7 ms·
Base models only: - M1 | 5 nm | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 7–8 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 68.25 GB/s | Unified Memory: 16 GB
by hereme888 1y ago
Base models only:
- M1 | 5 nm | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 7–8 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 68.25 GB/s | Unified Memory: 16 GB | Geekbench6 ~2346 / 8346
- M2 | 5 nm (G2) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~2586 / 9672
- M3 | 3 nm (first-gen) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~2965 / 11565
- M4 | 3 nm (second-gen) | 10 (4P+6E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 120 GB/s | Unified Memory: 32 GB | Geekbench6 ~3822 / 15031
- M5 | 3 nm (third-gen) | 10 (4P+6E) | GPU 10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 153 GB/s | Unified Memory: up to 32 GB | Geekbench6 ~4133 / 15,437 (9-core sample)
- gigatexal 1y agoAmazing. My M3Max is going to look like a paper-weight very soon. And that's fine by me. When I get an M6 or M7Max to replace it it'll be amazing.
- bombcar 1y agoI’m trying to find any reason I can that my M1 Max needs replacement; it’s hard. How do you justify it?
- alexeldeib 1y agoFun one: https://incident.io/blog/festive-macbooks https://incident.io/blog/festive-macbooks
- nu11ptr 1y agoI am in the same boat as my Rust compile times are solid. I'm good for now, but with the M4 max twice as fast, upgrading to the M5 max next year could be a tempting upgrade.
- djtriptych 1y agoSame. I have an M1 Max Studio and it's just laughing at the little workloads I throw at it (pro photo editing, music production, software dev, generally all at the same time). It just never sweats AT ALL - it feels like a decade from obsolescence based on what I'm doing now. It would have to be an order of magnitude faster for me to even notice at this point.
- kinnth 1y agoyup I'm an M1 max laptop, i actually went upto an m4 pro and went back the m1 max, it could handle more trading screens!
- oblio 1y agoYou're not opening enough Chrome tabs. Or Electron apps.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- andrepd 1y agoYou're clearly running low-intensity tasks (pro photo editing, music production, software dev, generally all at the same time) instead of highly-demanding ones (1 jira tab)
- djtriptych 1y agolol
- zahirbmirza 1y agoObsolescence for Macs comes when Apple decides not to allow your mac update the OS to the latest one.
- phony-account 1y ago> Obsolescence for Macs comes when Apple decides not to allow your mac update the OS to the latest one. That doesn’t make it obsolete, at all.
- montebicyclelo 1y agoOn the contrary; now might be a good time to get an M1 Max laptop. A second hand one, ex-corporate, in good condition, with 64Gb RAM, is pretty good value, compared to new laptops at the same price. It's still a fantastic CPU.
- ozarkerD 1y agoThat's what I did, bought a used one with 64GB and a dent in the back for ~$1k a year back or so. Some of the best money i've ever spent.
- simondotau 1y agoHonestly the only Apple Silicon e-waste has been their 8GB models. And even those are still perfectly good for most people so long as they use Safari rather than Chrome.
- runlaszlorun 1y agoDoes Safari use less RAM?
- throwaway31131 1y agoData maybe somewhat dated and I haven’t measured it myself but, “Per his findings, Chrome used 290MB of RAM per open tab, while Safari only used 12MB of RAM per open tab.” https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/20/chrome-safari-ram-test/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/20/chrome-safari-ram-test/
- andrei_says_ 1y agoWhere would one look for ex-corporate MacBook pros?
- montebicyclelo 1y agoAt your own risk — one place is ebay sellers with a large number of positive reviews, (and not much negative), who are selling lots of the same type of MacBook pros. My assumption is they've got a bunch of corporate laptops to sell off.
- smith7018 1y agoYou should wait until next Fall if you don't really need to replace your M1 Max. Rumors say that Apple's going to redesign the Macbook Pros next year with an OLED screen.
- kossTKR 1y agoFor the love of god remove the notch, that's the only idiotic branding vestige left.
- mort96 1y agoAnd put the web cam where? The notch is bigger than it should be for sure, I would've loved for it to be narrower. But I don't really mind the trade-off it represents. You could add half an inch of screen bezel and make the machine bigger, just to fit the web cam. Or you could remove half an inch of screen , essentially making the "notch" stretch across the whole top of the laptop. Or you could find some compromised place to put the camera, like those Dell laptops which put the camera near the hinge. Or you can let the screen fill the whole lid of the laptop, with a cut-out for the camera, and design the GUI such that the menu bar fills the part of the screen that's interrupted by the notch. I personally don't mind that last option. For my needs, it might very well be the best alternative. If I needed a bigger below-the-notch area, I could get the 16" option instead of the 14" option.
- hu3 1y agoDell XPS has webcam, no notch and same o bezel as macbooks. Maybe it's a patent thing.
- mort96 1y agoThey have the solution with the web cam near the hinge that I mentioned. I had a couple of Dell XPS laptops like that. It's fine if the webcam is really just an afterthought for you, but it does mean the webcam has a very unflattering angle that's looking up your nostrils. I use my webcam enough these days to take part in video meetings that it'd be a pretty big problem for me.
- gigatexal 1y agoI do a lot with VMs, and other memory intensive things so I went with 128GB of ram. I'm hoping for a laptop with 256GB+ in a few generations and one with more or less double the oomph would be nice. Everything can be faster, bring it on!
- dgacmu 1y agoI finally replaced my m1 mini because of memory capacity (16GB doesn't cut it for me and jumping to 64 was worth it), but I'm having the same feeling about my M1 pro MBP with 32GB. It just still works so well for nearly everything I do. I'm guessing the m5 pro may support 64GB but...
- varispeed 1y agoI have M1 Max 32GB and I think I'll go with M5 Max simply because I need more RAM. I am constantly swapping about 16GB. I don't feel it that much, but it bothers me.
- zer0zzz 1y agoI have an easy one: asahi Linux only runs on m1 and m2 at the moment
- dzhiurgis 1y agoWeird timing but my m1 started lag out recently. Must be just in my head.
- winstonp 1y agoRumor has it M6 Pro will be a total redesign. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on how much you trust Apple to nail a next gen design first try again
- throw0101d 1y ago> How do you justify it? * I want it. * I have met all my other financial obligations. * I do not have to go into debt for it. * QED
- SchemaLoad 1y agoYou'd also want to evaluate what it lets you do which improves your life rather than just "I want it"
- saagarjha 1y agoI think you misunderstood the sentiment behind the comment
- timcobb 1y agoCompilation times?
- nine_k 1y agoRunning AI inference faster, of course!
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago> How do you justify it? Local LLMs.
- gigatexal 1y agoYup LM studio loves ram.
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoThey love unified memory and they love beefy more numerous GPU cores. They definitely love the memory bandwidth the M5 Max would bring to the table.
- croemer 1y agoPersonal workloads that benefit from upgrade: Running a Python script that's CPU limited, aligning genomes in parallel on all cores. It's common that I need to wait 2min for those tasks to complete. Shaving off 30s for faster iteration loop. is meaningful.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoDid a M1 Max (32 GiB, 1 TB -> 64 GiB, 4 TB - Z14X000HR) upgrade in early 2024 for ~$1800 USD with ~20 battery cycles and 99% battery health. Avoiding *os 28 because I refuse unusable, battery-wasting bling.
- rootusrootus 1y agoI was thinking similar thoughts about my M2 Max MBP. I look at the newer chips and wonder at what point will (or has it happened already) will the base M chip outperform my M2 Max? I'll probably hold onto it a while anyway -- I think it will be a while before I find 96GB limiting or the CPU slow enough for my purposes, but I'd still like to know how things are progressing.
- lagadu 1y agoBase M4 was already slightly outperforming the M2 Max in CPU. GPU-wise it's nowhere near close.
- grishka 1y agoMy M1 Max works just fine. Everything is as snappy as it was the day I bought it. I don't see any reason it might need a replacement any time soon. (The fact that I don't install major system updates unless absolutely necessary probably helps too)
- B1FF_PSUVM 1y agoThank you. Looking at replacing an Intel MacBook Air, I hope there are price drops on the "outdated" M4s (although an M2 phased out early this year would do well enough...)
- testing22321 1y agoI replaced an intel MacBook Pro with a used m1 air. By far the fastest computer I have ever used. Massive, massive leap.
- stefanfisk 1y agoYeah, going from Intel to M1 is IMHO somewhat comparable to going from HDD to SSD.
