Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Silicon M1 Emulating x86 is Still Faster Than Every Other Mac in Single Core Benchmark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Single core execution? Must be really, really old applications. I’d be concerned if I had an application that didn’t support modern (as in 10-year old) technology and was still running. How about security, do the developers also ignore that. Maybe I’m missing your point
No, you will see the real life perf and differences. Hint: is far better than 5% in anything you will do
Based on what? Those measly 16 GB will make it much slower in practice for real life performance, that is, encoding video and such.
Based on intel mac mini 16gb ram vs dev kit mac mini with 16 gb ram and a12z
You will see. Dont take my words for it, you need to see for yourself, unified memory is blazing fast no need for ext bus or anything else
But if you know you need 32 or 64 gb ram , no wonder apple kept the intel mac mini for that
So you know it's only 4 performance cores right? And they're doing it with less power.
Your Mac Mini still works fine but it's 2020 now, I don't know why you don't find this exciting.
I remember those days as well, although my first GPU was I believe a Rage Pro(?) in a PM 6500 for video capture, which I guess came with a Rage II GPU onboard as well.
They probably seem like worlds apart because they are?
Again, the M1 is a 4-core chip with a TDP of 15-20W, targeted at ultralights and $700 computers at the bottom of Apple's range; the RTX 3080 FE lists for $700 by itself and has a TDP of 320W. Two entire Mac Minis draw less than that at peak rated power.
The M1's GPU cores are competing with Inte's Iris Xe, not a high-end dedicated power-hungry GPU targeted at serious gamers. They basically have nothing to do with each other, and while you can certainly run the same benchmark on both, it's not particularly meaningful.
There's a reason the M1 isn't going into the 16" MBP or 27" iMac or iMac Pro--they are different machines with different needs. The M1X or P1 or whatever ends up in them will have a different thermal envelope than the M1, will have a different onboard GPU, and may support an external GPU as well.
We'll have an idea of where Apple is with low-power GPU performance once we see more M1 benchmarks, but no one in their right mind would expect the M1 to be competing with a 320 Watt GPU any more than they'd be expecting it to compete in multi-core performance with a 280 Watt 64-core Threadripper.
Given that I just bought an iMac that has a built-in GPU with 16GB of dedicated graphics RAM, thousands of shading units, and a TDP of 130W, and Apple sells Pro computers with significantly higher performance GPUs than that, there's a reason the M1 isn't going into the higher-end Macs. For the same reason that Apple isn't having the M1 replace a 10+ core CPU (although the performance is impressively close thanks to the staggering single-core performance), or trying to have it satisfy users in the market for computers that can handle 128GB of RAM, it's not directly competing with bigger-iron GPUs.
It's a pretty safe bet that whatever ends up in the high-end Macs will have at least comparable GPU performance. I personally suspect that at least for the foreseeable future that's going to involve an outboard NVIDA or AMD GPU, but Apple has more money in the couch cushions than AMD's entire market cap, so they are certainly capable in theory of cranking out a chip or series of chips with an exotic architecture and vast number of GPU cores if that was the goal.
I dunno $400 bucks cheaper for a comparable config is a good reason to start with.
Graphics performance better than an RX570 or GTX1050ti is another.
The multicore performance is only going to useful in certain Apps that can avail of it, single core is far more meaningful for the vast majority of applications in everyday use and it gains massively.
And this is only the lower end Quad i3 Mini replacement I'd guess seeing as thats what they were comparing it to.
Very intrigued by these m1 machines and can’t wait for real usage report. I occasionally play World of Warcraft on my older MacBook Pro. Will I be able to play it on the new M1 machines?
Time to get an account on Azure and create a Windows VM there. You only pay for it when it is switched on. You can use it with your Mac and your iPad. Or with a browser. Or even Android. From anywhere.
Also, if you depend on Windows XP apps, some people at your company are simply not doing their job.
Last edited:
those benchmarks are clearly tricked...
on single core... ok ok
then where are my other 7 cores?
M1 is an amazing chipset but do not try to scam people please
amazing chipset for a mobile/tablet
on single core... ok ok
then where are my other 7 cores?
M1 is an amazing chipset but do not try to scam people please
amazing chipset for a mobile/tablet
You can have a Windows system and just VNC into it when you need to run Windows. Or you can run Windows and VNC into an M1 system.
Why do not compare with Tiger Lake instead of 2years old machine?
would be the fair comparison
Fastest Tiger Lake Geekbench 5 is 1551/5473.
Update: on the first page. They aren't sorted. This is a fairly high score. Most scores are lower.
Memory has little to do with encoding. It appears from your posts you have a pretty minimal understanding of computational methods that modern computers use for different scenarios. Knowing how integrated memory, TDP, and “GPU” cores are used for optimizing common scenarios would be helpful if you endeavor for an improved appreciation.
One needs only look at what’s possible on an iPad Pro then extrapolate to the higher TDPs available on an M1 (then extrapolate more to the TDPs on common desktop and server configurations) to see how big of a deal this is.
well.. you are right
Tiger Lake-H (the 8cores tiger lake chipset is not yet on the market), will release between January-March along Rocket Lake
but dev benchmarks had shown the chipset already
You seem to know your stuff. How would they scale up this now? Seeing as it's already got 8 cores for the next step up would they just look to go to 16 cores and then 32 cores for the high end machines? Or would multiple processors be the way forward? When you scale up cores like that, apart from heat are there other foreseeable problems or reasons why they shouldn't? I assume if they're still running this at 5w, then double cores only makes it 10w and easily heat controllable still, so no issues there for say 24" iMacs - and then 32 cores for desktop and large iMacs. Or do you see another way for them to ramp the power up?
Interesting that the benchmarks showed up early this morning. Maybe in response to Apple benchmarks instead of AMD benchmarks.
On the MacBook Pro 13, Apple is giving you a faster CPU, two fewer USB ports, and no RAM upgrade option and the cost is $400 less. I think that Apple doesn't need several other chips now as well. How will Intel fare with this new pricing regime? Keep in mind that this will be Apple's low-end chip. These 8-core Tiger Lake CPUs aren't Intel's low-end, right?
No, it is more like we have finally caught up. Apple was often criticized for its poor performance compared to its peer group in the desktop space. Intel dramatically influenced Apple's ability to compete in the Mac space by the release schedule of the x86 processors. Often, Intel would release a high power version of their new chip before they released a power optimized version. Since Apple does not use the high power devices they were always left waiting and put behind the performance curve because of the wait.
With the new Apple Silicon, all of Apple's hardware design innovations can really shine because they will compare and compete more directly without being handicapped by being behind the performance curve out of the starting block. This is why M1 is so game changing For Apple.