Site is under heavy load: 1783 Single-Core Score 12693 Multi-Core Score
For comparison, M1 results:
1705 Single core, 7382 multi core
Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
151–160 of 917 posts
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#152I'm in the situation where I really want to pre-order a 14", but I have no idea if going with the base model would be a mistake. Would upgrading to 32GB RAM make Xcode faster? Or would it be a waste of $400?
Figure out your hourly wage, how many hours a day you use your laptop, and whether $400 amortized over the life of the device is worth the "risk".
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#153Wow does much better than Geekbench's prior top processor ( https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks ) the Intel Core i9-11900K ( https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900... ). 10,997 for Intel i9 vs 12,693 for M1 Max
The single core is second to Intel's best but the multicore is well below in the scale, comparable to Intel Xeon W-2191B or Intel Core i9-10920X, which are 18 and 12 core beasts with TDP of up to 165W. Which means, at least for Geekbench, Apple M1 Max has a power comparable to a very powerful desktop workstation. But if you need the absolute best of the best on multicore you can get double the performance with AMD Ry…
John Siracusa had a diagram linked here that shows the die for M1 Max, and says the ultimate desktop version is basically 4 M1 Max packages. If true, that’s a 40 core CPU 128 core GPU beast, and then we can compare to the desktop 280W Ryzens.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Apple G13 series are excellent rasterizers. I‘d expect them do very well in games, especially with that massive bandwidth and humongous caches. The problem is that not many games run on macOS. But if you are only interested in games with solid Mac support, they will perform very well (especially if it’s a native client like Baldurs Gates 3).
"very well" 45 fps top at 1080p medium settings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROxRQvO-gQ You take a 3 years old card you get 2x more fps.
Which other passively cooled laptop can do it? And what 3 year old card are you comparing it to? Hopefully something with 20W or lower power consumption.
45fps at medium Full HD is not far off a 1650 Max q
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems kind of unfair with the NVIDIA using up to 320W of power and having nearly twice the memory bandwidth. But if it runs even half as well as a 3080, that would represent amazing performance per Watt.
I believe they compared it to a ~100W mobile RTX 3080, not a desktop one. And the mobile part can go up to ~160W on gaming laptops like Legion 7 that have better cooling than the MSI one they compared to. They have a huge advantage in performance/watt but not in raw performance. And I wonder how much of that advantage is architecture vs. manufacturing process node.
A "100W mobile RTX 3080" is basically not using the GPU at all. At that power draw, you can't do anything meaningful. So I guess the takeaway is "if you starve a dedicated GPU, then the M1 Max gets within 90%!"
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#156Why does Apple not open up their hardware to other operating systems like Linux. They will already get our money from the hardware purchases, what more do they want. I know Asahi Linux exists but without Apple's (driver) support it will never reach macOS on M1 level performance. (If someone disagrees, please compare Nouveau with proprietary Nvidia drivers.)
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.
More importantly, those users would complain and some would even ask for support.
As horrible as this is going to sound, I'm thinking both Apple and Microsoft file that under: "Some users are not worth the trouble."
Probably OK for server users though? But Apple doesn't really make servers.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#157Wow does much better than Geekbench's prior top processor ( https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks ) the Intel Core i9-11900K ( https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900... ). 10,997 for Intel i9 vs 12,693 for M1 Max
I really wonder how a single z/Architecture core would fare on this benchmark, though I imagine it's never been ported
Probably not as good as you might expect. Z machines are built for enterprise features like RAS, and performance on specific workloads.
The ultra-high-clocked IBM cpus are probably significantly faster at DB loads, and less than the best at more general benchmarks like Geekbench.
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#158I'm in the situation where I really want to pre-order a 14", but I have no idea if going with the base model would be a mistake. Would upgrading to 32GB RAM make Xcode faster? Or would it be a waste of $400?
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.
[deleted]
Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#159Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score
#160I was dead set on getting a new Mac but I think I will opt for Alder Lake. It appears Apple Silicon for desktop will be pretty much constrained to mobile designs and limitations. Perhaps I will revisit if they decide to release M1 Max inside a Mac Mini but I highly doubt that will happen.