18 ms·
M1 Ultra Geekbench Score
- gopaz 5y agoIf it's real it does make sense, same single core score and double multicore compared to m1 max
- shrewduser 5y agodoesn't that make sense? as i understand it the M1 ultra is two M1 Max's fused together... so wouldn't that be what to roughly expect?
- kizer 5y agoI think so. They talked about some of the engineering around the fusing of the two but who knows how that would translate to Geekbench points, lol.
- baal80spam 5y agoHugged to death.
- LeoPanthera 5y agoSeems fine.
- geerlingguy 5y agoThe score was 1793 single core / 24055 multi-core. This puts it in the realm of Threadrippers/EPYCs with 24-40 cores, or some of the similar core count Xeon Gold processors. I'd love to see if Apple can post solid numbers that compete with 128 core EPYC CPUs in a Mac Pro, if they truly go for broke on it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- algo_trader 5y agoR we making any progress on $/ops? These chips are just gigantic. We seem to be stuck on ~$50-$100/core for years (Obviously Ultra is just twice the cost/size of Max)
- wmf 5y agoSadly, the M1 Ultra chip is far more than double the price of the Max for only double the performance.
- Octoth0rpe 5y agoWhat? You can't buy the chips separately, but the base system prices for a mac studio with a m1 max is $1999, and the version with the m1 ultra is $3999. You also get 2x the ram, and 2x the disk space when upgrading.
- wmf 5y agoKeeping other specs the same, the Max -> Ultra upgrade is $2,200 which implies that the chip alone is... very expensive.
- lupire 5y agoIt's $1400 for the CPU upgrade (which forces a $400 32->64GB RAM upgrade). (And $200 to match 1TB SSD). So that leaves $600 for the case, mobo, fans, and 512TB base SSD, which seems about right, depending on where you put Apple's fat margins.
- michelb 5y agoSlight difference on the ports between the Max and Ultra, though still a hefty increase in price.
- matja 5y agoIndeed, it is a little faster single core and a little slower in multi-core on average compared to my 24-core Zen 3 EPYC (https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/13330272?baseline=10516638 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/13330272?baseli... - which I expect to be slightly slower than the new 24-core Threadripper Pro 5965WX) - certainly comparable in terms of performance. But no word yet on if the M1 Ultra supports ECC RAM or how many PCIe lanes.
- Teknoman117 5y agoThe interesting thing is that the 24-core threadripper is posting a score of 20k and the 64-core one is posting 25k. Whatever Geekbench is doing doesn't appear to be something you'd normally run on one of these monster core count CPUs.
- danieljacksonno 5y agoOr the overhead of co-ordinating multiple cores is starting to matter more and more the more cores you have.
- kijin 5y agoHigh-end Threadrippers are severely limited by their thermal envelope. Looking at the latest 5000-series products, the 64-core CPU has the same TDP (280W) as the 24-core CPU. Guess which one can sustain higher clock speeds for longer before it gets throttled.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoImpressive numbers. If you can't load the page, it scores 1793 single core / 24055 multi-core For perspective, AMD's top consumer part is a 5950X, which scores 1686 single-core / 16565 multi-core (reference https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-9-5950x https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-9-5950x). However, the 5950X really is a consumer CPU and can be purchased for $600 right now, so you could build 2-3 5950X PCs for the price of a single M1 Ultra Mac Studio. A better comparison would be the Zen 3 based Threadripper Pro parts that were announced today: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17296/amd-announces-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5000-wx-series-zen-3-core-for-oem-workstations https://www.anandtech.com/show/17296/amd-announces-ryzen-thr... There is supposedly a leaked AMD 5975WX (32-core Zen 3) score on Geekbench from a few months ago. It performs very similarly to the M1 Ultra: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10531340?baseline=13330272 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10531340?baseli... The M1 Ultra is an impressive part, but the $4K price of entry is steep. On the other hand, if you need a Mac for Mac software then none of this matters and you're going to buy whatever Apple offers, so it's great to have something like this available.
- lostsock 5y agoAnd here are the numbers for the i9-12900k - another comparison people are likely to be interested in. edit: It appears the numbers I posted below are an outlier? A better average result might be 1990 single-core 17595 multi-core See: https://i.imgur.com/FebpFR7.png https://i.imgur.com/FebpFR7.png 2740 single-core 25906 multi core https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10820302?baseline=13330272 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10820302?baseli...
