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

451–460 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#451

Post by magila »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #368
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…

> Apple really dragged their feet on updating the old Intel Macs before the transition. People in the Mac world (excluding hackintosh) were stuck on relatively outdated x86-64 CPUs. Maybe my expectations are different; but my 16" MacBook Pro has a Core i9-9880H, which is a 19Q2 released part - it's not exactly ancient.

Just because the SKU is fairly recent doesn't mean the tech inside is. That 9880H is using Skylake cores which first hit the market in 2015 and is fabricated using a refined version of the 14 nm process which first used for Broadwell in 2014.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#452

Post by lowbloodsugar »

thebean11 wrote: post #113
bluedays wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand I've been running 16GB of ram for a while and I can't conceive of a reason why I would need more. 32GB seems like overkill. What would you do with all of that ram? Open more tabs?

Looking at activity monitor, I'm currently using ~19GB, doing nothing special (IntelliJ, 15 chrome tabs, Spotify, Slack). Docker Desktop was using 8GB before I killed it. And this is on an Intel Mac so it doesn't include GPU memory usage I believe, which is shared in M1 Macs. This likely isn't a perfect metric, if I were closer to the limit I think MacOS would get more aggressive about compression and offloading stuf…

Bah IntelliJ is a pig. It's worth it, but it's a pig.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#453

Post by RussianCow »

fnord77 wrote: post #427
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…

> Compared to those older CPUs, the M1 Max is a huge leap forward. Is it, though? Its single-core score is roughly 2x that of the top CPU Apple put in the mid-2012 macbook pro. 2x after 10 years doesn't seem that great to me. Maybe that's more of an indictment against intel

The single-core performance of Intel CPUs has only increased by about 10% per generation, so that checks out.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#454

Post by TillE »

Thaxll wrote: post #139
ribit wrote: post #99

Earlier 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.

That's the M1. Yes, those numbers are superb for something that's competing with integrated graphics.

M1 Pro and M1 Max will be legit gaming GPUs.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#455

Post by Gigachad »

rgbrenner wrote: post #92
diebeforei485 wrote: post #56

I'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?

Ram is ram. Don’t fall for marketing hype and think M1 means you need less ram. If you think you need it, you still need it on M1… and I say that as someone who owns an M1 Mac.

There is something to the hype. I have no idea why but I was not doing well at all with 16GB on my Dell XPS on Linux but I'm going perfectly fine with the M1 with a few GB left over.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#456

Post by TimTheTinker »

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…

> We can now finally have a Mac Cube

Fascinating idea. Perhaps Apple could finally match the ideal Steve Jobs dreamed of but couldn't realize in the infamous Power Mac G4 Cube.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#457

Post by forgotmyoldname »

thenthenthen wrote: post #293
vineyardmike wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer, I don't have an M1 Mac, but I do have a buggy ubuntu desktop and used Macs my whole technical life. It seems that you're heavily in the minority with this. Even the weird bugs you mention are very unexpected. I've used a Mac for 15 years and never heard of an issue related to thumb drives. You may just have a lemon. See if you can just replace it (warranty, etc, not just spending more money).

Well if you actually do ‘work’ with the device, like installing software thats not in the appstore you might run into some troubles...i love my 2013 macbook air for most daily tasks, but never was there a time where i couldnt do with having a windows and linux device on hand. But yeah, thats just life. Happy to see sobering comment here that the m1 is a ‘mobile’ processor, my 12 year old pc agrees. Another question t…

Plenty of professionals take business trips and present and share their work. It's not unusual to want to carry your work computer home, to a hotel, or to a conference and have enough power to comfortably continue working on it.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#458

Post by TimTheTinker »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #335
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…

If someone had said in 2018 "Apple is going to release a macbook pro with an ARM chip that will be faster at running x86 applications than an x86 chip while having a 20 hour batter life", then a lot of people would have responded with a lot of very clever sounding reasons why this couldn't possibly work and what the limitations would be on a hypothetical chip and how a hypothetical chip that they can imagine would be…

> Any argument that starts with "I don't think it can be done" is a losing argument.

But plenty of interesting opinions start that way -- interesting because someone with expertise thinks so, and/or because the opinion is followed by well-reasoned arguments.

OTOH, "it can't be done" is often based on current assumptions about hard limits. Those assumptions have been broken routinely and consistently for hundreds of years now.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#459

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

magila wrote: post #451
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple really dragged their feet on updating the old Intel Macs before the transition. People in the Mac world (excluding hackintosh) were stuck on relatively outdated x86-64 CPUs. Maybe my expectations are different; but my 16" MacBook Pro has a Core i9-9880H, which is a 19Q2 released part - it's not exactly ancient.

Just because the SKU is fairly recent doesn't mean the tech inside is. That 9880H is using Skylake cores which first hit the market in 2015 and is fabricated using a refined version of the 14 nm process which first used for Broadwell in 2014.

But that's Intel's foot dragging, not Apple's, right? The 10th generation i9s didn't come out until 20Q2.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#460

Post by [deleted] »

mataug wrote: post #302
jjcon wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GPU capabilities that blow everything away Compared to previous macs and igpus - an nvidia gpu will still run circles arounnd this thing

> Compared to previous macs and igpus - an nvidia gpu will still run circles arounnd this thing True, but the point here is that M1 is able to achieve outstanding performance per watt numbers compared to Nvidia or Intel.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN