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

831–840 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#831

Post by stjohnswarts »

dijit wrote: post #655
true_religion wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trade in value for my 6 year old MacBook Air is 150 dollars. Old computers depreciate so fast, that you can afford to buy ten of them for the price of one new computer.

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? I afraid that's just not the case. I have a cheap 2013 dell laptop that is all i need for office 2017 and a few other things that just work better in windows than linux (zoom/webex/office/teams). I gave about $150 for that thing and another $50 to double the ram. It's fine for what I need and use it with very little lag. I'll admit I cheated a little bit and put in an 256GB SSD drive that I have laying around.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#832

Post by badsimian »

jccalhoun wrote: post #287
blakesterz wrote: post #100

I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…

I've never owned a mac and I've never used an M1 so take this with a heavy grain of salt. Everyone I've seen talk about how fast the M1 is were coming from 4-5+ year old macs not comparing them to intel/amd chips that came out last year in a similar price range.

Well I went from a 16" 32GB 6-core i7 2019 MBP to a 16GB M1 Macbook Air and it was night and day better. So much faster, silent, cool and snappier.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#833

Post by badsimian »

Phylter wrote: post #535
blakesterz wrote: post #100

I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…

My $1000 Windows laptop from two years ago kills my M1 MacBook Pro. Benchmarks aren't everything and there's more to speed than just raw calculations.

Wow, that would really be against the tide. Can you provide any more information like the specs, make and what you are doing?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#834

Post by yazaddaruvala »

xbar wrote: post #340
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not clear to me that Apple will make a desktop-class processor. The unit economics likely don't make sense for them. All of Apple's innovation seems to be towards better and cheaper AR/VR hardware. Desktop-class processors would be a distraction for them. And with all of the top cloud players building custom silicon these days, there is little room for Apple to sell CPUs to the server market even if they were inc…

Can you explain your unit economic analysis? They have made a Mac Pro desktop for several decades. I am trying to follow your reasoning for Apple to sunset that category of workstation as a result of transitioning to Apple silicon, but it is not working out for me. My logic leads to a cheaper-to-produce-than-Macbook workstation in an updated Mac Pro chassis with best-binned M1X Max parts in the Spring followed by its…

> in an updated Mac Pro chassis with best-binned M1X Max parts

Yeah this seems realistic to me. Specifically, I meant that there will be no D1 (desktop-class chip) to complement the A14/A15 (mobile-class chips) and M1/Pro/Max (laptop-class chips).

I agree that taking M1 Max, or future laptop-class chips (e.g. M2 Max) and adding better cooling and perhaps a chiplet would be most likely.

That said, Apple's R&D is always for some grand future product vertical, not to make some more money over the next few quarters. e.g. Neural Engine and Security Enclave R&D leads 1. to on-device Siri + Face Id to accommodate a marketing change to focus on Privacy; 2. moves towards a password-less future.

Even R&D for chiplets, may not make sense for them other than for Apple Cars. "Can you explain your unit economic analysis?" during a chip shortage, why sell 1 Mac Pro with a 10+ year "lifespan" when Apple could sell 5 iDevices with a 5+ year "lifespan" instead? e.g. had Apple known better that they would need to reduce iPhone production targets because of chips, its likely they would have delayed the M1 Pro/Max production/launch.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#835

Post by smoldesu »

pxc wrote: post #604
smoldesu wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run Arch on my homelab, and the AUR is a lifesaver. Not to mention, the basic Arch repos contain more Podman Cockpit modules than apt, to my surprise. Very nice OS for server stuff if you're brave enough to wrangle pacman.

> [Arch is a v]ery nice OS for server stuff if you're brave enough to wrangle pacman. if you're running a homelab and regularly 'wrangling' a package manager which is broken/incomplete by design, why are you choosing distros based on package availability rather than on the quality of the tooling? surely you can package anything you need to use

I could, but the time I'd spend getting it working on a stable distro vastly outweighs the time I'd spend setting up my pacman.conf and backing it up to git. When I say 'wrangle', I'm more talking about the instability and frequency of updates. It's definitely only for homelab use, I wouldn't ever consider deploying this on a larger scale.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#836

Post by alexktz »

headgasket wrote: post #735

IMHO, ditching Intel is a smart move for apple but a bad one for hackers. I’m sticking with older intel mbps until decent emulation scores are achieved with qemu, and probably further down the line. Hypervisors (say VBox proxmox combo) are so useful when you have to experiment/test with other platforms. Happy to see HDMI and escape key back tho, and it looks like we’ll even get a Target Display Mode equivalent! We’ll…

Target display mode on the laptop? Where'd you see that?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#837

Post by pja »

hajile wrote: post #816
pja wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I don’t think your logic is based on sound assumptions:

You can’t completely turn off DRAM at idle if it’s to store data - it has to self-refresh continuously. Some power savings are available by running it in a power saving mode, but you can’t get around the leakage of the DRAM cells, so the extra power used to drive the DRAM hard is not the full DRAM power usage, but a fraction of it. (LPDDR5 is nifty in that you can tell it to power down parts of the chip that aren’t currently being used.)