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoSomething is wrong with that result. It might be heavily overclocked. The i9-12900K does 1893 / 17299 in more average results. Geekbench's site is down but several websites have large tables of the Geekbench V5 scores of all of the Alder Lake CPUs: https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-12900k-is-12-faster-than-ryzen-9-5950x-in-leaked-single-core-geekbench-5-benchmark https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-12900k-is-12-faste... But yes, the i9-12900K does outperform the 5950X I mentioned above.
- bee_rider 5y agoIs SPEC or Geekbench more relevant for this type of device?
- osti 5y agoThose benchmarks are similar with pretty high correlation in overall scores. Look at the individual subscores would be more useful for either benchmark.
- onphonenow 5y agoSingle core is where the hard stuff is. I'd love at least 1-2 cores to be insane high perf on single core in my dreams.
- wmf 5y agoWould you settle for 16 insane high perf cores instead?
- arvinsim 5y agoWell, it wouldn't be single core performance if there are 16 of them, right?
- faeyanpiraat 5y agoIs that even possible?
- mastazi 5y agoIs there any M1 Ultra GPU benchmark out in the wild? If anyone knows, please share, I'm very curious. I have a feeling the Ultra could cater to some niches really well. For now we just have the typical Apple nebulous claims (they have a graph for "relative performance" vs "Highest end discrete GPU"[1] what does that even mean LOL). [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/03/apple-unveils-m1-ultra-the-worlds-most-powerful-chip-for-a-personal-computer/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/03/apple-unveils-m1-ultr...
- fotta 5y agoIf you read the very fine print on those graphs, they compared with an i9-12900K and an RTX 3090. "Relative performance" is extremely questionable though I agree. I guess I'll wait for the Anandtech review to get graphs with actual units.
- mastazi 5y agoI saw the RTX 3090 configuration, but that is in the footprint n. 5, which is referenced from another paragraph, whereas the paragraph about GPU is more towards the beginning of that page. I'm not clear if that same configuration was used as a comparison for all the performance claims in the page. If the GPU used for that graph is an RTX 3090, the result is impressive especially considering power consumption. But yeah "relative performance" means nothing. Luckily, I think we will have to wait just a few days for "real world" benchmarking like Anandtech etc.
- easton 5y agoI think when the new M1 Pro/Max based laptops came out it was deemed that much of the performance Apple was claiming was due to the media engine helping accelerate the hard stuff in FCPX (and Premiere, IIRC). So it’s really good compared to the 3080 for per watt performance in creative work, but if you aren’t transcoding and especially if you aren’t optimized for using Metal, it’s not as great (but still good, 1050 ish performance with no fan is magical).
- Multiplayer 5y agoAlmost exactly 2x my MacBook Pro M1 Max that showed up TODAY after a 2.5 month wait. 2x increase in performance (I know I know it’s just a benchmark test) is unprecedented in successive Mac releases in my recollection here.
- arvinsim 5y agoIt's only for multicore performance. I would have instantly buy it if it was twice the single core performance.
- _joel 5y ago> PDF Rendering - 16699 - 906.2 Mpixels/sec Well, that's me sold
- hughrr 5y agoThis is one thing I really love about M1 macs actually. I spend a lot of my time with my face in service manuals in PDFs and the experience is spot on with Preview. Adobe Reader on windows is absolutely horrible to use in comparison.
- saiya-jin 5y agoAnybody actually uses that overbloated piece of crap? I would expect only corporate sphere where you can't really install anything yourself. I use for example Foxit reader on my desktop which has fraction of the performance (and cost) of these new chips and its perfectly smooth experience.
- _joel 5y agoDoes that support document signatures, as that's a reason I've needed to use the bloatware in the past? That was a while back though. All online IME nowadays.
- faeriechangling 5y agoI still have PDFs stutter even today and it aggravates me.
- ingvul 5y agoI just bought a mbp M1. Would the M1 ultra be available on mbps in the (near) future?
- wmf 5y agoNo.
- jws 5y agoThe thermals suggest no. Twice the CPU heat is probably not in the current MacBook Pro design.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoEven if they wanted to work around the thermals, they’d just be inviting the same criticism they’ve gotten of laptops running hot and throttling
- jeroenhd 5y agoApple has a terrible history when it comes to cooling down their laptops. I don't think they'll be able to cool this chip without a massive design overhaul. They'd have to make something the size of those "gaming" laptops to get it cool enough and even then it would probably exceed the noise and thermal limit they've set for their brand.
- top_sigrid 5y agoBesides the thermals of the mbp probably not being suited and the form factor of the chip itself, the Mac Studio has a 370W power supply, which as well is way too much for a laptop to even legally have.
