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

701–710 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#701

Post by formerly_proven »

dijit wrote: post #607
adrianN wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tradeoff I'm making is money vs capability. My argument is that most people don't need the capabilities offered by brand new, top of the line models. A used laptop that is a couple of years old is, I think, the best choice for most people.

A new M1 laptop is likely to last 4-5 years as a good specification of machine. A second hand laptop has much less advantage to doing that. I think this is a false economy. “The poor man pays twice” But regardless: the cost isn’t outrageous when compared to the Dell XPS/latitude or HP Elitebook lines (which are the only laptops I know of designed to last a 5y support cycle). If you’re buying a new laptop, I don’t thi…

> I think this is a false economy.

> “The poor man pays twice”

I'm still using an X-series Thinkpad I bought used in 2011. I had another laptop in-between but it was one of these fancy modern machines with no replaceable parts and it turned out 4 GB RAM is not enough for basic tasks.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#702

Post by ksec »

grishka wrote: post #485
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…

> about the max Apple could make in terms of die size reticle limit without going chiplet I probably have no idea what I'm talking about as I'm a software guy. But — I remember that company that made that crazy ML accelerator where an entire silicon wafer is one chip. How'd they do that? Why can't Apple and others do the same/similar?

As mentioned in your other reply. Cerebras .

Wafer Scale Engine doesn't break the reticle limit, if you search for a picture on Cerebras, you can still clearly see the square die within the wafer. From a very high level overview, they are basically doing cross interconnect with each die on wafer. Scribe line used to be physical separation for each die, now they built interconnect on top so the whole wafer becomes a huge mesh of AI chip.

It works for because you can think of each die as lots of Neutral Engine and cache only. You can easily rework around each process defects and solve the yield problem. And then you have to solve packaging, power and cooling.

>Why can't Apple and others do the same/similar?

When you have a complex SoC. Not every defect can be worked around, that is why the larger the die the lower the yield. A reason why you see in GPU they fused off certain GPU core and Memory Controller. It isn't because of market segmentation, it is necessity coming from manufacturing. To avoid this they have chiplet. Making each part a small die and interconnect them together. But as mentioned, chiplet isn't a silver bullet. Your design must have chiplet in mind for interconnect with AMD Zen. You cant just dump two pieces of M1 Max together on the same interposer and expect it to work. They could, but it wouldn't be efficient. And that sort of defeat the purpose. An analogy would be asking the current AMD Ryzen APU, which is an SoC with GPU and Memory controller, you stick two of them together and somehow expect it to work 100% faster.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#703

Post by iSnow »

smoldesu wrote: post #431
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…

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…

During my time, the Mac line has switched CPUs three times, why would Apple not switch to RISC-V if that one is really so much better than ARM?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#704

Post by formerly_proven »

dijit wrote: post #629
diffeomorphism wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "extremely". You get maybe a factor 2 or so, not 10 or 100. Is that nicer? Yes, sure. Is it necessary? No, older stuff is perfectly sufficient for most people. Also, it is "if you need that power and need it with laptop formfactor". Again, impressive, but desktops/servers work just as well for most people.

2011 desktop CPUs will perform about half as well as a modern laptop one. I don’t even think Sandybridge (Intel 2011) CPUs support h264 decode- a pretty common requirement these days for zoom, slack, teams and video streaming sites such as YouTube.

Sandy Bridges actually do have hardware decoding, but this isn't really a CPU feature, since it's a separate accelerator more akin to an integrated GPU. FWIW sites like Youtube seem to prefer the most bandwidth-efficient codec regardless of whether hardware decoding is available.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#705

Post by agloeregrets »

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...

Apple never claimed the M1 Max was faster than the 3080, they claimed the M1 Max was almost as fast while using 100W less power and while being dramaticly faster on battery.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#706

Post by concinds »

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…

macOS has always been worse at animation performance, even after the Metal switch. My M1 is buttery smooth, but you always had dropped frames even on pretty recent Mac hardware. Your other issues seem like factory defects, I've never had them.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#707

Post by scns »

noahtallen wrote: post #583
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.…

You probably wouldn’t have gotten downvoted as much if people hadn’t (ironically?) read the part you said they wouldn’t read :p And I want to mention that I agree with you about apple not selling to pros very well over the past 6 years. Your laptop is definitely very capable. But it’s barely a laptop. Why not build out a proper desktop? This precision would be a pain in the ass to carry around for most people, especi…

Engineers in the field, on oil rigs, doing CAD, Simulations etc. need huge heavy desktop replacement laptops. The licensing cost for the software they use is usually above 100_000$, and only certified for RHEL or Windows.

Even at 8k$ the laptop is often below 5% of the budget.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#708

Post by f6v »

adrianN wrote: post #576
lanza wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing out on the fact that Apple didn't release a 12980hk or 5980hx competitor. These are 30 watt chips that trounce the competition's 65 watt (e.g. the 12980hk and 5980hx) and beyond chips. Hell, this Geekbench is faster than a desktop 125 watt 11900k. It's faster than a desktop 105 watt 5800x. Apple intentionally played to the competition here. They know AMD/Intel reach some performance level X and release…

> It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop. ...if you only care about the things that Apple laptops are good at. Almost nobody needs a top-of-the-line laptop to do their tasks. Most things that people want to do with computers can be done on a machine that is five to ten years old without any trouble at all. For example I use a ThinkPad T460p, and while the geekbench scores for its proc…

> Most things that people want to do with computers can be done on a machine that is five to ten years old without any trouble at all.

Please, browsing web has always been pain on old hardware.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#709

Post by _ph_ »

paulmd wrote: post #562
sunflowerdeath wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don't know exactly of course, but I wouldn't be surprised, if Apple doesn't even save costs with their own chips vs. buying from Intel/AMD. In any case, they wouldn't be able to reach that compute power in a laptop of that size at all without the new chips.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#710

Post by manigandham »

adrianN wrote: post #605
dijit wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the trade off you think you’re making? This is weird. I feel like I’m talking to someone who has a fixed opinion against something. It’s good for _everyone_ that these chips are as fast as the best chips on the market, have crazy low power consumption and the cost for new is comparable. Intel have been overcharging for more than a decade when innovation stagnated. Honestly, I’m not so hot on Apple (FD I am…

The tradeoff I'm making is money vs capability. My argument is that most people don't need the capabilities offered by brand new, top of the line models. A used laptop that is a couple of years old is, I think, the best choice for most people.

That's why most people buy the bottom of the line models. The base Macbook Air is the most common purchase, and the best choice for most people.

People buy it brand new because its small, lightweight, attractive, reliable, long-lasting hardware with very low depreciation, great support, and part of Apple's ecosystem. Cost is not the same as value and the value of your dollar is much greater with these.

Post reply on HN