6 ms·

Wow does much better than Geekbench's prior top processor (https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks

by e0m 5y ago

Wow does much better than Geekbench's prior top processor (https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks) the Intel Core i9-11900K (https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900k https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900...). 10,997 for Intel i9 vs 12,693 for M1 Max

alpha64 5y ago
You sorted by single core performance, then compared multi core performance. Sort by multi core performance, and you will see that the i9-11900K is nowhere near the top spot. For example, the Ryzen 9 5950X has single/multi core scores of 1,688/16,645 - which is higher in multi core score than the M1 Max, but lower in the single core.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  That's maybe not a bad way to sort? Most of the time I'm interacting with a computer I'm waiting for some single thread to respond, so I want to maximize that, then look over a column to see if it will be adequate for bulk compute tasks as well.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  Interestingly, the iPhone's A15 SOC did get a newer version of Apple's big core this year. >On an adjacent note, with a score of 7.28 in the integer suite, Apple’s A15 P-core is on equal footing with AMD’s Zen3-based Ryzen 5950X with a score of 7.29, and ahead of M1 with a score of 6.66. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-performance-review-faster-more-efficient/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo... On floating point, it's slightly ahead. 10.15 for the A15 vs. 9.79 for the 5950X.
- 28933663 5y ago
  Perhaps they were referencing the highest 8C chip. Certainly, a 5950X is faster, but it also has double the number of cores (counting only performance on the M1; I don't know if the 2 efficiency cores do anything on the multi-core benchmark). Not to mention the power consumption differences - one is in a laptop and the other is a desktop CPU. Looking at a 1783/12693 on an 8-core CPU shows about a 10% scaling penalty from 1 to 8 cores - suppose a 32-core M1 came out for the Mac Pro that could scale only at 50% per core, that would still score over 28000, compared to the real-world top scorer, the 64-core 3990X scoring 25271.
  - eMSF 5y ago
    M1 Max has 10 cores.
    - andy_ppp 5y ago
      But the two efficiency cores are less than half a main core thought right?
      - hajile 5y ago
        1/3 the performance, but 1/10 the power. Not adding more was a mistake IMO. Maybe next time...
        andy_ppp 5y ago
        Really? I mean if it gets me 10-14h coding on a single charge that’s awesome…
        hajile 5y ago
        The A15 efficiency cores will be in the next model. They are A76-level performance (flagship-level for Android from 2019-2020), but use only a tiny bit more power than the current efficiency cores. At that point, their E-cores will have something like 80% the performance of a Zen 1 core. Zen 1 might not be the new hotness, but lots of people are perfectly fine with their Threadripper 1950X which Apple could almost match with 16 E-cores and only around 8 watts of peak power. I suspect we'll see Apple joining ARM in three-tiered CPUs shortly. Adding a couple in-order cores just for tiny system processes that wake periodically, but don't actually do much just makes a ton of sense.
      - thenthenthen 5y ago
        Stil 8 more than my desktop pc :p
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Which is still not that much higher. Of the "consumer" CPUs only 5900X and 5950X score higher. And their stress power draw is about 2X of speculated M1 Max's.
mrtksn 5y ago
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 Ryzen Threadripper 3990X at 280W TDP! Can you imagine if Apple released some beast with similar TDP? 300W Apple M1 Unleashed, the trashcan design re-imagined, with 10X power of M1 Max if can preserve similar performance per watt. That would be 5X over the best of the best. If Apple made an iMac Pro with similar TDP to the Intel one, and keeps the performance per watt, that would mean multicore score of about 60K, which is twice of the best processor there is in the X86 World. I suspect, these scores don't tell the full story since the Apple SoC has specialised units for processing certain kind of data and they have direct access to the data in the memory and as a result it could be unmatched by anything but at the same time it can be comically slow for some other type of processes where X86 shines.
- sudhirj 5y ago
  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.
- moreira 5y ago
  Interestingly, the M1 Max is only a 10 core (of which only 8 are high performance). I wonder what it will look like when it’s a 20-core, or even a 64-core like the Threadripper. Imagine a 64-core M1 on an iMac or Mac Pro. We’re in for some fun times.
  - spacedcowboy 5y ago
    John Siracusa - no the chart isn't real, but maybe qualify that with "yet"... https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/1450202454067400711 https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/1450202454067400711
erk__ 5y ago
I really wonder how a single z/Architecture core would fare on this benchmark, though I imagine it's never been ported
- LASR 5y ago
  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.
DeathArrow 5y ago
What about this? https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  That’s a strangely shaped laptop, what is the battery like on it?
  - mcphage 5y ago
    It's actually compatible with a tremendous range of third party external batteries like so: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004918MO2 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004918MO2 And forget about fast charging—you can charge this battery up from 0% to 100% in less than a minute just by pouring some gasoline in the thing! It's the very pinnacle of portability!
systemvoltage 5y ago
Per core performance is the most interesting metric. Edit: for relative comparison between CPUs, per core metric is the most interesting unless you also account for heat, price and many other factors. Comparing a 56-core CPU with 10-core M1 is a meaningless comparison.
- 5faulker 5y ago
  Just when you think things hit the top, another kid's out of the town.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Not when building large software projects.
  - gchokov 5y ago
    Like… everyone builds large projects all the time?
    - akmarinov 5y ago
      If you don’t then you don’t really need the top end do you?
      - ajuc 5y ago
        Most people who buy fast cars don't need them and it's the same with computers.
  - semicolon_storm 5y ago
    What compiler could even make use of 10 cores? Most build processes I've run can't even fully utilize the 4 cores.
    - spacedcowboy 5y ago
      I can stress out a 32+32 core 2990WX with 'make -j' on some of my projects, htop essentially has every core pegged.
concinds 5y ago
I wish there were laptop-specific Geekbench rankings because right now it seems impossible to easily compare devices in the same class
- wmf 5y ago
  The M1 Pro/Max are effectively H-class chips so you can search for 11800H, 11950H, 5800H, 5900HX, etc.
  - zsmi 5y ago
    Your comment got me wondering if there was actually a method to Intel's naming madness, and it turns out there is! https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor... 11800H = Core i7-11800H -> family=i7 generation=11 sku=800 H=optimized for mobile 11950H = Core i9-11950H -> family=i9 generation=11 sku=950 H=optimized for mobile I didn't look up the AMD names. So, now that I know the names, why not use Core i9-11980HK? family=i7 generation=11 sku=800 HK=high performance optimized for mobile It seems like it exists https://www.techspot.com/review/2289-intel-core-i9-11980hk/ https://www.techspot.com/review/2289-intel-core-i9-11980hk/ P.S. General rant: WTF Intel. I'm really glad there is a decoder ring but does it really have to be that hard? Is there really a need for 14 suffixes? For example, option T, power-optimized lifestyle. Is it really different from option U, mobile power efficient?

