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

511–520 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#511

Post by interpol_p »

css wrote: post #494
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…

Apple compared the M1 Max to the 3080 in the Razer Blade 15 Advanced, saying it outperforms the Nvdia’s GPU [0], but Geekbench seems to disagree [1]. [0]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/introducing-m1-pro-an... [1]: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/compare/3551790?bas...

I wonder what they were comparing. The Geekbench result is for an OpenCL benchmark, if they were using Metal Compute on the M1 that may explain the different results

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#512

Post by majormajor »

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…

Running Docker on a Mac vs on Linux is going to be a subpar experience compared to a native x86 Linux box. It would take a LOT to magic around that.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#513

Post by kbenson »

caycep wrote: post #476
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…

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...

You actually get better single core performance out of a 5900x than a 5950x. The more cores the AMD CPU has, generally the more they constrain the speed it can perform at on the top end. In this case, the 5950x is 3.5GHz and the 5900x is 3.7GHz. The 5800x is even slightly faster than that, and there's some Geekbench results that show single core performance faster than the score listed here, but at that point the multi-core performance isn't winning anymore.

Also, I'm not sure what's up with Geekbench results on MacOS, but here's a 5950x in an iMac Pro that trounces all the results we've mentioned here somehow.[1]

1: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6034871

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#514

Post by wmf »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #335
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 be…

I'm so old I remember the brief time when Alpha ran x86 code faster than x86 so history is repeating. I am eagerly awaiting M1 Plaid vs. Sapphire Rapids vs. Genoa next year.

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." — Arthur C. Clarke

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#515

Post by smoldesu »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #490
smoldesu wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. It's a bit unfair to compare multicore performance of a chip with 8 cores firing full blast against another 8 core chip with half of them being efficiency cores. The M1 Max (with 8 performan…

The M1 Max isn't competing with the 4800u, considering that it's starting price is ~10x that of the Lenovo Ideapad most people will be benching their Ryzen chips with. I don't think it's unfair to compare it with the M1, since it's still more expensive than the aforementioned Ideapad. Oh, and the 4800u came out 18 months before the M1 Air even hit shelves. Seeing as they're both entry-level consumer laptops, what might you have preferred to compare it with? Maybe a Ryzen 9 that would be more commonplace in $1k+ laptops?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#516

Post by dev_tty01 »

mhh__ wrote: post #98
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…

Very True although I note that I wouldn't be able to actually work on one for the day job because of windows. Still might buy one, I want an arm box to test my work on compilers on.

Get a new job! :)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#517

Post by girvo »

ben-schaaf wrote: post #482
spitfire wrote: post #397

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…

As people stated in the announcement post, a high memory bandwidth doesn't really benefit CPUs much. That's also why AMD and Intel don't have high memory bandwidth on their cores, because it doesn't really help performance. Where it is beneficial is the GPU; for comparison AMD and Nvidia cards often exceed 400GB/s. A desktop RTX 3090 has 900GB/s.

Intel is definitely looking at HBM for Sapphire Rapids though.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16795/intel-to-launch-next-ge...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#518

Post by girvo »

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…

Doesn't HBM2E do ECC? I know Micron definitely package that at least. I'm likely misunderstanding your ECC point though.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#519

Post by hyperpallium2 »

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…

> Apple really dragged their feet

... I wonder if this was deliberate theatre for dramatic contrast?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#520

Post by kllrnohj »

spitfire wrote: post #397

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…

The SoC having 400GB/s of memory bandwidth doesn't mean that any individual CPU core can saturate 400GB/s of memory bandwidth (or even if all the CPU cores combined can achieve that). The SoC's memory bus is also feeding the GPU, and GPUs tend to be _very_ memory bandwidth hungry (see other discreet GPUs pushing over 1TB/s of memory bandwidth).

The CPU performance, even where memory IO limited, is more likely limited by how well it can prefetch memory and how many in-flight reads & writes it can do. A straight memcpy benchmark might be part of this suite, but that'd also be basically the only workload where a CPU core (or multiple) could come anywhere close to hitting 400GB/s of bandwidth. Otherwise memory _latency_ will be the bigger memory IO limitation for the CPUs, and that likely hasn't drastically changed with the new M1 Pros & Max's (there may be some cache layout changes which would shift some of the numbers, but DRAM latency is likely unchanged)

For an example of this in a different product: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-grav...

A single graviton2 CPU can "only" achieve 18-36GB/s of memory bandwidth even though the package in total can hit 200GB/s

Post reply on HN