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

711–720 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#711

Post by pja »

newfonewhodis wrote: post #273
amatecha wrote: post #235

You can find more results at https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=Apple+M1+Max (it does, broadly, appear to be pretty comparable to Intel i9-11900K https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=Intel+Core+i9-... )

i9-11900K is 125W TDP, and the M1 is probably nowhere near that (M1 is 10-15W TDP)

TDP is the max design power of the platform, not the average though.

The M1 maxes out at somewhere just under 30W - Anandtech measaured it at 28W after removing the platform power use. The M1Max will probably run somewhere from 40-50W under max CPU load, more if you load the GPU as well. The M1 is a great chip, but it’s not magic - it appears to be approximately 1.5-2x as efficient on a per core basis? Which is about what we’d expect from a process shrunk + decent optimisation work by a very able team. What absolutely isn’t is 10x more efficient.

(Yes, TDP has been gamed somewhat by both Intel & AMD, and might not be the absolute max power over very short timescales, but it’s still intended to be the measure by which you scale your cooling system for extended max cpu usage & on that level the M1 is not a 10 W chip.)

For most users, this doesn’t matter - Apple has specced the cooling system in their laptops to cope with typical usage so it can run the M1 at full rate for a few minutes, which is plenty to render a web page or do some other UI work. It’s even enough to run most developers compile jobs. But if we’re comparing processors, then comparing the TDP of an Intel or AMD CPU with Apple’s “typical” power usage is misleading, one might even say disengenuous.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#712

Post by concinds »

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?

Even if you don't look at refurbished, here in France, a MacBook Air is 1029€ brand new.

A comparable ThinkPad X1 Carbon is 2499€ minimum (that's the base model, with 256GB/8GB, but with a high-res screen).

A comparable Dell XPS 13 is 1699€ (same, cheapest one with a high-res screen you can buy; though you can't have the high-res screen without buying 512/16GB).

The ThinkPad T14 Gen 2 (successor to T490, supposed to be the cheap ThinkPad) starts at an astonishing 2156€ for 1080p. That's the very cheapest T14 you can buy, period. I could buy a T450 new for $700 when I was in the US! T14s starts at 2369€, again for 1080p. They keep selling old models so they can still hit lower price points.

The cheapest T14 you can buy with a high-res screen comes with 8GB ram, 128GB SSD (WTF?) and costs 3408€ (no, not a joke) or 3548€ if you want a graphics card.

HP starts at 1599€ for high-res HP Spectre.

Even if you forget the whole "premium laptop thing", I went on the Dell website and asked it to list all high-res 13" laptops: the cheapest is the 1699€ XPS. They don't made high-res Inspirons smaller than 15 inch. I believe the cheapest high-res laptop HP makes is that 1599€ Spectre, though their website is buggy. HP doesn't offer cheaper high-res devices except an 11" Chromebook.

These are all the official prices from the official manufacturer website.

Even on ok1.de, which has extremely cheap student prices, it's 1499€ for a high-res P14s, 2159€ for the cheapest high-res X1 Carbon, and 2,019€ for the cheapest high-res T14s. And then, we're comparing it to the 900€ student-price MacBook Air.

I've researched it for weeks, and there isn't a single premium Windows laptop that matches the MacBook Air on price.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#713

Post by formerly_proven »

alwillis wrote: post #614
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…

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 proc…

Sorry but this entire post reads (skims) like you're playing top trumps with chip specs.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#714

Post by pja »

hajile wrote: post #309
EvgeniyZh wrote: post #278

Top intel mobile processor appears to be https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 M1 Max gives 9% boost for single-core and 34% for multicore, with similar or larger (?) TDP -- Intel is 35-45 W, M1 Max is 60W but I assume some of it (a lot?) goes to GPU. Impressive, but probably wouldn't be called revolution if came from Intel.

M1 only uses around 15-18w with all 8 cores active according to Anandtech's review (with E-cores using 1/10 the power, that's equivalent to just a little less than 4.5 big cores. I'd guess 30w for all cores would be the upper-end power limit for the cores. Intel's "TDP" is a suggestion rather than reality. Their chips often hit 60-80 watts of peak power before hitting thermals and being forced to dial back.

Anandtech measured the max TDP of the CPUs in the M1 as being around 28W, with the GPU adding ~17W to that figure.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#715

Post by adrianN »

atirip wrote: post #691
adrianN wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone needs 15+ hours of battery life. I'd argue that most people don't. Laptops were extremely popular when the battery life was two hours. Now even older laptops get 5h+.

> Not everyone needs mobile internet. I'd argue that most people don't. Mobile phones were extremely popular when they didn't have any internet connectivity. I am not mocking you, but here the case is that people do not know what true mobility for laptops is, that they literally can leave power brick behind, not to think about whether the battery lasts or not and use it freely during the day everywhere. This has been…

Unless those usecases are already covered by other devices that they have. A couple of years ago I might have wanted to use my laptop all day so that I can check the internet, listen to music etc. But today I can just use my phone for that.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#716

Post by cryptokush »

dehrmann wrote: post #619
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…

> 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

Alder Lake is 10nm

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#717

Post by EvgeniyZh »

foldr wrote: post #649
EvgeniyZh wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battery life is more about idle/low load TDP, not full load TDP. It's not like MBP has 60*20=1200 Wh battery (100Wh is FAA limit)

Yes, and the M1 is consuming less power at low loads, enabling longer battery lives. What other explanation do you think there could be for the long battery lives of the M1 laptops?

What does it have to do with geekbench which test processors on max load, i.e., highest possible TDP, which I referred to?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#718

Post by KptMarchewa »

boopmaster wrote: post #658
tarsinge wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just say it: using a laptop on battery power is for hipsters.

Right? I’m curious what pro’s do “at the indy 500”. Most devs where I work use 15” macs and probably a blend of apps from jetbrains toolbox. Mostly connected to power outlets to be fair. So we’re talking local installs of spring boot app Java servers, front end Webserver, an IDE to work on one of those, because opening a second one on a Intel mac will either run the dev out of RAM or the heat will cause a shutdown. T…

It's fine to work sometime on battery. Except, after 5 hours, marginal utility decreases, and 8 hours it goes to zero. Why would I need more than one day?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#719

Post by KptMarchewa »

soylentnewsorg wrote: post #692
alwillis wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proc…

well now, you've successfully argued that arm cpus are faster than server-grade processors for heavy workloads, using hand-picked misinformation. congratulations - you are now a trump voter. btw, that dell line had a 4k display 5 years ago, and it does refresh at 120hz. i know apple announced it's "almost 4k 120hz" display as new and groundbreaking. i had a friend in the elevator show off his awesome new iphone x old…

>arm cpus are faster than server-grade processors

They are way more efficient as server cores. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/graviton/

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#720

Post by touisteur »

paulmd wrote: post #560
throwawaylinux wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's an odd coincidence (there's no reason this number would be related, there's no idle power factor here or anything) but 5x also happens to be about the expected gain from NVIDIA's tensor core implementation in real-world code afaik. Sure they advertise a much higher number but that's a microbenchmark looking at just that specific bit of the code and not the program as a whole. it's possible that the implication h…

I've seen tensor cores really shining in... tensor operations. If your workload can be expressed in convolutions, and are matching the dimensions and batching needs of tensor cores, there's a world of wild performance out there...
Post reply on HN