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

351–360 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#351

Post by amelius »

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).

My colleague has an M1 Mac. I have a Ubuntu desktop. My colleague always asks me to transcode videos on my machine because on her MacBook it is too slow.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#352

Post by muro »

keymone wrote: post #297
munro wrote: post #274

Here's the link to the MacBookPro18,2 OpenCL benchmark: * M1 Max OpenCL https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/3551790 [60,167 OpenCL Score] Comparing to my current MacBook Pro (16-inch Late 2019) & my Hetzner AX101 server: * MacBook Pro (16-inch Late 2019) vs M1 Max - CPU https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseli... [single 163.6%, multi 188.8%] * MacBook Pro (16-inch Late 2019) vs M1 Max - Open…

> * NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 vs M1 Max - OpenCL https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/compare/3551790?bas ... [29.0%] 30% performance for ~15% of power use in laptop form factor? that's not boo, that seems like a clear win for apple.

Performance doesn't go down linearly with power. I don't have that card to try, but maybe it would do even better at 15% of power.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#353

Post by klelatti »

EvgeniyZh wrote: post #334
Weryj wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Is there any reason why the Intel CPU wouldn’t run at 4.9 GHz for the single core benchmark though - whilst the M1 would be limited to a much lower frequency which it can sustain for much longer?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#354

Post by hajile »

smiley1437 wrote: post #258
jchw wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

The M1 Max is slightly off-square and 432mm^2. 19.1 x 22.6 seems like a decent fit.

TSMC has stated that N7 defect density was 0.09 a year ago or so. They have also since stated that N5 defect density was lower than N7.

Let's plug that in here https://caly-technologies.com/die-yield-calculator/

If we go with a defect density of 0.07, that's 94 good dies and 32 harvest dies. At 0.08, it's 90 and 36 respectively.

If we put that at 120 dies per wafer and $17,000 per wafer, that's just $141 per chip. That's probably WAAAYY less than they are paying for the i9 chips in their 2019 Macbook Pros.

For comparison, AMD's 6900 GPU die is 519mm^2 and Nvidia's 3080 is 628mm^2. Both are massively more expensive to produce.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#355

Post by baybal2 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #245
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 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…

> were stuck on relatively outdated x86-64 CPUs.

We came to a point when X86 is faster to emulate, than to run on a more modern microarchitecture.

One point is clear: per-transistor performance of X86 is dimishing with each new core generation, and it is already losing to M1.

X86 makers will not be able to keep up for long. They will have to keep releasing bigger, and hotter chips to keep parity, until they cannot.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#356

Post by teddyfrozevelt »

ctdonath wrote: post #276
PUSH_AX wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam hardware?

Operative word: "want". There was no other viable option.

Valve didn't have to include a KDE desktop on the Steam Deck, but they still did, so it sure seems like they wanted it it.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#357

Post by JiNCMG »

sliken wrote: post #337
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…

I have a top of the line Windows 10 i7 laptop and Outlook will create more heat than any other process I am running. Now introduce Windows Modern Standby and we get a real SH*T SHOW.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#358

Post by websap »

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…

Currently typing this on an m1 laptop that I bought 2 weeks back. This machine blows my 16 inch Macbook out of the water. My 16 inch Macbook is pretty well spec'd, but this laptop is something else.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#359

Post by keymone »

muro wrote: post #352
keymone wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 vs M1 Max - OpenCL https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/compare/3551790?bas ... [29.0%] 30% performance for ~15% of power use in laptop form factor? that's not boo, that seems like a clear win for apple.

Performance doesn't go down linearly with power. I don't have that card to try, but maybe it would do even better at 15% of power.

i doubt it'll even initialize.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#360

Post by andy_ppp »

hajile wrote: post #294
andy_ppp wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the two efficiency cores are less than half a main core thought right?

1/3 the performance, but 1/10 the power. Not adding more was a mistake IMO. Maybe next time...

Really? I mean if it gets me 10-14h coding on a single charge that’s awesome…
Post reply on HN