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

531–540 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#531

Post by adeelk93 »

Gigachad wrote: post #450
kstrauser wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I understand it, OSX is more efficient with memory compression, another variable to keep in mind.

I often work with large sparse matrices (which can be compressed well) and I’ve loaded up a 500 GB matrix into 64 GB of memory (although just barely, memory pressure was red in activity monitor)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#532

Post by gameswithgo »

VortexDream wrote: post #325
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…

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.

the main reason it does it is because apple bought up all the 5nm capacity though. amd is running at 7nm still. so impressive because they could afford to do that I guess.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#534

Post by Aperocky »

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…

> desktop

I too have a $900 "Gaming" desktop setup from 2 years ago that should have no problem exceeding the newest M1 Max mac in terms of performance and graphics.

But it consumes 250 watts on average.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#535

Post by Phylter »

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…

My $1000 Windows laptop from two years ago kills my M1 MacBook Pro. Benchmarks aren't everything and there's more to speed than just raw calculations.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#536

Post by savoytruffle »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #234
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…

That's Docker for Mac versus native Docker. Docker only runs on Linux, so Docker for Mac spins up a linux VM to run your containers. When you mount your Ruby or Python projects into your containers, Docker for Mac marshals tons of filesystem events over the host/guest boundary which absolutely devastates your CPU. Docker for Mac is really just bad for your use case. No idea what's going on with the thumb drive, bluet…

Every Mac mini has had a fan. The 2018 Intel version and the M1 version use a lot of the small internal space for a large fan.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#537

Post by DarkmSparks »

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...

no it doesnt, you must have misread the benchmark scores.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#538

Post by throwawaylinux »

paulmd wrote: post #529
throwawaylinux wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30x efficiency is specifically for 16 bit FP DGEMM operations, and it is in the context of an HPC compute node including GPUs and any other accelerators or fixed function units. For general purpose compute, so such luck unfortunately. Performance and efficiency follows process technology to a first order approximation. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-increase-efficiency-of...

also bear in mind that AMD's standards for these "challenges" have always involved some "funny math", like their previous 25x20 goal, where they considered a 5.02x average gain in performance (10x in CB R15 and 2.5x in 3D Mark 11) at iso-power (same TDP) to be a "32x efficiency gain" because they divided it by idle power or some shit like that. But 5x average performance gain at the same TDP doesn't mean you do 32x a…

Wow that's stupid, I didn't look that closely. So it's really a 5x perf/watt improvement. I assume it will be the same deal for this, around 5-6x perf/watt improvement. Which does make more sense, FP16 should already be pretty well optimized on GPUs today so 30x would be a huge stretch or else require specific fixed function units.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#539

Post by kcb »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #500
calaphos wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

What are you comparing? M1 is an SOC.

Ryzen mobile chips are also SOCs.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#540

Post by GeekyBear »

als0 wrote: post #400
GeekyBear wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In this case, both are using the same CPU core designs and are on the same node.

However, they are following the notion of "don't change everything at once".

Post reply on HN