5 ms·

7945HX3D has TDP 55W. Not sure about M3 Max. Similar or less?

by jxy 3y ago

deaddodo 3y ago
No idea where this idea has formed that the M-series competes tit-for-tat with x86 chips, let alone outcompetes them. It beats some models in Geekbench scores and some 3D benchmarks (for ones with iGPUs), sure; but multispectrum benchmarks have shown it's still generally outcompeted by most x86 chips targeted at the same market, drastically in some cases: https://www.phoronix.com/review/apple-m2-amd-ryzen https://www.phoronix.com/review/apple-m2-amd-ryzen Apple's claims have always been that it performs better per watt, which is true; and that it's more efficient for quite a few common use cases (JavaScript execution, compositing, etc), especially when battery life is a concern.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  There really isn't much of a perf difference between X86 and ARM these days. Generally CISC vs RISC argument this would devolve into but they all have instruction sets that either optimize performance or introduce ways to handle complex or reduced instructions in their own way. RISC has only the benefit of being simple out of the box if designed that way and can have a lower power draw simply because. CISC is complex out of the box so it has more draw out of the box.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    > There really isn't much of a perf difference between X86 and ARM these days. We're not talking ISAs here or any sort of ideological argument regarding instruction set design. We're talking concrete architectural implementations. I linked specific benchmarks that show very real differences in a wide set of benchmarks. Particularly more generalized ones than the use cases the M-series is optimized for. If we take both companies' words to heart that their architectures recieved a 20% uplift, it would carry through that the gap would be similar today. Especially with the Ryzen 8000 around the corner, which is claimed/expected to have an even stronger single-core IPC uplift than 6000->7000.
    - oyashirochama 3y ago
      5XXX, there was no 6XXX series, it was a rebrand of mixed Zen+ Zen 2 and Zen 3 cored CPUs. Bandwidth is the only real issue with AMD CPUs in comparison to Intel, and typically an advantage of Apple vs AMD though. Chiplet disadvantages vs monolithic design, much easier to perfect binning, much harder to get equal cross-core utilization.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > let alone outcompetes them. Because depending on your use case it does. If you're doing anything with media the dedicated codec silicon and Neural Engine makes a huge difference.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    If you read past the first sentence/synopsis, you would see that that was acknowledged. Not sure what the point of restating that is.
- wood_spirit 3y ago
  I got the M1 MBP a few years ago and it was about twice as fast as my reasonable desktop at the time on simple things like compiling code. And it was silent. It was the silence that wowed me. Didn’t want to turn my desktop on again after that.
  - metabagel 3y ago
    My workstation at home is pretty silent. But, I designed and built it that way. It’s a lot bigger than anything Apple sells though - big tower case.
  - jeppester 3y ago
    When my colleagues got their M1s, they were about as fast as the then 6 years old 4 core i5 I was using at the time. That is somewhat impressive, but I find it hard to believe that a reasonable desktop was only half as fast as an M1. I'm thinking if that difference was due to Windows' slow file system rather than the machine itself. For instance there's is a large performance delta between Windows and Linux when compiling JavaScript.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      > they were about as fast as the then 6 years old 4 core i5 I was using at the time No they were faster than your old quad core i5. My M1 Pro laptop has a Geekbench 6 score of 12,626. My Ryzen 5600X desktop (6 cores, faster than a quad i5) has a Geekbench score of 8,583.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        Stop using Geekbench to "prove" how fast your CPU is. It's one aspect of benchmarking, not the totality. It doesn't cover the vast majority of generic benchmarks. It covers "common use case" ones, which is exactly what the Apple engineers target. That's not a bad thing, but as mentioned in the OP there are over a hundred things it sucks at, and a few dozen more it barely keeps up at. Even if it's awesome at executing JS code.
- thefz 3y ago
  > Apple's claims have always been that it performs better per watt And that may be true. My RPI2 is impressive at performance per watt, still my 5800X or even a 3900X blow it away at almost every workload. Girlfriend's M1 side to side with any of my desktops is just noticeably slower in everything.
Sparkyte 3y ago
Probably the same. Or maybe even 45-55w. ARM can be just as thirsty as X86. There just isn't an excuse for desktop processors to be as thirsty these days.
Xixi 3y ago
According to this site [1] it's 30W for the Apple M3 Max. Not sure how reliable that site is. EDIT: according to CPU Monkey [2] it's 45W. All these websites don't seem so reliable... [1] https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu/apple-m3-max https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu/apple-m3-max [2] https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m3_max_14_cpu_30_gpu-vs-apple_m3_pro_11_cpu_14_gpu https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m3_max_14_cp...
- rsynnott 3y ago
  To add to the confusion, manufacturer quoted TDP has been kinda nonsense for years, too; many Intel chips in particular will happily go significantly over their alleged TDP for fairly normal workloads.
  - ac29 3y ago
    Intel doesnt use TDP anymore. There are base (PL1) and turbo (PL2) power levels, and the numbers given are actually pretty accurate.
Salgat 3y ago
Not to discount power efficiency, but is anyone that's buying a Max worried about paying for an extra 30W of power usage?
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  Yes. It’s nice to have that performance while unplugged and lower power usage generally means less heat which means quiet.

