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

391–400 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#391

Post by pgib »

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 went from a 2016 top-of-the-line MacBook Pro to an M1 Mac mini, and I can't believe how much faster things are–including Docker with Rails, PostgreSQL, etc. Out of curiosity, are you running native (arm64) containers? Aside from an issue now and then with my secondary HDMI display, my machine has continued to blow me away. My development environment is almost on par with our production environment, which is a nice change.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#392

Post by mataug »

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?

Adding to all the usecases listed by other commenters.

Having a higher performance per watt numbers also implies less heat from M1's perspective. This means that even if someone isn't doing CPU/GPU heavy tasks, they are still getting better battery life since power isn't being wasted on cooling by spinning up the fans.

For some perspective, My current 2019, 16inch i7 MBP gets warm even if I leave it idling for 20 - 30 mins and I can barely get ~4hrs of battery life. My wife's M1 macbook air stays cool despite being fanless, and lasts the whole day with similar usage.

The point is performance per watt matters a lot in a portable device, regardless of its capabilities.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#393

Post by eecc »

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…

Well, the MAX has double the memory bandwidth of a PRO, but I cannot see workloads other than the ones you mentioned where it would make a significant improvement.

Perhaps ML but that’s all proprietarized on CUDA so it’s unlikely.

Perhaps Apple could revive OpenCL from the ashes?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#394

Post by jshier »

neogodless wrote: post #319
mhh__ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressive but unbelievably expensive considering what will actually be run on it. I kind of want one, but the 5800x for example is about 10x less expensive than a specced out MacBook Pro

The 10-core (8 performance) M1 Max starts around $2700 in the 14" form factor. It's hard to compare to laptops, but since we started the desktop comparison, a Ryzen 7 5800X is $450 MSRP, or about $370 current street price. Motherboards can be found for $100, but you'll more likely spend $220-250 for a good match. 32GB RAM is $150, 1TB Samsung 980 Pro is a bit under $200. Let's assume desktop RTX 3060 for the graphics…

M1 Pro has the same CPU cores as the M1 Max, just half the GPU cores (and video coding cores). So you can get the same CPU performance in the 14" for as little as $2499.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#396

Post by localhost »

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 have a three-year old hand-built 16-core ThreadRipper 1950X machine here with 64GB 4-channel RAM. I have a 14" MBP M1 Max on order. I just checked the Geekbench scores between these two machines:

  M1 Max: 1783 single-core | 12693 multi-core
  1950X:   901 single-core |  7409 multi-core
That's a big difference that I'm looking forward to.

Also, just checked memory bandwidth. I have 80GB/s memory bandwidth [1] on my 1950X. The MBP has 400GB/s memory bandwidth. 5x(!)

[1] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_threadripper/1950x

*EDIT adding memory bandwidth.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#397

Post by spitfire »

What am I missing here? The marketing presentations spoke about 200GB/sec and 400GB/sec parts. Existing CPU's generally have 10s of GB/sec. But I see these parts beating out existing parts by small margins - 100% at best.

Where is all that bandwidth going? Are none of these synthetic benchmarks stressing memory IO that much? Surely compression should benefit from 400GB/sec bandwidth?

This also raises the question how are those multiple memory channels laid out? Sequentually? Stripped? Bitwise, byte wise or word stripped?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#398

Post by Zarel »

Thaxll wrote: post #147
windowsrookie wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing the M1 to a 1080ti is ridiculous. The 1080ti draws 250+ watts. The M1 draws 10w in the MacBook Air. In the current market you can buy a MacBook Air (an entire laptop computer) for less than buying just a midrange GPU.

Well Apple compared themself to a 3080m which is faster than a 1080ti.

No one has explained what you got wrong, so in case anyone reading this is still confused, Apple compared an M1 Max to a 3080m. An M1 Max's graphics card is ~4x as fast as an M1.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#399

Post by sydthrowaway »

GeekyBear wrote: post #249
icosahedron wrote: post #195

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...

Tick - New cores; Tock - Scaling up the number of those same cores I think most of the work went into the uncore portions of the SOC this time.

uncore?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#400

Post by als0 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #249
icosahedron wrote: post #195

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...

Tick - New cores; Tock - Scaling up the number of those same cores I think most of the work went into the uncore portions of the SOC this time.

FYI it's the reverse. "Tock" is a new microarchitecture, and "tick" is a process shrink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick–tock_model

Post reply on HN