- nu11ptr 1y agoThe step down from 32GB to 24GB of unified memory is interesting. Theories? Perhaps they decided M4 allowed too much memory in the standard chip and they want to create a larger differential with Pro/Max chips? Update: I am thinking the 24GB for M5 is a typo. I see on Apple's site the 14 inch MBP can be configured optionally with 32GB of RAM.
- makeramen 1y agoThat seems like a typo or incorrect info, the M5 MBP definitely can be configured up to 32 GB, and the Apple page mentions 32 GB explicitly as well.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- christkv 1y agothe still have an option for 32GB
- eftychis 1y agoI had the same question, but I can only speculate at the moment. The cynical part of me thinks in a similar line: create an artificial differentiation and push people to upgrade. If anyone has any real clues that they can share pseudonymously, that would be great. Not sure which department drove that change.
- brailsafe 1y agoThey definitely do that. You could get 64gb ram without going up to the top spec of the Max tier of CPU in the M1 and M2 generations, but with the M4 Pro you can only do 24 or 48gb, while on the lower spec M4 Max you can only do 36gb and nothing else, only the absolute best CPU can do 64, therefore if you were otherwise going to get the 48gb m4 pro, you'd have to spend another ~$1200 USD to get another 16gb of ram if all you cared about was ram. There may be a technical explanation for it, but incentives are incentives.
- ElijahLynn 1y agoThank you! Since this is the top rated comment, can you also add M1 and M2 as well?
- LarsDu88 1y agoDoes this mean the M5 is serious as fast as my intel 13900 cpu?
- zer0zzz 1y agoEasily yes
- mrheosuper 1y agoyup, but your 13900 is likely attached to an oversize heatsink
- LarsDu88 1y agoGlow in the dark water cooled heating, yes
- rick_dalton 1y agoThe multi-core geekbench score for the M5 is the 9 core version iirc. The 10 core score isn't out yet as far as I know.
- morshu9001 1y agoAnd the fastest M4 max was already fastest single and multicore CPU by a decent margin, while the fastest non-Apple CPU was only specialized for single or multi.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoThe single thread performance for modern high performance CPUs are all very close to each other. Apple's latest usually has a small advantage because they're the first to use TSMC's latest nodes, which is good for something like 15-20%. The fastest multicore CPUs are the ones with a lot of cores, e.g. 64+ core Threadrippers. These have approximately the same single-core performance as everything else from the same generation because single-core performance isn't affected much by number of cores or TDP, and they use the same cores. Everyone also uses Geekbench to compare things to Apple CPUs but the latest Geekbench multi-core is trash: https://dev.to/dkechag/how-geekbench-6-multicore-is-broken-by-design-44ig https://dev.to/dkechag/how-geekbench-6-multicore-is-broken-b...
- morshu9001 1y agoI was going by Geekbench. If it's broken then yeah.
- emn13 1y agoIt's not trash - it's quite nice for its niche. It's just not very scalable with cores, so it's best interpreted as a benchmark of lightly threaded workloads - like lots of typical consumer workloads are (gaming, web browsing, light office work). Then again, it's not hard to find workloads that scale much better, and geekbench 6 doesn't really have a benchmark for those. For the first 8 threads or so, it's fine. Once you hit 20 or so it's questionable, or at least that's my impression.
- morshu9001 1y agoI get how even for multithreaded workloads, having a few fast cores is often better than the equivalent many slow cores. Or NUMA. There can be value in a test like 8 threads full load regardless of how many cores there are. But Geekbench 6 isn't that either, at least according to the chart showing sharply diminishing returns after 2 cores.
- jjcm 1y agoThey're going to have a hard time selling the M5 when compared to the M4 Pro. Geekbench for that chip is 3843/22332, which is slightly slower for single core but better for multi, but also has thunderbolt 5 instead of 4.
- GeekyBear 1y agoThe numbers for M5 Geekbench are for the binned iPad Pro version with one performance core disabled. It's the only M5 device that leaked to the public early.
- jjcm 1y agoThank you, I didn't realize this.
- NetMageSCW 1y agoFortunately they will be selling the M5 Pro against the M4 Pro (and more likely, their expectation is no one with the current Pro is going to upgrade for one generation) so it will be easier.
- jay_kyburz 1y agoSerious questions. How is Asahi these days? Is it ready as a daily driver? Is it getting support from Apple or are they hostile to it? Are there missing features? And can I run KDE on it?
