9 ms·

Impressive 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

• lostsock 5y ago
  And 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 ago
    Something 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.
    • hu3 5y ago
      How can a stock clocked i9-12900K outperform M1 Ultra on single core? It seems I have been misinformed about Intel.
      • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        > It seems I have been misinformed about Intel. Intel's latest desktop parts are fantastic. They're the undisputed performance champions, the best value for gaming and consumer CPUs, and AMD has yet to catch up. The mid-level parts are even relatively power efficient (for desktop parts). The pro-AMD anti-Intel commentary on the internet got completely out of control for a while. Intel is still very good at what they do, despite a few stumbles in recent history. It's just not fashionable to say good things about Intel right now.
        • qball 5y ago
          >It's just not fashionable to say good things about Intel right now. Well, being single-handedly responsible for the nearly complete stagnation in processor performance for 10 out of the last 12 years probably has something to do with that. That said, Intel's products and their performance are indeed quite underrated especially once you consider that they're being generated on a relatively old process node; it will be interesting to see what kind of performance they'll be able to wring out at 5 or 7nm.
          • cjbgkagh 5y ago
            I’ve always assumed that Intels terrible corporate culture was responsible for that stagnation (told to me by former Intel employees). What upset me was the pointlessness of having their employees suffer that culture and then the rest of the world suffer the lack of progress.
            • RachelF 5y ago
              ...that and the lack of any real competition Nothing focusses the mind like a real competitor.
  • karamanolev 5y ago
    Geekbench doesn't load ATM. Are these numbers legit (both for the 5950X and 12900K)? Does Intel really outperform AMD single-core by 62%? Sniff test says that's way too much, but what do I know. I also doubt the multi-core difference. Yes, the 12900K seems to be a well performing CPU, but then again 5950X is a 16 "P" core part...
    • marcofatica 5y ago
      Intel has always had a huge lead over AMD on single core. AMD did manage to compete on multi core with the Zen chips but still hasn't gotten close on single core
      • nabakin 5y ago
        I don't know why you're being downvoted. What you're saying is, in my experience, true. AMD is the multi core king. Intel is the single core king. Multi core CPU performance benchmarks push your CPU and all its cores to the limit, but that doesn't reflect the typical real-world use case because the typical real-world use case involves programs that aren't able to effectively utilize all CPU cores. On top of that, gaming is the only typical use case where you are going to be pushing your CPU to the limit (i.e. the place where you actually need your CPU to be fast) and games don't CPU-parallelize well, meaning higher single core performance is generally best in the case of gaming. Macs aren't made for gaming. They're made for productivity, multitasking, and creative work (the one major area where a multi core CPU can be fully utilized) so it makes complete sense for Apple to go the multi core route, but I can't say the same for AMD and their 8+ core gaming CPUs.
        • osti 5y ago
          Intel had a dwindling lead in single core perf over the past few years, but when AMD came out with Zen 3, AMD actually had a non negligible lead over Intel. But Intel is now winning again with the 12th gen chips. So they are trading blows these days.
          • deleted 5y ago
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • funny_falcon 5y ago
    I believe, this is result from overclocked system.
• Geee 5y ago
  It also has an RTX 3090 level GPU, which costs over $3000. Taking this into account, it isn't that expensive comparatively.
  • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    I'd take the GPU comparisons with a huge grain of salt. If it's anything like the M1 Max and M1 Pro, the real-world GPU performance doesn't quite extrapolate the same way as the synthetic benchmarks. From what I've gathered, the performance per watt of the M1 GPU isn't actually that much different than nVidia's 3000-series performance per watt in real-world applications. I'd love to be wrong and discover that Apple has also cracked the code on making GPUs more efficient than established industry players, but I think it's not leaps and bounds better like they've claimed. At least not in real-world applications.
    • hyperpallium2 5y ago
      Maybe they have cracked the interconnect?
  • ytch 5y ago
    Also M1 Ultra's UMA architecture means almost 128G VRAM for GPU. It would be interesting to see how it performed in VRAM intensive task compare to RTX 3090.
  • ohgodplsno 5y ago
    It barely hits a 3060Ti performance wise. That's a $400 GPU. Also, while the 3090 is $3000 because of shitcoin miners and scalpers profiting of the demand, the MSRP is half that (and you can still get it at this price provided a bit of patience, which, admittedly, sucks to have to do).
    • jachee 5y ago
      You got a source on $400 3060ti’s? I can’t find ‘em for under $750.
• actuator 5y ago
  Talking of the new chips, it seems interesting to me to note the difference in cache sizes. I know it is not a 1:1 comparison because of architecture difference but the 16 core 5955WX has L1: 512 KB, L2: 8 MB, L3: 64 MB compared to M1 Ultra's from the Geekbench data L1: 128 KB instruction, 64 KB data, L2: 4 MB I have mostly forgotten my microprocessor architecture lectures but it seems interesting that even after being able to cache more data near a core, AMD is not gaining much. Maybe packing too much cache increases latency of access or the gains simply go away beyond a certain size. Edit: Maybe even it is coming down to the cache layout. Does anyone know if the cache fetch times for the named levels are roughly the same across architectures? For x86, I remember L1 being a single cycle fetch and L2 being 10-20x slower than L1
  • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    The M1 Ultra has a significant memory bandwidth and latency advantage due to the type of memory used and the way the memory is connected. They use the same memory for the CPU and GPU, so the memory interface was optimized more like a GPU and the CPU benefits in a few memory-constrained benchmarks (machine learning, AES-XT streaming) The flip side is that you're limited to 128GB combined memory for the CPU and GPU on the M1 Ultra, whereas a comparable Threadripper Pro system will take up to 16 times as much (2TB) and you can upgrade it whenever you feel like. It will be interesting to see how much RAM Apple offers on the upcoming M1 Mac Pro parts.