by e0m 5y ago

alpha64 5y ago

You sorted by single core performance, then compared multi core performance. Sort by multi core performance, and you will see that the i9-11900K is nowhere near the top spot. For example, the Ryzen 9 5950X has single/multi core scores of 1,688/16,645 - which is higher in multi core score than the M1 Max, but lower in the single core.

tedunangst 5y ago
That's maybe not a bad way to sort? Most of the time I'm interacting with a computer I'm waiting for some single thread to respond, so I want to maximize that, then look over a column to see if it will be adequate for bulk compute tasks as well.
GeekyBear 5y ago
Interestingly, the iPhone's A15 SOC did get a newer version of Apple's big core this year. >On an adjacent note, with a score of 7.28 in the integer suite, Apple’s A15 P-core is on equal footing with AMD’s Zen3-based Ryzen 5950X with a score of 7.29, and ahead of M1 with a score of 6.66. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-performance-review-faster-more-efficient/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo... On floating point, it's slightly ahead. 10.15 for the A15 vs. 9.79 for the 5950X.
28933663 5y ago
Perhaps they were referencing the highest 8C chip. Certainly, a 5950X is faster, but it also has double the number of cores (counting only performance on the M1; I don't know if the 2 efficiency cores do anything on the multi-core benchmark). Not to mention the power consumption differences - one is in a laptop and the other is a desktop CPU. Looking at a 1783/12693 on an 8-core CPU shows about a 10% scaling penalty from 1 to 8 cores - suppose a 32-core M1 came out for the Mac Pro that could scale only at 50% per core, that would still score over 28000, compared to the real-world top scorer, the 64-core 3990X scoring 25271.
- eMSF 5y ago
  M1 Max has 10 cores.
  - andy_ppp 5y ago
    But the two efficiency cores are less than half a main core thought right?
    - hajile 5y ago
      1/3 the performance, but 1/10 the power. Not adding more was a mistake IMO. Maybe next time...
      - andy_ppp 5y ago
        Really? I mean if it gets me 10-14h coding on a single charge that’s awesome…
        hajile 5y ago
        The A15 efficiency cores will be in the next model. They are A76-level performance (flagship-level for Android from 2019-2020), but use only a tiny bit more power than the current efficiency cores. At that point, their E-cores will have something like 80% the performance of a Zen 1 core. Zen 1 might not be the new hotness, but lots of people are perfectly fine with their Threadripper 1950X which Apple could almost match with 16 E-cores and only around 8 watts of peak power. I suspect we'll see Apple joining ARM in three-tiered CPUs shortly. Adding a couple in-order cores just for tiny system processes that wake periodically, but don't actually do much just makes a ton of sense.
    - thenthenthen 5y ago
      Stil 8 more than my desktop pc :p
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lostmsu 5y ago
Which is still not that much higher. Of the "consumer" CPUs only 5900X and 5950X score higher. And their stress power draw is about 2X of speculated M1 Max's.

