 is a super fast laptop chip. It provides mid-range desktop performance in a laptop form factor with mostly fanless operation. No matter how you look at it, that's impressive. 2. Apple really dragged their feet on updating the old Intel Macs before the transition. People in the Mac world (excluding hackintosh) were stu…

You need to consider the larger target group of professionals. It's really GPU capabilities that blow everything away. If you don't plan to use your MacBook Pro for video/photo editing or 3D modeling, then a M1 Pro with the same 10-core CPU and 16-core Neural Engine has all you need and costs less. Unless I'm missing something I don't think there much added benefit from the added GPU cores in your scenario, unless yo…

> GPU capabilities that blow everything away

Compared to previous macs and igpus - an nvidia gpu will still run circles arounnd this thing

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#285

Post by kitsunesoba »

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.)

Nouveau is a bit of a special case because Nvidia actively blocks third party drivers from fully leveraging the capabilities of their cards. While Apple isn’t officially supporting any particular third party OS on M-series hardware, they’re also not obstructing the creation of high performance third party drivers for it.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#286

Post by [deleted] »

moron4hire wrote: post #231
throwawaywindev wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am very confused by these claims on M1's GPU performance. I build a WebXR app at work that runs at 120hz on the Quest 2, 90hz on my Pixel 5, and 90hz on my Window 10 desktop with an RTX 2080 with the Samsung Odyssey+ and a 4K display at the same time. And these are just the native refresh rates, you can't run any faster with the way VR rendering is done in the browser. But on my M1 Mac Mini, I get 20hz on a single,…

[deleted]

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#287

Post by jccalhoun »

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…

I've never owned a mac and I've never used an M1 so take this with a heavy grain of salt. Everyone I've seen talk about how fast the M1 is were coming from 4-5+ year old macs not comparing them to intel/amd chips that came out last year in a similar price range.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#288

Post by hajile »

klelatti wrote: post #207
bichiliad wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe a little surprised - presumably the thermal limitations on a 16 inch laptop are potentially less limiting than on a 13 inch one so that single core could be pushed to a higher frequency?

M1 uses TSMC high-density rather than high-performance. They get 40-60% better transistor density and less leakage (power consumption) at the expense of lower clockspeeds.

Also, a core is not necessarily just limited by power. There are often other considerations like pipeline length that affect final target clocks.

The fact is that at 3.2GHz, the M1 is very close to a 5800X in single-core performance. When that 5800X cranks up 8 cores, it dramatically slows down the clocks. Meanwhile the M1 should keep its max clockspeeds without any issue.

We know this because you can keep the 8 core M1 at max clocks for TEN MINUTES on passive cooling in the Macbook air (you can keep max clocks indefinitely if you apply a little thermal pad on the inside of the case).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#289

Post by spfzero »

giantrobot wrote: post #175
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).

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.

Since Apple has been relying on Intel processors for many years now, I'd bet they've spent more time optimizing MacOS for Intel at this point. On the other hand, iOS has given them a quick way to transfer optimization knowledge.
Post reply on HN