The SSD isn’t being hit by either workload: why would a CPU benchmark hit disk? The SSD is going to remain idle & be part of the 4W that Anandtech assigns to the system idle power drain.

Where does it say that Compute is CPU + GPU? (I’m happy to believe it, but I don’t see it in the article & they already break out the GPU power usage seperately using a different benchmark.)

(It would really help if Anandtech told us what the benchmarks were - some CPU intensive benchmarks don’t hit memory at all, they just hammer a few cache lines. It’s entirely possible for a pure computational benchmark to leave most of the LPDDR5 in deep sleep!)

If by MT Compute they mean specifically the Geekbench 5 compute benchmark then that is a Metal / GPU benchmark, so I will concede this point in that case :)

Even conceding that the Compute benchmark is really a GPU benchmark, it’s still the case comparing a CPU benchmark load against the TDP of another processor isn’t entirely correct, as the TDP is meant to be a power ceiling (although Intel has rather breached this in recent years - AMD TDPs are more honest I’m told.) - if we accept the 22.3W of the average workload benchmark, then the TDP for the chip is still going to be more than that & that’s the appropriate point of comparison.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#838

Post by ArchOversight »

runeks wrote: post #662
ArchOversight wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no hardware in the M1's for x86 emulation. Rosetta 2 does on the fly translation for JIT and caches translation for x86_864 binaries on first launch. Docker for Mac runs a VM, inside that VM (which is Linux for ARM) if you run an x86_64 docker image it will use qemu to emulate x86_64 and run Linux Intel ELF binaries as if they were ARM. That means that currently using Docker on macOS if there is a native ARM…

Thank you for the thorough explanation. Why can’t Rosetta 2 do the x86-to-ARM JIT translation inside the “Docker for Mac” VM instead of using the (presumably slower) QEMU emulation? Or is QEMU smart enough to do the same translation that Rosetta 2 does which, if I recall correctly, only loses about 25% performance compared to native x86?

Rosetta 2 is Apple's product that is specifically geared towards translating Darwin binaries. Inside the VM is standard Linux. Linux can't run Rosetta 2 since that is a macOS tool.

QEMU emulates a platform on the fly, it does not attempt to rewrite the code to run on ARM and cache that result. QEMU also emulates all the specific quirks of the x86_64 platform, whereas Rosetta 2 does not.

It would be neat if Apple open sourced their Rosetta 2 technology and made it more widely available, but at this time there is no option for 3rd parties to use Rosetta 2, especially from within a Linux VM.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#839

Post by EvgeniyZh »

cush wrote: post #820
EvgeniyZh wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean that top Apple chip outperforms top Intel chip by 9% percent single core performance and 34% multicore on similar TDP. M1 is very energy efficient, and MBA is very cool cheap typewriter, but Apple hasn't outperformed Intel on high load.

So yeah, basically Apple has chip that slightly outperform Intel at high load and also can be very low power. Performance-wise (that what the parent message was about) the latter doesn't really matter.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#840

Post by foldr »

EvgeniyZh wrote: post #839
cush wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean that top Apple chip outperforms top Intel chip by 9% percent single core performance and 34% multicore on similar TDP. M1 is very energy efficient, and MBA is very cool cheap typewriter, but Apple hasn't outperformed Intel on high load. So yeah, basically Apple has chip that slightly outperform Intel at high load and also can be very low power. Performance-wise (that what the parent message was about) the latt…

>So yeah, basically Apple has chip that slightly outperform Intel at high load and also can be very low power.

This is what people are impressed by.

Given your 'typewriter' comment, you're clearly not interested in a lightweight laptop with decent performance and an extremely long battery life. But a lot of people are very interested in exactly this combination of features. And to be serious for a moment, the M1 Macbook Air has more than enough performance for the majority of people.

This is really an example of how Apple 'gets it'. Even if you're right that Intel is only slightly behind technically, they're way behind in terms of the overall product experience. You just can't make an M1 Macbook Air clone with any current Intel chip.

Post reply on HN