- jay_kyburz 1y agonevermind. Found this. Still a ways to go. https://asahilinux.org/docs/platform/feature-support/m4/#table-of-contents https://asahilinux.org/docs/platform/feature-support/m4/#tab...
- zargon 1y agoAsahi will probably only ever be feasible for years-old hardware. macOS is a total non-starter for me, so maybe one day I’ll end up with one of these, but only as some kind of tertiary / retro machine.
- ar_lan 1y agoWhy is it a non-starter for you?
- jay_kyburz 1y agoNot the OP, but its a non starter for me because, I _was_ a mac guy for 10 years or so, but I changed job to one that required I use windows for game dev, and I discovered how locked in I was, and how painful it was to change. I'm not going back, no matter how nice the hardware is.
- filmgirlcw 1y agoYeah, given all the people with passion/ability for low-level reverse engineering have left the project, I don’t think we should ever expect to get greater than M2 support from Asahi. Maybe one day another project will pick up the ideas, but for anyone not wanting to use years old hardware, the dream of Linux almost natively existing on modern Apple silicon remains just that: a dream.
- alberth 1y agoDid TSMC 2nm slip to next year, or was it always planned to be 2026?
- hooch 1y agoAlways been one more iteration of 3nm in the plan
- runjake 1y agoLet's see if I can turn this into an ASCII table and have it survive HN's reformatting. +------+------------------+--------------+----------+----------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+ | Chip | Process | CPU Cores | GPU | Neural Engine | Memory Bandwidth | Unified Memory | Geekbench6 (Single/Multi) | +------+------------------+--------------+----------+----------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+ | M1 | 5 nm | 8 (4P+4E) | 7–8 | 16-core Neural | 68.25 GB/s | 16 GB | ~2346 / 8346 | | M2 | 5 nm (G2) | 8 (4P+4E) | 8–10 | 16-core Neural | 100 GB/s | 24 GB | ~2586 / 9672 | | M3 | 3 nm (first-gen) | 8 (4P+4E) | 8–10 | 16-core Neural | 100 GB/s | 24 GB | ~2965 / 11565 | | M4 | 3 nm (second-gen)| 10 (4P+6E) | 8–10 | 16-core Neural | 120 GB/s | 32 GB | ~3822 / 15031 | | M5 | 3 nm (third-gen) | 10 (4P+6E) | 10 | 16-core Neural | 153 GB/s | up to 32 GB | ~4133 / 15437 (9-core) | +------+------------------+--------------+----------+----------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
- PeterCorless 1y agoYou've done yeoman's work, lad.
- jacobolus 1y agoOr to fit in a narrower window: Chip | Process | CPU | GPU | Neural | Memory | Unified | Geekbench6 | | Cores | | Engine | Bandwidth | Memory | Single / Multi -----|---------|-----------|------|---------|-------------|---------|---------------------- M1 | 5 nm G1 | 8: 4P+4E | 7–8 | 16-core | 68.25 GB/s | 16 GB | 2346 / 8346 M2 | 5 nm G2 | 8: 4P+4E | 8–10 | 16-core | 100 GB/s | 24 GB | 2586 / 9672 M3 | 3 nm G1 | 8: 4P+4E | 8–10 | 16-core | 100 GB/s | 24 GB | 2965 / 11565 M4 | 3 nm G2 | 10: 4P+6E | 8–10 | 16-core | 120 GB/s | 32 GB | 3822 / 15031 M5 | 3 nm G3 | 10: 4P+6E | 10 | 16-core | 153 GB/s | ≤32 GB | 4133 / 15437 (9 core)
- 1y ago
- LordDragonfang 1y agoInteresting to see that over 5 years (M1 was 2020), the benchmark performance has not quite doubled. Is this an indictment of Moore's law, or just Apple over-speccing the M1 and slowly decreasing that over time?
- imoverclocked 1y agoMoore's law has never been an absolute and it's also about the number of transistors per mm/^2 ... not speed. Sometimes progress is a little faster and sometimes it's a little slower.
- hinkley 1y agoMore than double the memory bandwidth. Processors can't do much while they're stalled waiting for data to load.
- hinkley 1y agoThat's a lot of memory bandwidth. Kinda surprised geekbench doesn't benefit more from the fatter pipe.
- rldjbpin 1y agojust looking at this, this is yet another tock phase, breaking the two-year cyclic pattern. the boost seems mainly due to higher memory bandwidth and slightly different architecture.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]