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

331–340 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#331

Post by babypuncher »

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…

The Mac Mini isn't super impressive, because you're comparing it to desktops where TDP is far less of a concern.

The M1 is getting a lot of attention because it's Apple's first laptop chip, and it is the fastest chip in that category by a fairly significant margin. Chips from Intel and AMD only compete with it on performance when drawing considerably more power.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#332

Post by GeekyBear »

moreira wrote: post #63
mrtksn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The single core is second to Intel's best but the multicore is well below in the scale, comparable to Intel Xeon W-2191B or Intel Core i9-10920X, which are 18 and 12 core beasts with TDP of up to 165W. Which means, at least for Geekbench, Apple M1 Max has a power comparable to a very powerful desktop workstation. But if you need the absolute best of the best on multicore you can get double the performance with AMD Ry…

Interestingly, the M1 Max is only a 10 core (of which only 8 are high performance). I wonder what it will look like when it’s a 20-core, or even a 64-core like the Threadripper. Imagine a 64-core M1 on an iMac or Mac Pro. We’re in for some fun times.

Bloomberg's Gurman certainly has shown that he has reliable sources inside Apple over the years.

>Codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die, a redesigned Mac Pro is planned to come in 20 or 40 computing core variations, made up of 16 high-performance or 32 high-performance cores and four or eight high-efficiency cores. The chips would also include either 64 core or 128 core options for graphics.

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/18/bloomberg-mac-pro-32-hi...

So right in line with the notion of the Mac Pro getting an SOC that has the resources of either 2 or 4 M1 Pros glued together.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#333

Post by ArchOversight »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #327
mataug wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to previous macs and igpus - an nvidia gpu will still run circles arounnd this thing True, but the point here is that M1 is able to achieve outstanding performance per watt numbers compared to Nvidia or Intel.

Are you really rendering in a cafe that you need on the go GPU performance?

Editing photos or reviewing them before getting back home to know if you need to re-shoot, reviewing 8K footage on the fly, applying color grading to get an idea of what the final might look like to know if you need to re-shoot, re-light or change something...

There are absolutely use-cases where this is going to enable new ways of looking at content and give more control and ability to review stuff in the field.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#334

Post by EvgeniyZh »

Weryj wrote: post #299
EvgeniyZh wrote: post #278

Top intel mobile processor appears to be https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 M1 Max gives 9% boost for single-core and 34% for multicore, with similar or larger (?) TDP -- Intel is 35-45 W, M1 Max is 60W but I assume some of it (a lot?) goes to GPU. Impressive, but probably wouldn't be called revolution if came from Intel.

At first glace yeah, but that's 45W at 2.5Ghz, but TDP isn't the power rating of the CPU. That benchmark lists the Intel CPU as up to 4.9Ghz, I would say it's actual power draw was closer to the 100W mark for CPU only.

4.9 GHz should be single-core max freq, not applicable in multicore benchmark. All-core turbo is lower, but also AFAIK there is a limit on time it run on this freq (tau for PL2, i think around half a minute by default).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#335

Post by lowbloodsugar »

ksec wrote: post #167

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…

If someone had said in 2018 "Apple is going to release a macbook pro with an ARM chip that will be faster at running x86 applications than an x86 chip while having a 20 hour batter life", then a lot of people would have responded with a lot of very clever sounding reasons why this couldn't possibly work and what the limitations would be on a hypothetical chip and how a hypothetical chip that they can imagine would behave.

I think the evidence is that Apple's chip designers don't care about anyone's preconceived and very logical sounding ideas about what can and can't be done.

So what we know is that there is going to be a Mac Pro, and that whatever it is is going to absolutely destroy the equivalent (i.e. absolute top of the range) x86 PC.

If you want to be right, take that as a fact, and work backwards from there. Any argument that starts with "I don't think it can be done" is a losing argument.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#336

Post by jandrese »

jacurtis wrote: post #254
vineyardmike wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

Downside of RHEL is the package repo is anemic and out of date. Sometimes horribly out of date. It's hardly uncommon to run into some issue with an application and then look it up online and find out that the fix was applied 8 versions after the one that's in the repo.

Worse is when you start grabbing code off of Git and the configure script bombs out because it wants a library two versions ahead of the one in the repo. But you don't want to upgrade it because obviously that's going to cause an issue with whatever installed that library originally. So now you're thinking about containers but that adds more complication...

Like everything it is a double edged sword.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#337

Post by sliken »

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…

Well switching hardware and OS makes it hard to tell what's responsible for the difference. I also suspect Docker and what's running in the containers might well be x86 code instead of native.

I can tell you that I have a high end mbp 16" intel-i9 with 32GB ram and it feels much slower than a new mac M1 mini. My intel-i9 runs the fan card during backups (crashplan), video conferencing, and sometimes just because even just outlook. The M1 mini on the other hand has been silent, fast, and generally a pleasure to use.

Doubling the number of fast cores, doubling (or quadrupling) the GPU and memory bandwidth should make the new MBP 14 and 16" even better.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#339

Post by nottorp »

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).

Of course, with a 3070 and up you have to play with headphones so you don't hear the fan noise.

This is the best feature of the new Apple CPUs if you ask me: silence.

Now to wait for a decent desktop...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#340

Post by xbar »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #275
hwita wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps you may want to wait for Apple to release a desktop-class processor to make the comparison, perhaps early next year?

Its not clear to me that Apple will make a desktop-class processor. The unit economics likely don't make sense for them. All of Apple's innovation seems to be towards better and cheaper AR/VR hardware. Desktop-class processors would be a distraction for them. And with all of the top cloud players building custom silicon these days, there is little room for Apple to sell CPUs to the server market even if they were inc…

Can you explain your unit economic analysis?

They have made a Mac Pro desktop for several decades. I am trying to follow your reasoning for Apple to sunset that category of workstation as a result of transitioning to Apple silicon, but it is not working out for me.

My logic leads to a cheaper-to-produce-than-Macbook workstation in an updated Mac Pro chassis with best-binned M1X Max parts in the Spring followed by its first chiplet-based Apple silicon workstation using the same chassis in the Fall, followed by an annual iteration on Apple silicon across its product line, on about the same cadence as A/A-x iOS devices.

Part of my reasoning is based on the assumption that Mac Pro sales generate more Pro XDR sales displays at a higher rate than Macbook Pro sales. I think the total profit baked into an Apple silicon Mac Pro + Pro XDR is big and fills a niche not filled by any thing else in the market. Why leave it unfilled?

Post reply on HN