5 ms·
Do you have any evidence for this statement ("Apple paid them not to"), or are you just making shit up?
by jdlshore 5y ago
Do you have any evidence for this statement ("Apple paid them not to"), or are you just making shit up?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
- phs318u 5y agoPlease don’t turn HN into Slashdot. I regularly downvote comments that make no points, are solely there to make a gag, and add no substance to the discussion.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoIntel wins on single core performance as well as price though.
- recuter 5y agoSpec us out a full comparable system and show benchmarks.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agohttps://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-12900k https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-12900... https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14464705 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14464705 Intel Core i9-12900K - 1991 Apple M1 Ultra - 1554
- joakleaf 5y agoThat's kind of disingenuous. Searching on Geekbench for Apple M1 ultra single core scores returns values mostly in the 1770-1780 range. E.g. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14597244 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14597244 Most 12900K score are between 1900 and 2200 but then there is this outlier with single core score of 1252: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14572307 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14572307 Intel certainly wins on single core, but the m1 Ultra multicore scores are still impressive in comparison being generally 23-24000, while the 12900k are around 15-20000.
- sliken 5y agoSure, Intel focuses on single thread perf, high power (241 watt max tdp), and automatically overclocks to 5.1 GHz, only if you have enough power, cooling, and a bunch of idle cores. Thus the 15% variation in submitted scores. It's also rather memory bandwidth constrained, and shows impressive numbers with a single core running. Apple on the otherhand doesn't overclock, focuses on multi-core performance, has great memory bandwidth, and all the submitted scores are within 1%. The M1 ultra is also 1.32x faster in the multiprocessing benchmark. Looks pretty impressive to me, even ignoring the much less power the M1 ultra uses.
- sudosysgen 5y agoYou can make a system with a 12900K, 32GB of RAM, and a 1TB NVMe SSR for 1150$ : https://pcpartpicker.com/list/m3QjZw https://pcpartpicker.com/list/m3QjZw
- recuter 5y agoI'll never understand religious loyalty to a corporation. The computer in the OP is fully assembled and has a 128GB of memory, a nice GPU, and 8TB SSD. Why be so obtuse. If you're just trying to compare to the entry level Mac Studio at least have the decency to throw in a full parts list, like you know, with a graphics card..
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- WithinReason 5y agoIntel has integrated graphics. If you only care about CPU perf you don't need more for a GPU.
- sudosysgen 4y agoWhy do you need a dedicated graphics card for CPU compute? If anything GPU is your concern you're not really interested in an M1 Ultra nor in a 12900K anyways. The CPU itself includes a GPU that is sufficient for anything except GPU heavy workloads, so the parts list is fully complete. The M1 Ultra version starts at 4000$ dollars with a 1TB hard drive and 64GB memory, but I thought a 32GB option was available, so that's what I went with. By all means add another 32GB for 120$, that's why I sent a link that's fully configurable. As for a parts list, I sent one because the request was to spec out. If you actually go look for a fully assembled machine you are likely to find one with a similar price. If you want to add an RTX3070, 256GB of RAM, and an 8TB SSD, you can go ahead, it will still be over a thousand dollars cheaper than the corresponding Mac Studio. Again, that's why I sent the link, so you can play around with it. Lastly, I don't see how this is any kind of loyalty to a corporation. It's simply pointing out the truth that the computer in question is just very expensive if you care about performance. As far as I'm concerned, it's trying to deny the obvious that the M1 Ultra is slower in workloads that can't use 16 cores efficiently at multiple times the price that looks like religious loyalty to a corporation to me. Especially when the corporation in question does what it can to lock you in, which just isn't the case for AMD or Intel. If you really need 4 more cores and at the same time do not care about single core performance enough to go with a 12900k, but at the same time care about it enough not to go with a threadripper, to such a degree that you can justify spending 2000$ more, and don't care about GPU performance either, then sure the Mac Studio is for you. Otherwise, it only makes sense if you love macOS at thousands of dollars worth (or are locked into the ecosystem). There's nothing wrong about acknowledging it's an extremely niche product that is almost never justifiable on performance grounds.
- ModernMech 5y agoIt's amusing that you're concerned about someone making a joke turning this into Slashdot, because the actual discussion here comparing specs and cost of Intel vs. Mac could be lifted directly from the Slashdot archives circa the late 90s (adjusting for the specs).