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

811–820 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#811

Post by ungamed »

refracture wrote: post #797
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+.

Here's a different take to that: If I refuse to use Windows as my OS on my Dell Inspiron 7559 I have to live with like 2 hours of battery life and a hot lap because power management doesn't work properly. So much as watching a YouTube video under Linux makes it loud and hot. Same laptop could do 9+ consistently for me in Windows and remained quiet unless I was actually putting load on it. The reading I've done on the…

> The reading I've done on the Framework laptops makes it sound like this situation has not improved.

And yet I hear otherwise.. maybe your referencing the original review units that didnt run on 5.14.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#812

Post by et2o »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #794
konart wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the OS is worse Worse than what? Windows, that is even in 2021 is still a clanky garbage. Or Linux (any distro) that can't be installed on a newest hardware without any trouble at all (my relatively recent experience). An even then you get an OS that you have to fix yourself for it to work and feel remotely nice. Yet without decent software in most cases outside of software development.

"Windows, that is even in 2021 is still a clanky garbage." MacOS is useless on desktop, it can't scale DPI of UI, if that's not clanky garbage i don't know what is. My large 4K screen either acts as an oversized 1080p display or turns into a blurry mess. Android and Windows both can efficiencltly use display with any aspect ratio and any DPI.

It scales fine for me on 4K. Do you have the most recent Mac OS?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#813

Post by ryneandal »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #802
knodi123 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ha, man, some people have veeeery different workstation setups than me. I was offered a large external monitor by my employer, but I turned it down because I didn't want to get used to it, and working in different locations is too critical to my workflow. But I'd love to see how people with more than 2 external displays are actually using them enough to justify the space and cost (not being facetious, I really would)…

"I'd love to see how people with more than 2 external displays are actually using them enough to justify the space and cost (not being facetious, I really would)." My friend uses 5 monitors, and I would too if I wasn't mandated to use an iJoke computer at work. Teams, browser and IDE mandate a minimum of 3 displays.

You realize most machines won't support 5 displays, right? This isn't exclusive to "iJoke" machines.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#814

Post by localhost »

jeswin wrote: post #698
localhost wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a three-year old hand-built 16-core ThreadRipper 1950X machine here with 64GB 4-channel RAM. I have a 14" MBP M1 Max on order. I just checked the Geekbench scores between these two machines: M1 Max: 1783 single-core | 12693 multi-core 1950X: 901 single-core | 7409 multi-core That's a big difference that I'm looking forward to. Also, just checked memory bandwidth. I have 80GB/s memory bandwidth [1] on my 1950X.…

1. M1 Max has 50+ billion transistors (only a part of that count is CPU, so adjust the number downwards), 1950X (first gen 14-nm Ryzen) has 10 billion. 2. Multicore Cinebench R23 for M1 Max: 14970; Ryzen 1950X: 18780 Geekbench tests in short bursts, not taxing the CPU thermals. Cinebench is the opposite. In short, CPUs do well on some benchmarks and not so well on others.

The Cinebench R23 results for 1950x[1] and M1Max[2], including single and multi-core:

           single     multi
  M1Max:    1562      14970
  1950X:    1035      18780
Remember that the M1 Max has 8 high performance and 2 efficiency cores vs. the 16 cores of the 1950x. Again, this is a pretty convincing victory - 1.5x single core perf in a laptop - this is not a HEDT part.

[1] https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_threadripper_195...

[2] https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-apple_m1_max

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#815

Post by PolCPP »

killtimeatwork wrote: post #762
dijit wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like they’re selling for more than twice that on ebay.co.uk though. And considering MacBook airs are $1000~ devices that’s really high. 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine. If I look at 3 year old MacBook airs they’re selling for £600 on eBay, which is, what, half of the full cost. Not great for an already old machine with only a few good years left. I guess you might save a bit of money us…

> 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine. I'm still on 2013 MBP which doesn't show any signs of deterioration (except battery life). It's got retina, fast SSD, ok-ish GPU (it can play Civ V just fine). I'd gladly pay for a guarantee that the machine will not break for the next 10 years - I think it will still be a prefectly usable laptop in 10 years from now.

No delamination issues with the screen?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#816

Post by hajile »

pja wrote: post #785
hajile wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That figure is compute workloads. Also, those measurements are “at the wall” and include RAM, SSD, and everything else. At the very least, you must subtract most idle power, but you also need to subtract more when DRAM/SSD kicks up from low power state.

That figure is after subtracting idle power. It’s right there on the chart. The workload is described as "Compute MT" (i.e. multithreaded), compared with "Memory MT (i.e., memory intensive Multi-threaded workload), with a third bar on the chart being the average of the two. It seems to me that the "Compute MT" is the closest to the measurement that Intel or AMD would describe as TDP. The M1 is a ~25+W chip, not a 10W…

Compute MT is using both CPU and GPU together. To compete, any other CPU needs to use a dedicated GPU.

Also, at idle, the DRAM and SSD are powered off. Samsung 980 uses 4.5 watts of power when active. I'd guess a similar power consumption applies here.

LPDDR4x ranges from 0.6v to 1.8v This should give 2-3w per 8gb chip at full-power. Anandtech's article agrees with ST Memory adding 4.2w of power over their other ST benchmarks.

Now, 26.8 - 4.5 - 4.2 = 18.1w at PEAK.

For just CPU loads, we get 22.3 - 4.5 - 4.2 = 13.6w.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#817

Post by cush »

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.

It might be called a revolution if Intel could get that performance boost while nearly doubling battery life and eliminating thermal throttling

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#818

Post by cush »

EvgeniyZh wrote: post #717
foldr wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well the geekbench score didn't say anything about it being a revolution, that was your take. If Intel was capable of keeping their chips cool, while maintaining high perf, they would have been called a revolution too.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#819

Post by lern_too_spel »

als0 wrote: post #400
GeekyBear wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tick - New cores; Tock - Scaling up the number of those same cores I think most of the work went into the uncore portions of the SOC this time.

FYI it's the reverse. "Tock" is a new microarchitecture, and "tick" is a process shrink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick–tock_model

Also, scaling the number of cores up and down for different tasks happens in both. Apple's recent announcement doesn't fit the tick-tock model at all.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#820

Post by cush »

EvgeniyZh wrote: post #792
foldr wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how you look at it. What's impressive about the M1 is that it gets highly respectable Geekbench scores while also being able to deliver 20 hours of battery life in a small form factor laptop. If there is an Intel chip that can do that, where are the laptops with comparable battery life? We can nerd out about the exact definition of TDP all day, but ultimately these benchmarks are only useful insofar as the…

Well, I hear a lot of claims that M1 is significantly outperforming Intel (either by raw computing power or per watt). All I saying that both are at level of maybe single generation improvement, nice but not revolutionary. Of course they also those low-power cores that allow long battery life, which is very nice, but thats a separate story

What do you mean "claims"? M1 has been out for a year. There are countless real-world demonstrations. Apple left Intel in the dust. Intel doesn't know how to make a cool mobile chip.
Post reply on HN