Wondering whether it will be more profitable to work for AMD or APPLE in the next few years?
Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
471–480 of 917 posts
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. If I bought one of these it would never actually move so I don't actually mind the comparison all that much for my personal use case, obviously it isn't apples to oranges but my point is that this performance is not free.
A boxed CPU is an odd comparison without considering motherboard, ram, GPU, cooler, SSD, display in that calculation as well.
Not just an odd comparison. I don't think it's a valid comparison at all.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
These cards can run idle (e.g. desktop 2D mode) at about 15W, so it might run just fine.
Actual power draw depends on monitor resolution, number of attached displays, and refresh rate, though.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downside of RHEL is the package repo is anemic and out of date. Sometimes horribly out of date.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 vin…
I run Arch on my homelab, and the AUR is a lifesaver. Not to mention, the basic Arch repos contain more Podman Cockpit modules than apt, to my surprise. Very nice OS for server stuff if you're brave enough to wrangle pacman.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#475Here'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…
The 2060 and 3090 on these compares are the desktop chips, right?
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this beats AMDs top laptop CPU is actually a huge deal. And that's before considering battery life and thermals. I'll never buy an Apple computer, but I can't help but be impressed with what they've achieved here.
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…
well....M1 Max single core also beating a 5950x
But tbh, it doesn't seem the new hotness in chips is single core CPU, it's about how fancy you spend the die space in custom processors, in which case the M1 will always be tailored to Apple (and presumably Mac users') specific use-cases...
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone know if that “Device Memory 42.7 GB” is fixed or can be increased?
The MacBook Pro M1 Max can be ordered with either 32 GB or 64 GB of unified memory. The geekbench report shows 64 GB of memory (maxed), not sure why only 42.7 GB is usable by OpenCL--so I guess we have to assume that's the max, unless there's some software fix to get it up to 64 GB.
It reports the currently free memory as device memory.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone know if that “Device Memory 42.7 GB” is fixed or can be increased?
The MacBook Pro M1 Max can be ordered with either 32 GB or 64 GB of unified memory. The geekbench report shows 64 GB of memory (maxed), not sure why only 42.7 GB is usable by OpenCL--so I guess we have to assume that's the max, unless there's some software fix to get it up to 64 GB.
> unless there's some software fix to get it up to 64 GB.
I very much doubt that this would even be possible. The OS and other on-chip devices require dedicated memory as well and need to reserve address space.
You simply cannot max out physical RAM with a single device in a UMA configuration.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
Memory != Speed You could throw a TB of memory in something and it won't get any faster or be of any use for 99.99% of use cases. Large ML architectures don't need more memory, they need distributed processing. Ignoring memory requirements, GPT-3 would take hundreds of years to train on a single high end GPU (on say a desktop 3090 which is >10x faster than m1) which is why they aren't trained that way (and why NVidia…
I don't disagree that there are many use cases for which more memory has diminishing returns. But I would disagree that those encompass 99.99% of use cases. Not all problems are embarrassingly-parallel. In fact, most problems aren't embarrassingly parallel. It's just that we mostly use GPUs for embarrassingly-parallel problems, because that's mostly what they're good at, and humans aren't clever enough by half to com…
Cerebras is a thing.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#480Earlier 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…
> 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.
Per transistor performance in M1 isn't any better than the x86 opposition, quite the opposite in fact. The standard M1 has 60% more transistors than a current gen Ryzen mobile chip, while having halve the large cores (and significantly worse multi ore performance).