    • actuator 5y ago
      > significant memory bandwidth and latency advantage This is to cache or the main memory? I remember x86 based PCs taking 100ns for RAM access. Is it faster in ARM? > They use the same memory for the CPU and GPU, so the memory interface was optimized more like a GPU and the CPU benefits in a few memory-constrained benchmarks (machine learning, AES-XT streaming) This would mean each core having some dedicated RAM section better connected. Wouldn't this be more like L3 section in x86 but bigger? Maybe this is the advantage of having everything on the same die. Beyond a certain size gains should also flat out, no?
• ACow_Adonis 5y ago
  Out of pure curiosity, this is the comparison of that M1 Ultra Geekbench score against my setup which is VERY CLOSE to comparable: AMD 5950/3090/128gb workstation. Same version of Geekbench. What I would describe as well-thought out hardware configurations (no bling or neon, built with a vague sense of budget/performance in mind for work) and only "reasonable" stock settings (i.e. no manual overclocking, but XMP enabled, RAM chosen for Ryzen). See: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/13330272?baseline=13337249# https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/13330272?baseli... I think you'd expect the M1 to outperform a bit on the multicore because it has more cores, but the comparison suggests a lot of the current benchmark score is being driven by exceptionally high scores in a handful of benchmark sub-tests. On single-core I'd describe them as very very comparable at the moment. There's another issue that was made apparent when I benchmarked my setup which suggests that a significant portion of people running 5950's are leaving a portion of performance on the table (i presume that's some mix of not setting things up right or not having the right mix of hardware). I'd say this is an issue that doesn't happen with Macs, but...I'm aware that their past laptops have run really really hot (and dropped performance below their apparent specs due to insufficient cooling?), although everything I've seen shows the M1 family to be a a relatively great performer in this regard (to the point where I recommended my wife pick up the new M1 Macbook Air).
  • grecy 5y ago
    > my setup which is VERY CLOSE to comparable How much did your setup cost all finished?
    • ACow_Adonis 5y ago
      It depends a bit depending on how you account for other machines and peripherals (given that you can reuse/replace parts when doing it yourself), but the general price off the top of my head was: - CPU $1100 AUD - GPU $3000 AUD - RAM $1000 AUD - Motherboard $279 AUD - NVMe Drive $300 AUD - SSDs $150 - 300 each AUD - SATA drives $100 - 300 each AUD - Powersupply $240 AUD - Case $250 AUD - CPU cooler $170 AUD That prices the full thing as new at about $6000 to $7000 AUD, which is vaguely in line with about what I recall my budget being, though I've had it for a year or so now. That would put it at roughly 4k - 5k USD by my napkin math, but as a general rule US consumer tech prices recieve a bit of a discount compared to us over here, so you could probably come in on the lower end if you could physically get everything (i don't know what part supplies are like at the moment in the US). Taking the AU Apple store price, accepting that their CPU probably outperforms mine in some multithreaded performance, and going for the top GPU option, I'd price the Apple M1 Ultra rough equivalent between $7000 to $10,000 AUD depending on where you want to cut it. So like for like i'd say 4k-5k USD for mine vs 5k - 7k USD for the M1 in my locality.
• RachelF 5y ago
  The interesting thing here is how little difference DRAM access speed makes. AMD is probably getting 70GB/s while the M1's on chiplet DRAM is 3 to 6x the speed.
  • cormacrelf 5y ago
    How little difference it makes… to GeekBench’s CPU speed test. They’re not testing memory speed. Not that interesting, no.
  • rsynnott 5y ago
    That'll depend on the usecase and benchmark. The M1 does really unreasonably well on SPECfp, for instance, which is heavily memory bandwidth dependent.
• jjtheblunt 5y ago
  how do wattages compare? (i'm overlooking that and don't see where to find it)
  • hajile 5y ago
    Anandtech peaked M1 Max power at 43w, but that still included some GPU and other SoC usage. Doubling that gives 86w as an absolute max. Anandtech peaked out the 5950 actual power consumption at 142w. Anandtech peaked out the 12900k at 259w of actual power consumption. AMD lists TDP for 5995WX at 280w. The 3990X has an identical TDP and it's actual power consumption would go up over 300w IIRC.
• vbezhenar 5y ago
  > The M1 Ultra is an impressive part, but the $4K price of entry is steep. Some estimations of M1 Max and M1 Ultra price: M1 MAX + 64 GB RAM + 1 TB SSD is $2600 M1 Ultra with 48 GPU cores + 64 GB RAM + 1 TB SSD is $4000 M1 Ultra with 64 GPU cores + 64 GB RAM + 1 TB SSD is $5000 So Apple puts a hefty price on its M1 Ultra CPU. You have to pay $1400 on top of M1 MAX price to get it and $2400 to get the best one. I wonder if it's greed or production issues. Silicone is cheap.
  • forty 5y ago
    The price of apple products have probably no relation whatsoever to what it cost to produce it. It costs whatever the target customer is ready to pay to aquire it.
  • gameswithgo 5y ago
    all products in the world are priced to maximize profit
  • SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
    Do you really believe that companies should price their products below market rate? The only likely consequence of that scenario is that they will be resold to the people willing to pay more. Apple is not a charity. They don't owe you anything.
    • vbezhenar 5y ago
      Yes, I hold communistic point of view in that regard and I do believe that people must earn reasonable wage and not charge anything over that. Extracting super-profits is criminal, even if you're making best computer in the world.