mrtksn 5y ago

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 Ryzen Threadripper 3990X at 280W TDP! Can you imagine if Apple released some beast with similar TDP? 300W Apple M1 Unleashed, the trashcan design re-imagined, with 10X power of M1 Max if can preserve similar performance per watt. That would be 5X over the best of the best. If Apple made an iMac Pro with similar TDP to the Intel one, and keeps the performance per watt, that would mean multicore score of about 60K, which is twice of the best processor there is in the X86 World. I suspect, these scores don't tell the full story since the Apple SoC has specialised units for processing certain kind of data and they have direct access to the data in the memory and as a result it could be unmatched by anything but at the same time it can be comically slow for some other type of processes where X86 shines.

sudhirj 5y ago
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.
moreira 5y ago
Interestingly, the M1 Max is only a 10 core (of which only 8 are high performance). I wonder what it will look like when it’s a 20-core, or even a 64-core like the Threadripper. Imagine a 64-core M1 on an iMac or Mac Pro. We’re in for some fun times.
- spacedcowboy 5y ago
  John Siracusa - no the chart isn't real, but maybe qualify that with "yet"... https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/1450202454067400711 https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/1450202454067400711

erk__ 5y ago

I really wonder how a single z/Architecture core would fare on this benchmark, though I imagine it's never been ported

LASR 5y ago
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.

DeathArrow 5y ago

What about this? https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821

andy_ppp 5y ago
That’s a strangely shaped laptop, what is the battery like on it?
- mcphage 5y ago
  It's actually compatible with a tremendous range of third party external batteries like so: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004918MO2 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004918MO2 And forget about fast charging—you can charge this battery up from 0% to 100% in less than a minute just by pouring some gasoline in the thing! It's the very pinnacle of portability!

systemvoltage 5y ago

Per core performance is the most interesting metric. Edit: for relative comparison between CPUs, per core metric is the most interesting unless you also account for heat, price and many other factors. Comparing a 56-core CPU with 10-core M1 is a meaningless comparison.

5faulker 5y ago
Just when you think things hit the top, another kid's out of the town.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Not when building large software projects.
- gchokov 5y ago
  Like… everyone builds large projects all the time?
  - akmarinov 5y ago
    If you don’t then you don’t really need the top end do you?
    - ajuc 5y ago
      Most people who buy fast cars don't need them and it's the same with computers.
- semicolon_storm 5y ago
  What compiler could even make use of 10 cores? Most build processes I've run can't even fully utilize the 4 cores.
  - spacedcowboy 5y ago
    I can stress out a 32+32 core 2990WX with 'make -j' on some of my projects, htop essentially has every core pegged.

concinds 5y ago

I wish there were laptop-specific Geekbench rankings because right now it seems impossible to easily compare devices in the same class

wmf 5y ago
The M1 Pro/Max are effectively H-class chips so you can search for 11800H, 11950H, 5800H, 5900HX, etc.
- zsmi 5y ago
  Your comment got me wondering if there was actually a method to Intel's naming madness, and it turns out there is! https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor... 11800H = Core i7-11800H -> family=i7 generation=11 sku=800 H=optimized for mobile 11950H = Core i9-11950H -> family=i9 generation=11 sku=950 H=optimized for mobile I didn't look up the AMD names. So, now that I know the names, why not use Core i9-11980HK? family=i7 generation=11 sku=800 HK=high performance optimized for mobile It seems like it exists https://www.techspot.com/review/2289-intel-core-i9-11980hk/ https://www.techspot.com/review/2289-intel-core-i9-11980hk/ P.S. General rant: WTF Intel. I'm really glad there is a decoder ring but does it really have to be that hard? Is there really a need for 14 suffixes? For example, option T, power-optimized lifestyle. Is it really different from option U, mobile power efficient?