- yalogin 5y agoIs there a standard mechanism to measure power consumption for applications on processors?
- jeroenhd 5y agoNot really. Exact power consumption will vary wildly based on cache state, the instructions executed, the state of the branch predictor, state of the pipeline, and so forth. The best you could do is track power during the time an application is scheduled to run on the processor but even that is an approximation because the power consumption of a single core depends on the state of other cores as well. Then you get into arbitrary territory (do you count the CPU time spent inside the filesystem driver or network minifilter as application time? is all called kernel code, which may execute on another core, taken into account? what about data transfers between the CPU and GPU? what about the power spent on cooling the CPU while the code runs?) and you end up with a very arbitrary and difficult approximation. I think simpler approximations are more than enough, but it's near impossible to track power usage for a single application. Windows has such an approximation based on various factors, not just the CPU, and that's not much more than a "low-medium-high" scale.
- yalogin 5y agoThat makes sense but I see a lot of places where they estimate power consumption in W or mWs. How do they do it? Is there may be a window of estimation possible in a constrained environment? No network or file I/O I guess is all the restrictions we can put on a process without compromising functionality. Alternatively how do I measure power consumption of a random process? Assuming I only want to get a number and nothing else.
- jeroenhd 5y agoI honestly don't know how you'd get such a number. What I'd do is measure the total energy consumption for a while and divide that by the time the process had control over the CPU. Perhaps the CPU and GPU can be measured separately.
- 5y ago
- emkoemko 5y agoit has a RTX 3090 level GPU, how is Nvidia that bad? at 200watts less? that's insane... why does Apple not just produce discrete GPU with 200watts more power and just straight up destroy the GPU market?
- bredren 5y agoUnless the Max Pro is sunsetting or pausing the Max Pro, WWDC must produce the kind of GPU power to upend NVIDIA’s dominance.
- Flankk 5y agoThey don't want to destroy the GPU market. They want to destroy the PC market. The gap is only going to widen now that they're on the new architecture. I'm sure AMD has more up their sleeve though. Who said Moore's law is dead?
- vietvu 5y agoI think the sweet point in Apple SoC is now they control both CPU, GPU and memory so they can optimize the price. If they make a discrete GPU, the margin will not be that high and will be less attractive.
- neogodless 5y agoThey would have to dedicate a software team to writing drivers so you could run games on it. They don't value gaming though.
- stonith 5y agoAnd that's assuming their "GPU" is actually performant in those scenarios. All the examples they post are for GPGPU, but how does something like Unreal perform?
- kondro 5y agoSome of the fastest memory available for the entire system with zero-copy to the GPU. A lot of what a discrete GPU needs to do is move bits backwards and forwards with the main CPU/RAM.
- fmajid 5y agoSingle-thread performance is barely better than a M1 MacBook Air. It takes apps that are heavily parallelized or need the memory bandwidth to actually make use of the Ultra. Few creative pro apps are that optimized, unfortunately.
- wpm 5y agoOf course it has the same single core performance, they use the same cores. We’re not gonna see single core move until the A15 based Mx comes out, presumably later this year. Honestly says a lot more about the Air than it does the Studio.
- faeriechangling 5y agoThe m1 air is still plenty zippy. Most people don't need these giant multithreaded chips all these companies keep churning out.
- Hamuko 5y agoUnfortunately the M1 is limited in professional usage by the lack of a 32 GB option, and the fact that the laptops can only handle one external display. The M1 Pro is really a better option since it provides a lot of flexibility that the M1 doesn't have, without being obscene like the M1 Ultra.
- hajile 5y agoI'm really hoping that the M2 air refresh allows 32GB. I bump the limits with 16GB a lot of the time. I could buy the 14", but I like the portability of the air.
- johnwalkr 5y agoThat says how good the M1 air is more than anything.
- saagarjha 5y agoThe people who want M1 Ultra know who they are and have workloads that can parallelize or exercise the memory bandwidth.
- jafoi 5y ago
- kinghajj 5y agoYeah, but it's doing that at 3.2 GHz versus 4.9+ GHz that the top-end Intel CPUs need to run at to get equivalent single-core performance.
- aunty_helen 5y agoAnd we've now come full circle back to the PowerPC days.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoExcept in the PPC days they didn’t even have a power advantage, which is why there never was a PowerBook G5.
- rsynnott 5y agoThey actually did, to some extent, right up to the G4. The G5 is where things really went off the rails.
