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

441–450 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#441

Post by smiley1437 »

hajile wrote: post #354
smiley1437 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

thanks for the link to the die yield calculator, very handy!

And I agree - Apple making their own chips is sure looking good for their bottom line vs buying from Intel

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#442

Post by rubicon33 »

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…

What’s the best Apple computer for fastest compile times nowadays?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#443

Post by delfinom »

smoldesu wrote: post #431
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong: It's impressive and I have huge respect for it. I also bought one. However, it would be surprising if Apple's new 5nm chip didn't beat AMD's older 7nm chip at this point. Apple specifically bought out all of TSMC's 5nm capacity for themselves while AMD was stuck on 7nm (for now). It will be interesting to see how AMD's new 6000 series mobile chips perform. According to rumors they might be launche…

This definitely is a factor. Another thing that people frequently overlook is how competitive Zen 2 is with M1: the 4800u stands toe-to-toe with the M1 in a lot of benchmarks, and consistently beats it in multicore performance. Make no mistake, the M1 is a truly solid processor. It has seriously stiff competition though, and I get the feeling x86 won't be dead for another half decade or so. By then, Apple will be com…

AMD is already planning not only 20% YoY performance improvements for x86 but now has 30x efficiency plan for 2025. I think x86 is in it for much longer than a decade.

Intel otoh, depends on if they can gut all the MBAs infesting them.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#444

Post by flatiron »

jandrese wrote: post #336
jacurtis wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

This use case begs for arch. Not bloated and up to date upstream and AUR is very robust for the “one off” apps. Rhel on desktop makes sense for development for rhel on servers. Can’t think really of any other use case. At least they could try out centos stream? For all its hate it’s really nice for certain use cases. Although people are religiously against it (rh needs to really work on that before it dies on the vine)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#445

Post by vmception »

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...

All I wanted was an M1 that could address/use more memory. The first one could only use 16gb RAM, which was a dealbreaker for me.

Apple delivered that and so much more. I'm happy. I think there are many people like me.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#446

Post by defaultname »

robertwt7 wrote: post #417

Is that supposed to be fast guys? Isn't that still slower than some ryzen 5 5600x? (my pc uses this but below is not my benchmark) https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/8238216 I'm not sure how fast or good is that number.. But i've heard good things about m1 and planning to probably upgrade. edit: Not sure what's with the downvotes, i'm genuinely curious. I'm in the apple ecosystem with many apple products, windows p…

It's very fast for a mobile form factor, and still very fast for a desktop processor.

The benchmark you linked is grossly overclocked, as are many others people have linked throughout this thread. Which is fundamentally the problem with the Geekbench browser and people searching around for something to prove a point, when the numbers on there are completely unverified (and sometimes wholly fictitious), unproven, and often under ridiculous scenarios.

Use actual reviews from credible reviewers and extract the GB results from that. e.g. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-di...

And FWIW, I don't even put any credibility on these M1 results. I'll just wait until Anandtech or someone similar has a real review with competently created, reproducible benchmarks.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#447

Post by nojito »

fnord77 wrote: post #427
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…

> Compared to those older CPUs, the M1 Max is a huge leap forward. Is it, though? Its single-core score is roughly 2x that of the top CPU Apple put in the mid-2012 macbook pro. 2x after 10 years doesn't seem that great to me. Maybe that's more of an indictment against intel

Single core performance has been stagnant for a decade from all manufacturers.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#448

Post by lowbloodsugar »

TheBigSalad wrote: post #137
ribit wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Workstation laptops are expensive. These new Macs are priced quite competitively. E.g. the 14“ with the full M1 Pro is $2.5k and is faster, more portable and has a much better display than a 2.7k Dell Precision 5560…

Aren't Dells usually pricer than retail because they include some kind of service plan?

No, service plan is an extra $300+, as is applecare (and both are definitely worth it).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#449

Post by mrighele »

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…

M1 is fast for being a laptop CPU. This means that maybe it is not the fastest CPU in absolute terms, but if you consider performance per Watt, it is really a beast.

Although my main workstation is an Intel Ubuntu-based PC, I have also a M1 Macbook Air that I use when I travel, or when I am laying on the couch in the evening after work. That piece of hardware never gets hot, and the battery seems to last forever. Meanwhile it does whatever I throw at it; if else the limiting factor is the amount of RAM installed on the laptop.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#450

Post by Gigachad »

kstrauser wrote: post #86
diebeforei485 wrote: post #56

I'm in the situation where I really want to pre-order a 14", but I have no idea if going with the base model would be a mistake. Would upgrading to 32GB RAM make Xcode faster? Or would it be a waste of $400?

My opinion: the jump from 16GB to 32GB probably won't make a huge difference today, especially if your workload is already running alright in 16GB. I think it'll greatly extend the useful life of the laptop, though. For example, I wouldn't want to be using an 8GB laptop today.

I have no idea why, but my 16gb M1 mac is working perfectly for me while my 16gb dell xps with linux was not cutting it. I have no idea why doing pretty much the same thing is using less memory but other people have said this too.
Post reply on HN