7945HX3D has TDP 55W. Not sure about M3 Max. Similar or less?

by jxy 3y ago

7945HX3D has TDP 55W. Not sure about M3 Max. Similar or less?

No idea where this idea has formed that the M-series competes tit-for-tat with x86 chips, let alone outcompetes them. It beats some models in Geekbench scores and some 3D benchmarks (for ones with iGPUs), sure; but multispectrum benchmarks have shown it's still generally outcompeted by most x86 chips targeted at the same market, drastically in some cases: https://www.phoronix.com/review/apple-m2-amd-ryzen https://www.phoronix.com/review/apple-m2-amd-ryzen Apple's claims have always been that it performs better per watt, which is true; and that it's more efficient for quite a few common use cases (JavaScript execution, compositing, etc), especially when battery life is a concern.

Sparkyte 3y ago
There really isn't much of a perf difference between X86 and ARM these days. Generally CISC vs RISC argument this would devolve into but they all have instruction sets that either optimize performance or introduce ways to handle complex or reduced instructions in their own way. RISC has only the benefit of being simple out of the box if designed that way and can have a lower power draw simply because. CISC is complex out of the box so it has more draw out of the box.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > There really isn't much of a perf difference between X86 and ARM these days. We're not talking ISAs here or any sort of ideological argument regarding instruction set design. We're talking concrete architectural implementations. I linked specific benchmarks that show very real differences in a wide set of benchmarks. Particularly more generalized ones than the use cases the M-series is optimized for. If we take both companies' words to heart that their architectures recieved a 20% uplift, it would carry through that the gap would be similar today. Especially with the Ryzen 8000 around the corner, which is claimed/expected to have an even stronger single-core IPC uplift than 6000->7000.
  - oyashirochama 3y ago
    5XXX, there was no 6XXX series, it was a rebrand of mixed Zen+ Zen 2 and Zen 3 cored CPUs. Bandwidth is the only real issue with AMD CPUs in comparison to Intel, and typically an advantage of Apple vs AMD though. Chiplet disadvantages vs monolithic design, much easier to perfect binning, much harder to get equal cross-core utilization.
threeseed 3y ago
> let alone outcompetes them. Because depending on your use case it does. If you're doing anything with media the dedicated codec silicon and Neural Engine makes a huge difference.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  If you read past the first sentence/synopsis, you would see that that was acknowledged. Not sure what the point of restating that is.
wood_spirit 3y ago
I got the M1 MBP a few years ago and it was about twice as fast as my reasonable desktop at the time on simple things like compiling code. And it was silent. It was the silence that wowed me. Didn’t want to turn my desktop on again after that.
- metabagel 3y ago
  My workstation at home is pretty silent. But, I designed and built it that way. It’s a lot bigger than anything Apple sells though - big tower case.
- jeppester 3y ago
  When my colleagues got their M1s, they were about as fast as the then 6 years old 4 core i5 I was using at the time. That is somewhat impressive, but I find it hard to believe that a reasonable desktop was only half as fast as an M1. I'm thinking if that difference was due to Windows' slow file system rather than the machine itself. For instance there's is a large performance delta between Windows and Linux when compiling JavaScript.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    > they were about as fast as the then 6 years old 4 core i5 I was using at the time No they were faster than your old quad core i5. My M1 Pro laptop has a Geekbench 6 score of 12,626. My Ryzen 5600X desktop (6 cores, faster than a quad i5) has a Geekbench score of 8,583.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      Stop using Geekbench to "prove" how fast your CPU is. It's one aspect of benchmarking, not the totality. It doesn't cover the vast majority of generic benchmarks. It covers "common use case" ones, which is exactly what the Apple engineers target. That's not a bad thing, but as mentioned in the OP there are over a hundred things it sucks at, and a few dozen more it barely keeps up at. Even if it's awesome at executing JS code.
thefz 3y ago
> Apple's claims have always been that it performs better per watt And that may be true. My RPI2 is impressive at performance per watt, still my 5800X or even a 3900X blow it away at almost every workload. Girlfriend's M1 side to side with any of my desktops is just noticeably slower in everything.

Sparkyte 3y ago

Probably the same. Or maybe even 45-55w. ARM can be just as thirsty as X86. There just isn't an excuse for desktop processors to be as thirsty these days.

Xixi 3y ago

According to this site [1] it's 30W for the Apple M3 Max. Not sure how reliable that site is. EDIT: according to CPU Monkey [2] it's 45W. All these websites don't seem so reliable... [1] https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu/apple-m3-max https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu/apple-m3-max [2] https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m3_max_14_cpu_30_gpu-vs-apple_m3_pro_11_cpu_14_gpu https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m3_max_14_cp...

rsynnott 3y ago
To add to the confusion, manufacturer quoted TDP has been kinda nonsense for years, too; many Intel chips in particular will happily go significantly over their alleged TDP for fairly normal workloads.
- ac29 3y ago
  Intel doesnt use TDP anymore. There are base (PL1) and turbo (PL2) power levels, and the numbers given are actually pretty accurate.

Salgat 3y ago

Not to discount power efficiency, but is anyone that's buying a Max worried about paying for an extra 30W of power usage?

alphabettsy 3y ago
Yes. It’s nice to have that performance while unplugged and lower power usage generally means less heat which means quiet.