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

681–690 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#681

Post by aenis »

microtonal wrote: post #627
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. 6 core xeon, 128GB RAM, 9 hour battery life. [...] My laptop is like 5x or more faster that the Air. Very unlikely. You seem to go out of your way not to mention the Xeon's part number. So what Xeon is it?

Yup. I, too, call BS on that. I do own a precision laptop with a 8 core xeon and this thing is heavy, noisy and can't work on battery for more than 2hrs under normal workload.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#682

Post by jamil7 »

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…

It sounds like you need to get your laptop fixed?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#683

Post by Toutouxc »

Thaxll wrote: post #282
ribit wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apple compare themself to a 3080m, the perf from an M1 is not even close to a 3 y/o card. I don't care if it takes 10w if I can't even play at 60fps on "recent'ish" games.

You may have mistaken last year's M1 (the one in the video, available passively cooled in the MacBook Air) with the new M1 Pro and M1 Max (the ones being compared to the more powerful counterparts).

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#684

Post by zimpenfish »

alwillis wrote: post #547
LordDragonfang wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on their first attempt at making their own processor. They've been making their own chips for over a decade now. The M1 is not fundamentally different from the A series, and in fact seems to serve as a drop in replacement (in the iPad Pro line). That being said, this is the first time they're confident enough in their own processor to rewrite their whole desktop software stack and market what are traditionally mobi…

That being said, this is the first time they're confident enough in their own processor to rewrite their whole desktop Pretty sure it wasn’t a matter of confidence, as Apple has been signaling making their own desktop processor for a while. There was an iPad launch a few years ago where Phil Schiller said that particular A-series processor had desktop-class performance like three different times. Also, it’s the third…

> There’s no doubt they’ve known for years they could do this if needed.

Honestly would not be surprised if it comes out at some point in the future that they launched the ARM-Mac project as soon as they'd successfully switched to Intel.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#685

Post by Osiris »

jchw wrote: post #57
mhh__ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressive but unbelievably expensive considering what will actually be run on it. I kind of want one, but the 5800x for example is about 10x less expensive than a specced out MacBook Pro

People are probably going to be reading your comparison as an objective comparison rather than an opportunistic one. For example, if you are choosing between upgrading AM4 processors on your desktop versus buying a new Macbook Pro, then of course it makes sense to compare the cost in those terms. However, the price of the M1 chip is obviously probably not that bad. Since you can’t meaningfully buy it on its own, I gu…

Exactly. For me, I can upgrade my existing desktop by spending $560 on a Ryzen 5900X. I have all the other parts so there's no additional cost.

I also don't need portability nor a fancy display because I use all external monitors and keyboard/mouse. Fan noise is irrelevant because I wear noise cancelling headphones.

For me, it's not worth spending the $2500 on a MacBook when I can get similar/better performance with a much cheaper upgrade.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#686

Post by ulfw »

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.

And the fact intel hasn't updated their CPUs is Apple's fault how again?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#687

Post by DarkmSparks »

kbenson wrote: post #616
DarkmSparks wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Most comparisons have always been questionable. Main reason MacOS gets away with charging so much more for similar hardware and still dominates the productivity market is it squeezes so much more performance (and stability) out of equivalent hardware. Just check the geekbench top multithread scores, windows starts around the 39th _page_ - and thats for windows enterprise.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#688

Post by throwawaylinux »

p1necone wrote: post #595
paulmd wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also bear in mind that AMD's standards for these "challenges" have always involved some "funny math", like their previous 25x20 goal, where they considered a 5.02x average gain in performance (10x in CB R15 and 2.5x in 3D Mark 11) at iso-power (same TDP) to be a "32x efficiency gain" because they divided it by idle power or some shit like that. But 5x average performance gain at the same TDP doesn't mean you do 32x a…

To be fair idle power is really important for a lot of use cases. In a compute focused cloud environment you might be able to have most of your hardware pegged by compute most of the time, but outside of that CPUs spend most of their time either very far under 100% capacity, or totally idle. In order to actually calculate real efficiency gains you'd probably have to measure power usage under various scenarios though,…

That's not really being fair, because the metric is presented to look like traditional perf/watt. And idle is not so important in supercomputers and cloud compute nodes which get optimized to keep them busy at all costs. But even in cases where it is important, averaging between the two might be reasonable but multiplying the loaded efficiency with the idle efficiency increase is ludicrous. A meaningless unit.

I can't see any possible charitable explanation for this stupidity. MBAs and marketing department run amok.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#689

Post by mmis1000 »

vegai_ wrote: post #637
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…

> 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. Get an x86-64 laptop with a recent fastest Ryzen, install Linux on it. You're gonna see better performance for most practical things than your Mac M1, practically fanless. For half the price. Power-per-watt remains Apple's competitive ad…

Unfortunately laptop price are somehow high up for thin laptop with 32gb+ ram ryzen models recently, probably due to shortage. And about the igpu. AMD haven't release cpu with RDNA2 igpu yet. The first general purpose ryzen with RDNA2 igpu will be probably on steamdeck. But it will be released next year.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#690

Post by Osiris »

neogodless wrote: post #319
mhh__ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressive but unbelievably expensive considering what will actually be run on it. I kind of want one, but the 5800x for example is about 10x less expensive than a specced out MacBook Pro

The 10-core (8 performance) M1 Max starts around $2700 in the 14" form factor. It's hard to compare to laptops, but since we started the desktop comparison, a Ryzen 7 5800X is $450 MSRP, or about $370 current street price. Motherboards can be found for $100, but you'll more likely spend $220-250 for a good match. 32GB RAM is $150, 1TB Samsung 980 Pro is a bit under $200. Let's assume desktop RTX 3060 for the graphics…

Most of if not an of those components are reusable, such as case, power supply, monitors, peripherals, RAM, etc.

In my case I'm reusing everything and just upgrading the CPU for $560. The end result will be similar or better performance than the MacBook.

If you don't own any desktop computer parts at all then, yes, one can easily spend $2500 building a machine with similar performance.

Post reply on HN