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

561–570 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#561

Post by presentation »

someguydave wrote: post #150
basisword wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As cool as that would be, why would they? I mean what do they have to gain from it? Maybe a few more Linux users will buy MacBook's but not enough to impact their bottom line. Plus those users wouldn't be part of the Apple ecosystem and at least since the iPod Apple's goal has been bringing you into the ecosystem.

Apple could gain some trust and goodwill from the technical user base they have been alienating for 10 years

As though programmers don't use Macs, at least in SV they're by far the device of choice.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#562

Post by paulmd »

sunflowerdeath wrote: post #526
keymone wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 vs M1 Max - OpenCL https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/compare/3551790?bas ... [29.0%] 30% performance for ~15% of power use in laptop form factor? that's not boo, that seems like a clear win for apple.

Also, the 3090 costs almost like the whole macbook

the truly amazing thing is that the M1 Max Macbook Pro will have twice the transistor count of a 3090 in its SOC (not counting memory stacks). That's a laptop CPU now.

It also has hexadecimal-channel RAM. 16 channels of DDR5. Instead of putting the SOC on GDDR6 and gimping the CPU side with higher latency, they just stacked in DDR5 channels until they had enough. Absolute meme tier design, Apple just does not give a single fuck about cost.

(note that DDR5 channels are half the width of DDR4 - you get two channels per stick. But, the burst length is longer to compensate (so you get the same amount per burst), and you get higher MT/s. But either way, it's conceptually like octochannel DDR4, "but better", it's a server-class memory configuration and then they stacked it all on the package so you could put it in a laptop.)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#563

Post by bdcravens »

vmception wrote: post #445
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.

Multi-display is another highly sought feature this M1 Pro/Max delivers (achievable on the M1 with a DisplayLink hub, but stability leaves something to be desired)

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#564

Post by paulmd »

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...

they're the same cores as the original M1 architecturally, you just get an 8+2 on a Max instead of 4+4... and also an absolutely titanic iGPU, total transistor count is about twice that of a 3090 and almost all of it lives in the iGPU.

the only architectural difference between M1 and M1 Max in the CPU cores, besides the different combination of big/little cores, is that the M1 Max goes from quad channel to hexadecimal-channel DDR5 RAM (note a DDR5 channel is half the width of a DDR4 channel, but has longer burst and higher MT/s).

Apple's iGPU approach is real simple: unlike a console where you somewhat gimp the CPU by putting it on high-latency GDDR6 (to get enough bandwidth to feed the iGPU), they just put 16 channels of DDR5 on it, basically it's like an octochannel DDR4 server processor in terms of bandwidth. And the CPU also benefits from that as well, at least a little bit, but internally it's the same core design.

It's an absolute meme of a design, Apple just does not give a single fuck about cost here, "server class memory configuration"? sure why not, and we'll stack it on the package so it can go in a laptop.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#565

Post by nightski »

Operyl wrote: post #546
nightski wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, as far as I can tell a M1 Max Macbook pro costs like $3k+ (the config used in the link is like $4k). how do you figure that?

Easy: you're not getting a 3090 at MSRP unless you're lucky.

Best buy has been doing physical drops on a monthly basis. I got one in the last drop @ MSRP, only waited in line for 30 minutes. It's worth checking out if you are looking for a card.

I will say though if you are in a large city this doesn't work as well, the lines are longer.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#566

Post by O_H_E »

hajile wrote: post #288
klelatti wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a little surprised - presumably the thermal limitations on a 16 inch laptop are potentially less limiting than on a 13 inch one so that single core could be pushed to a higher frequency?

M1 uses TSMC high-density rather than high-performance. They get 40-60% better transistor density and less leakage (power consumption) at the expense of lower clockspeeds. Also, a core is not necessarily just limited by power. There are often other considerations like pipeline length that affect final target clocks. The fact is that at 3.2GHz, the M1 is very close to a 5800X in single-core performance. When that 5800…

> M1 uses TSMC high-density rather than high-performance.

Is that an actual product differentiation from TSMC? Or just observational + the fact that it's 5nm.

I'm actually curious from a chip manufacturing standpoint.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#567

Post by soylentnewsorg »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #390
VortexDream wrote: post #325

Earlier 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…

It wouldn't be a surprise that a CPU that can't run most of the software out there (because that software is x86) and has ditched all compatibility and started a design from scratch, can beat last-gen CPUs from competitors. For specific apps and workloads, for which it has accelerators.

But here I am, with a pretty thin and very durable laptop that has a 6 core Xeon in it. It gets hot, it has huge fans, and it completely obliterates any M1 laptop. I don't mean it's twice as fast. I mean things run at 5x or faster vs an M1.

Now, this is a new version of the M1, but it's an incremental 1-year improvement. It'll be very slightly faster than the old gen. By ditching Intel, what apple did is making sure their pro line - which is about power, not mobility, is no longer a competitor, and never will be. Because when you want a super fast chip, you don't design up from a freaking cell phone CPU. You design down from a server CPU. You know, to get actual work done, professionally. But yeah, I do see their pro battery is 11 hours while mine usually dies at 9. Interesting how I got my computer plugged in most of the time though...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#568

Post by imwillofficial »

soylentnewsorg wrote: post #567
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…

It wouldn't be a surprise that a CPU that can't run most of the software out there (because that software is x86) and has ditched all compatibility and started a design from scratch, can beat last-gen CPUs from competitors. For specific apps and workloads, for which it has accelerators. But here I am, with a pretty thin and very durable laptop that has a 6 core Xeon in it. It gets hot, it has huge fans, and it comple…

I mean sure, compare your 25lbs Lenovo P52 with a 3lb MacBook Air. Not really apples to apples there bud.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#569

Post by soylentnewsorg »

imwillofficial wrote: post #568
soylentnewsorg wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be a surprise that a CPU that can't run most of the software out there (because that software is x86) and has ditched all compatibility and started a design from scratch, can beat last-gen CPUs from competitors. For specific apps and workloads, for which it has accelerators. But here I am, with a pretty thin and very durable laptop that has a 6 core Xeon in it. It gets hot, it has huge fans, and it comple…

I mean sure, compare your 25lbs Lenovo P52 with a 3lb MacBook Air. Not really apples to apples there bud.

I love how you read the first line, ignore the rest of the paragraph addressing your specific point, then proudly strut around like you called out a gotcha. "bud."

Dell Precision. 6 core xeon, 128GB RAM, 9 hour battery life. Thin and under 7lb. Metal and solid, can run over it w/ a car just like the Lenovo you're talking about. Has had a 4k screen and keyboards that don't break or imprint on the display. 5 years ago.

Apple makes shiny toys and calls them "pro." What they don't do, is compete in the actual pro market. Even when they had intel chips, they were a generation behind everyone else. This is because of the design-first mentality. And there's a market for that. Just not the pro market. Because we got shit to do, and the slower it's done, the less we get paid.

My laptop is like 5x or more faster that the Air. Unless this new apple-pro is 5x faster than the air, they're not competing. And it won't even be twice as fast. But I already said that, and this paragraph is also long, so I don't think you have the mental capacity to have read this far down. After all, 1/16 of a page of text takes minutes. Now, since you appear to be an apple user, you're probably used to minutes. I just don't think you spend the time you wait for your script reading.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#570

Post by EvgeniyZh »

derefr wrote: post #433
jjcon wrote: post #418

Earlier 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…

I think you put extra zero in A100 price
Post reply on HN