Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#611

Post by soylentnewsorg » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

dijit wrote: post #587

soylentnewsorg wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I also have a Xeon laptop. (45w TDP E3-1505m v6 in a dell precision). Xeons are not magically faster than their i7/i9 counterparts (mine being not faster than a i7-7820HQ which is its contemporary flagship high performance mobile CPU). In fact they can be slower because the emphasis is on correctness and multi core, not usually single thread performance. Xeons are also slower than a modern AMD chip which also can hav…

No, your 5 year old laptop is not faster than the modern i7 counterparts. and it can be slower than modern ones. Except it's not, because they have larger cache sizes.

what your metrics tell me is there's something bogus going on with your comparisons. the xeon dell smokes the m1 air, your test numbers says it's half the speed. that's a level of difference where it's not even worth looking at what the testers did.

yes, 9h of battery life during normal use. just like the 11h normal use time I compared it to on the mac.

now as far as amd, thats bs too, again for work, not your game station. xeons are a year+ behind AMD on tech, because they are for professional use. AMD has you beta testing the latest and greatest, while Intel does that on consumer CPUs, and only then moves the now tried and true tech to Xeon - they learned their lesson w/ the original pentium and don't care to repeat it, while amd keeps getting weird calculation bugs that either crash your system or worse - corrupt data.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#612

Post by ArchOversight » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

Master_Odin wrote: post #502

johncolanduoni wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you run x86 images, it will use qemu’s software emulation inside the Linux VM (which is quite slow).

This has been the big slowdown for my org as a number of packages we rely on in docker on debian do not yet have an arm64 version, so have to emulate x86 and take the huge performance hit.

May I introduce you to AWS/GCP/Azure where you can cheaply run legacy x86 systems and use them for development?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#613

Post by vincnetas » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

darksaints wrote: post #590

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that why every tech company uses Macbooks? People who can't afford Apple laptops (and gamers and certain other use cases) buy cheaper laptops. The brand appeal draws all the wealthy people towards Apple devices.

I work at one of those tech companies, and have been issued a brand new $4000 MacBook pro. It sucks. Constantly crashing, requires multiple restarts to get networking to function properly if the battery dies while in sleep mode, and it has an extremely slow file system even with the best SSD they have available, and there are always 30 different things that break whenever I have to install OS updates. Tech companies…

could it be that your corporate laptop is loaded with pile of monitoring, management and antivirus crapware? i have one, and it annoys the hell out of me.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#614

Post by alwillis » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

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…

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.

Probably not faster than an M1 Pro and definitely not faster than the M1 Max.

Your machine doesn't have a 512-bit wide memory interface running at over 400GB/s.

Does the Xeon processor in your laptop have 192KB of instruction cache and 24MB of L2 cache?

Every ARM instruction is the same size, enabling many instructions to be in flight all at once, unlike the x86-64 architecture where instructions vary in size and you can't have nearly as many instructions in flight at once.

Apples-to-apple: at the same chip frequency, an M1 has higher throughput than a Xeon and most any other x86 chip. This is basic RISC vs. CISC stuff that's been true forever. It's especially true now as increases in clock speeds has dramatically slowed and the only way to get significantly more performance is by adding more cores.

On just raw performance, I'd take the 8 high-performance cores in an M1 Pro vs. the 6 cores in your Xeon any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And of course, when it comes to performance per watt, there's no comparison and that's really the story here.

Now, this is a new version of the M1, but it's an incremental 1-year improvement.

If you read AnandTech [1] on this, you'll see this is not the case—there have been huge jumps in several areas.

Incremental would have resulted in the same memory bandwidth with faster cores. And 6 high-performance cores vs. the 4 in the original M1.

Except Apple didn't do that—they doubled the number to 8 high-performance cores and doubled the memory width, etc. There were 8 GPU cores on the original M1 and how you can get up to 32!

Apple stated the Pro and the Max have 1.7x of the CPU performance of Intel's 8-core Core i7-11800H with 70% lower power consumption. There's nothing incremental about that.

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.

Pro can mean different things to different people. For professional content creators, these new laptops are super professional. Someone could take off from NYC and fly all the way to LA while working on 16-inch MacBook Pro with a 120 MHz mini LED 7.7 million pixel screen that can display a billion colors in 4k or 8k video—battery only.

If you were on the same flight working on the same content, you'd be out of power long before you crossed the Mississippi while the Mac guy is still working. At half the weight of your laptop but a dramatically better display and performance when it comes to video editing and rendering multiple streams of HDR video.

The 16-inch model has 21 hours of video playback which probably comes in handy in many use cases.

Here's a video of a person using the first generation, 8 GB RAM M1 Mac to edit 8K video; the new machines are much more capable: https://youtu.be/HxH3RabNWfE.

[1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17019/apple-announced-m1-pro-...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#615

Post by soylentnewsorg » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

Entalpi wrote: post #598

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…

Intel tried to ”design down” their uArch. Also, there is a TON of pro Mac users. If we define ’pro’ as getting paid for work done on Macs.. Not to mention M1 emulates x86 pretty darn well..

I do get it - you define pro as a guy at work running his backup application in a web browser, and the hipster at starbucks doing "graphic design." I define pro as "a workstation."

The m1 does not emulate x86. You literally don't know what you're talking about. Which explains why you define a kid's toy as "pro." I get it - you're getting paid. So is the barista at the starbucks you work from.

Kia might define their kia optima as a racing car too, because it's got some horsepower. Except we're at an indy500.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#616

Post by kbenson » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:55 AM UTC

DarkmSparks wrote: post #577

kbenson wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mul…

>that trounces all the results we've mentioned here somehow.[1] MacOS, being unix based, has a decent thread scheduler - unlike windows 10/11, which is based on windows NT and 32bits, and never cared about anything other than single core performance until very very recently.

If that's true it puts a lot of comparisons into question. That windows multiprocessing isn't as good as MacOS doesn't matter to a lot of people that run neither. There's not a lot of point in using these benchmarks to say something about the hardware if the software above it but below the benchmark can cause it to be off by such a large amount.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#617

Post by soylentnewsorg » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:56 AM UTC

augstein wrote: post #594

soylentnewsorg wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Dell Precision with Xeon CPU … this thing doesn’t even have ECC ram, so it’s a toy and not suitable for actual pros. Seriously though, your comment lacks, because of your very narrow and specific definition of „pro“. The vast majority of people using laptops professionally, obviously prefer a MacBook Pro over a niche Dell laptop with a Xeon CPU. Also the Geekbench score for Xeon CPUs used in Dell Precision laptops is…

It does use ECC RAM. Didn't bother reading the rest of your comment, probably something about some china virus being fake. The big question is, why would you have sex with a sheep. See, I can make up stuff too and add some sarcastic useless filler to spam this site.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#618

Post by denlekke » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

shaklee3 wrote: post #597

noch wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're expensive What on earth are you talking about? The M1 Air is <$900 if one buys Apple refurbished ...

Are you really comparing a refurbished laptop to a new one so you can find a price that matches?

i got my m1 air new from BB for $750 this summer, good deals do exist

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#619

Post by dehrmann » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

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…

> But I agree that the M1 hype may be getting a little out of hand.

Alder Lake will have big little core and by on 7 nm. I'm really curious if it or its successor will be good enough when compared to the current M1

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#620

Post by musicale » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

keymone wrote: post #297

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…

> * 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.

It's probably possible to build a 3090 system with a 750 watt power supply though.