4 ms·

The 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 Gol

The 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 ago
R 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 ago
  Sadly, the M1 Ultra chip is far more than double the price of the Max for only double the performance.
  - Octoth0rpe 5y ago
    What? 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 ago
      Keeping other specs the same, the Max -> Ultra upgrade is $2,200 which implies that the chip alone is... very expensive.
      - lupire 5y ago
        It'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 ago
    Slight difference on the ports between the Max and Ultra, though still a hefty increase in price.
matja 5y ago
Indeed, 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Or the overhead of co-ordinating multiple cores is starting to matter more and more the more cores you have.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    They shouldn't be coordinating often unless the benchmark is poorly suited.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Only for supercomputer tasks like weather forecasting. Not for near-embarrassingly parallel jobs like high traffic web servers and render farms.
- kijin 5y ago
  High-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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

algo_trader 5y ago

R 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 ago
Sadly, the M1 Ultra chip is far more than double the price of the Max for only double the performance.
- Octoth0rpe 5y ago
  What? 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 ago
    Keeping other specs the same, the Max -> Ultra upgrade is $2,200 which implies that the chip alone is... very expensive.
    - lupire 5y ago
      It'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 ago
  Slight difference on the ports between the Max and Ultra, though still a hefty increase in price.

matja 5y ago

Indeed, 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 ago

The 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 ago
Or the overhead of co-ordinating multiple cores is starting to matter more and more the more cores you have.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  They shouldn't be coordinating often unless the benchmark is poorly suited.
- lupire 5y ago
  Only for supercomputer tasks like weather forecasting. Not for near-embarrassingly parallel jobs like high traffic web servers and render farms.
kijin 5y ago
High-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.