7 ms·
Mac Mini with M4 Pro is the fastest Mac ever benchmarked
- satvikpendem 2y agoWell, it'd be a surprise if the latest chip weren't the fastest. Intel is finding this out the hard way right now.
- OptionOfT 2y agoAren't the latest Intels slightly slower for a massive drop in power consumption?
- satvikpendem 2y agoOn laptops, yes, but I was referring to their latest desktop chips which are actually worse in performance than the previous generation, somehow.
- thrw42A8N 2y agoIt's a surprise that a Mac Mini is faster than previous gen Mac Studio. Now I can't wait for Mac Studio with M4.
- svpk 2y agoThe surprise is that it’s only the second level chip (Standard, Pro, Max, Ultra) but that the M4 Pro outperforms both the M3 Max (there is no M3 Ultra at this point) and the M2 Ultra (a chip with almost twice as many cores as the M4 Pro).
- zamadatix 2y agoGeekbench is more a "mid threading" benchmark on the multicore. Those extra 2x cores aren't really going to do much to increase the score as a result.
- burnerthrow008 2y ago> it’s only the second level chip Sure, but (see my other comment in this thread): Max and Pro chips differ in GPU not CPU, and this benchmark says nothing about GPU performance.
- pier25 2y agoIt's like comparing the latest i5 with a previous gen i9.
- supportengineer 2y agoWho's Intel?
- Koshkin 2y agoDid you mean "whose"?
- solardev 2y agoWell, just wait till they benchmark the M4 Max a week later.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoHow many PCIe lanes?
- dylan604 2y agoYeah, the standard Apple line "our best _____ ever" is really tiresome. It's so tiresome, it makes me tired even when the line isn't said by Apple itself but from its sycophants and evangelists
- rogerrogerr 2y agoI don’t really get tired of them releasing stuff that is better than the previous stuff?
- dylan604 2y agoThe actual releasing of the stuff is not what I was referring when I specifically stated "the standard Apple line". We know this is better than what you released previously, otherwise, why would you be releasing it. It's just over the top marketing/PR fluff that is over the top over used to the point it is meaningless approaching insulting
- yunwal 2y ago> We know this is better than what you released previously, otherwise, why would you be releasing it Because it's at a lower pricepoint and in a different form factor than the thing it's being compared to. How is this even a question?
- grahamj 2y agoIt’s not a given that a new thing is better than an old thing. Just ask Intel. The news here is that the Pro isn’t just better than the previous Pro, it’s better than the previous Max and the previous Ultra. That’s impressive even if it’s expected that it will be better than the previous Pro.
- pram 2y agoThere's more comparisons in the forum, looks like the single core increase is insane. My wallet is ready for the Mac Studio, Timmy!
- tiffanyh 2y agoA maxed out Mac mini (M4/14-core) has more total cores than a mid-level Mac Studio (M2/12-core).
- zamadatix 2y agoGeekbench multi falls off a cliff after ~16 cores. E.g. the Epyc 9654 with 96 cores benches lower than the Ryzen 7950X with 16 cores of the same generation.
- dan353hehe 2y agoThis was a surprise for me as well. I have two EPYC 9754 in a dual socket server, so 256 cores, and the test did not perform as well as I expected it too. It didn’t even load up all the cores, which is what I was needing to do. I ended up using something else to generate the load I needed, but I can’t remember exactly what. I think it might have been a Monero benchmarking tool?
- tiffanyh 2y agoThat's not an accurate comparison. Base Freq Chip --------- ---- 2.4GHz EPYC 9654 4.7GHz Ryzen 7950X As a result, the SINGLE core performance difference is ~2x Geekbench Single Core - Score ----------------------------- 1,827 EPYC 9654 2,986 Ryzen 7950X Having such a large difference in single-core performance, will negate the sizable difference in total core count (96 vs 16). -- https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-epyc-9654 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-epyc-9654 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x
- echoangle 2y ago> Having such a large difference in single-core performance, will negate the sizable difference in total core count (96 vs 16). But why? Wouldn’t total score be approximately corecount*corescore? Of course it’s not exactly that because not all cores run full speed at the same time, but how are the cores weighted that 16 cores are better than 96 cores with half the speed each?
- tiffanyh 2y agoBecause multicore cpu's don't scale linearly due to NUMA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_memory_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-uniform_memory_access
- Refusing23 2y agowell... im shocked. the newest chip is the fastest. i do wonder how much difference cooling does, and the temps and noise of that new mini
- 015a 2y agoNot true, obviously: M4 Max in the new Macbook Pros has been benchmarked to be faster [1]. Its not just a little faster than the #2; looking at ~15-20% uplifts in both single and multi compared to the previous kings. The previous production single core #1 was ~3100; Apple skipped over most of the 3000s right into the 4000s. [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8593555/ https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8593555/
- olliej 2y agoThe article itself directly acknowledges this saying “of course this will be surpassed once we can benchmark the m4 max” (or something similar). I wonder if their rules are “we only announce benchmarks we’ve done ourselves”? Coupled with “well we need some readers today and our MacBook order hasn’t arrived”
- _Reo 2y ago> Of course, it will soon be surpassed by the M4 Max chip with a 16-core CPU, but no results are available for that chip as of writing. The linked M4 Max benchmark is from after the article was published, so I don’t think this thread demonstrates fair criticism.
- olliej 2y agoOh I didn’t look at the linked benchmark because I assumed that the person who posted it would have ensured that the compared “already existing” benchmark was already existing when the article was posted. Derp.
- grahamj 2y agoSo Ultra used to be the max but now Max is max… until Ultra goes past the max and Max is no longer the max. Until the next Max that goes beyond Ultra!
- betaby 2y agoLaptops with AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX or Intel Ultra 7 look bleak performance wise and expensive price wise than compared with M4. Snapdragon X Elite is just a flop compared with M4.
- randcraw 2y agoSo the new Mini is faster than all existing Macs (at least on multicore Geekbench). That revelation sort of throws a monkey wrench into the grand plan of seldom buying a super-duper Mac that will perform competitively for years. Better to buy the cheapest Mac possible (with a Pro CPU) and leave the Studios and Pros to rich fools eager to part with their megabucks.
- kortilla 2y agoThis is what it was like buying any computer before 2010. Top of the line would be mid shit a year later
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thomascgalvin 2y agoI'm still running an Intel-based MacBook Pro from 2019, and it's trucking along just fine. It's not as fast as the M* chips, obviously, but it's still perfectly serviceable for software development. I'm tempted by the new Pro, but I don't consider it a necessity. If I picked up a new Mini or MacBook today, I'm reasonably confident it, too, would last me five years or more.
- 9dev 2y agoI switched from the same model three months ago. It’s night and day. I used to have my fan spinning all day; with the new one, I only heard it once since buying it, even in perfect silence. Things that used to slow down, now run in parallel. The battery keeps up with more than a full work day programming, comfortably.
- bzzzt 2y agoIt’s a big difference, but the battery of a new 2019 MacBook also got close to a work day. The M series should last a bit longer, but after 5 years it’s a gamble with batteries…
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- SurgeArrest 2y agoSeems that if you are into photography you still have to wait until M4 Max based Studio is out and wait out Mac Mini Pro. 2x graphics performance will accelerate many GPU-based tasks in tools like Topaz Photo AI, Lightroom and Photoshop, Luminar, etc.
- left-struck 2y agoTopaz I can understand, but are you really struggling with performance in lightroom and photoshop? I have a 50MP camera and I don’t have issues with older hardware Actually, I don’t know how like an M3 pro or better compares with a ryzen 5600 and rtx 3060, I assume much better cpu performanc and similar GPU performance?