7 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
- systemvoltage 5y agoPer 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 agoJust when you think things hit the top, another kid's out of the town.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoNot when building large software projects.
- gchokov 5y agoLike… everyone builds large projects all the time?
- YetAnotherNick 5y agoBy that logic you could build an array of mac mini if you don't care about price/heat.
- semicolon_storm 5y agoWhat compiler could even make use of 10 cores? Most build processes I've run can't even fully utilize the 4 cores.
- throwawaywindev 5y agoC++ compilers probably will.
- spacedcowboy 5y agoI can stress out a 32+32 core 2990WX with 'make -j' on some of my projects, htop essentially has every core pegged.
- jlmorton 5y agoOften a single compiler won't make use of more than a core, but it's generally easy to build independent modules in parallel. For example, make -j 10, or mvn -T 10.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoCompilers typically don't use multiple cores, but the build system that invokes them do, by invoking them in parallel. Modern build systems will typically invoke commands for 1 target per core, which means that on my system for example, building my software uses all 16 cores more or less until the final steps of the process. The speed record for building my software is held by a system with over 1k cores (a couple of seconds, compared to multiple minutes on a mid-size Threadripper).
- pornel 5y agoRust (Cargo) does, and always wants more.
- destitude 5y agoXcode has no issues taking advantage of all cores.
- ur-whale 5y ago> Not when building large software projects. Or run heavy renders of complex ray-traced scenes. Or do heavy 3D reconstruction from 2D images. Or run Monte-Carlo simulations to compute complex likelihoods on parametric trading models. Or train ML models. The list of things you can do with a computer with many, many cores is long, and some of these (or parts thereof) are sometimes rather annoying to map to a GPU.
- Someone 5y agoIt seems Apple thinks it _can_ map the essential ones to the GPU, though. If they didn’t, there would be more CPUs and less powerful other hardware. ‘Rather annoying’ certainly doesn’t have to be a problem. Apple can afford to pay engineers lots of money to write libraries that do that for you. The only problem I see is that Apple might (and likely will) disagree with some of their potential customers about what functionality is essential.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoRelated content: the round Mac Pro
- josephg 5y ago> Not when building large software projects. While working in rust I am most limited by single core performance. Incremental builds at the moment are like, 300ms compiling and 2 seconds linking. In release mode linking takes 10+ seconds with LTO turned on. The linker is entirely single threaded. Fast cold compiles are nice, but I do that far more rarely than incremental debug builds. And there’s faster linkers (like mold[1] or lld) but lld doesn’t support macos properly and mold doesn’t support macos at all. I’m pretty sure tsc and most javascript bundlers are also single threaded. I wish software people cared anywhere near as much about performance as hardware engineers do. Until then, single core performance numbers will continue to matter for me. [1] https://github.com/rui314/mold https://github.com/rui314/mold
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoMy project [0] is about 600k lines of C++. It takes about 5m40s to build from scratch on a Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, using all 16 cores more or less maxed out. There's no option in C++ for meaningiful incremental compiles. Typically working compiles (i.e. just what is needed given whatever I've just done) are on the order of 5-45 secs, but I've noticed that knowing I can do a full rebuild in a few minutes affects my development decisions in a very positive way. I do 99% of my development work on Linux, even though the program is cross-platform, and so I get to benefit from lld(1). The same machine does nychthemeral builds that include macOS compiles on a QEMU VM, but given that I'm asleep when that happens, I only care that the night's work is done before I get up. [0] https://ardour.org/ https://ardour.org/
- alpha64 5y agoYou 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.
- 28933663 5y agoPerhaps 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 agoM1 Max has 10 cores.
- mrtksn 5y agoThe 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.
- moreira 5y agoInterestingly, 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 agoJohn 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
- kzrdude 5y agoHm, related to that reply https://twitter.com/lukeburrage/status/1450216654202343425 https://twitter.com/lukeburrage/status/1450216654202343425 Is this a yield trick, that one is the "chopped" part of another? So they'll bin failed M1Max ones as M1Pro, if possible?
- concinds 5y agoI wish there were laptop-specific Geekbench rankings because right now it seems impossible to easily compare devices in the same class
- wmf 5y agoThe M1 Pro/Max are effectively H-class chips so you can search for 11800H, 11950H, 5800H, 5900HX, etc.
- zsmi 5y agoYour 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?
- erk__ 5y agoI really wonder how a single z/Architecture core would fare on this benchmark, though I imagine it's never been ported
- LASR 5y agoProbably 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 agoWhat about this? https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7421821
- andy_ppp 5y agoThat’s a strangely shaped laptop, what is the battery like on it?
- mcphage 5y agoIt'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!