- spoonjim 5y agoWho is actually getting to take advantage of the parallelism here? I still buy for single core.
- hamandcheese 5y agoAt work I easily use all my cores compiling code.
- AYBABTME 5y agoMost people? If a given application isn't good at multithreading/multicore, it doesn't stop the OS from scheduling other applications on other cores, freeing up cycles. I think most people have multiple processes running at a time on their machines. Even just looking at software devs, the plugins serving your code editor probably run in their own processes.
- colinmhayes 5y ago> Most people? Absolutely not. Take a look at your CPU usage right now. Pretty much all background tasks can be done on a core or two. I only have 8 cores, and the only time they're all facing high load is when I'm compiling code. Basically the M1 ultra is only useful for professional graphics/video editors, and developers compiling large codebases or training ml models.
- rsynnott 5y agoWell... yeah. It has a price of entry of $4000; who did you think it was aimed at?
- kalleboo 5y agoIn my workflow, everything I'm actually stuck waiting for is either parallelized (code compile, media encode) or I/O (typically ethernet).
- nicoburns 5y agoGoing from 2 to 8 cores made a massive difference to me (although admittedly I also almost doubled single core perf in that switch). Probably for the somewhat obvious reason that I usually have far more than 2 programs open at once, so having each program be able to run on a separate core is a huge win. With my previous machine, if I was doing something intensive (like say compiling Xcode), then the performance of other tasks would be noticably slower. On my new machine I can't even tell it's doing it.
- api 5y agoSingle core score is not that much better than the existing M1 models, but multi core is off the charts as would be expected.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoAnd the single core shouldn’t be much different anyway, it’s the same core with some more airflow.
- Thaxll 5y agoSo single core performance is inferior to a 700$ CPU ( i9-12900k ). The M1 Ultra will be beaten within 6month for multi-core this summer on consumer grade amd / intel CPU with reasonable price. It's impressive performance but for desktop termal / perf per watt is less relevant.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoFunny, one of the reasons I’m considering the new Mac Studio is specifically perf/watt, and I’ve been tethered-laptop for about a decade. I want a good fast computer that also stays cool without an absurd power draw. In that, the specs I have in mind are the same between the Studio and MBP (lowest CPU to get 64 GB RAM), and the Studio is about $1000 cheaper for that config.
- johnwalkr 5y agoThe form factor is nice too. Desktop PCs really are comically large, even if you go out of your way to make one as small as possible.
- burmanm 5y agoNUCs are smaller than the Mac Studio. Desktop PCs are comically large only if you want that comically large amount of extension capability. Which you can't get with any Macs.
- manmal 5y agoIf I‘d need an always-on white noise generator that heats up my apartment in the summer, then a way higher TDP is something I‘d aim for, too.
- faeriechangling 5y agoYou seem to be getting a cold response here but I feel much the same way. I'm tired of loud hot chunky computers. I want a computer where at idle not a single fan is spinning and hardly any power is causing coil whine. I want something where long term I can re-use the box as a neat little server. All this I/O and a nice bit of speed in this tiny quiet power-efficient little box? Sign me up!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Shadonototra 5y agoInsane performance, while keeping energy consumption very low They have 0 competition Buying a laptop that is not M1 = you waste money and you buy tech junk that promotes global warming Now they replicate the same thing on the Desktop, it is just crazy.. We truly are in a new era
- arvinsim 5y agoIs it just me or do all the main computer vendors have plateaued with regards with to single core performance?
- mcintyre1994 5y agoEverything M1 is using the same core, so it won’t move until they go from M1 to something else. They have managed to increase it pretty consistently with every iOS A series chip though: https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks So hopefully the A16 will have at least a small improvement over the A15/M1 and that’ll show in the M2 range, if that’s what they end up doing next.
- arvinsim 5y agoAlmost all current CPUs, x86 or ARM seem to be stuck at 1.6-1.7k range in GeekBench. Still waiting for something that breaks the 2k or 3k benchmark.
- hajile 5y agoApple still has a lot left if they wanted. Intel clocks up to 5GHz to achieve numbers similar to Apple at 3GHz. If Apple increased speeds to 5GHz, their theoretical scores would be closer to 2400.
- wmf 5y agoFirestorm can't clock any higher and if they redesigned the core for higher frequency it would lower IPC, possibly leaving performance the same.
- mdp2021 5y agoI compared these numbers in topic with those of the CPU I most respect for energy efficiency while retaining desktop-like power: the single core ratio is 2.5x, but the multicore ratio is 15x.
- 5y ago