Apple Silicon M1 Emulating x86 is Still Faster Than Every Other Mac in Single Core Benchmark

[tbirdparis]

This is crazy, if true! I mean i'd love to see how it handles Logic Pro X!? I'm leaning towards the Mac Mini, 16gb 1TB, or MacBook Pro, but I have a feeling that in 2021 these may look slow when they release an iMac with M-chip or a MacBook Pro 16" with M-chip....
Decisions, decisions...

They already made a (pretty vague) statement on how well it runs Logic, a fairly general remark that you can run three times as many plug ins as you could before. By "before" I presume they mean on the equivalent previous Intel model. As for the plug ins they tested, I think I saw some small print that said they ran Amp designers, or maybe some reverbs as well. But definitely only stock plug ins, no mention of anything 3rd party, especially given few if any are native for Apple Silicon yet. As a general rule of thumb from even from a vague test like this, it looks like the performance should be pretty great.

You'll want to keep in mind btw that unless you only use the built in plug ins and instruments in Logic, there's going to be a wait before 3rd party ones are native. Also, I read on a music pro forum that if you want to use even one non-native plug in, you may have to run the Rosetta translated Intel version of Logic as well. I'd need to see some confirmation of this to be sure, but the source was an email from the developer of a different DAW (I think Cubase). Basically they said that you can't mix and match native AU plug ins and ones that are translated by Rosetta 2. So you either have to wait till every 3rd party plug in and instrument you need is available native, or run the entire DAW as a Rosetta 2 translated app for the Intel plug ins to work. It could be different for Logic though.

I'd also be careful buying now if you're someone who uses a lot of very large sound libraries, like orchestral instruments in Kontakt. 16GB of RAM is probably fine for general music production, but if you use big libraries, you'll want a lot more and you'd be better off waiting for the next wave of machines that will offer it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

In 30 years of building my own systems:
No. Never.

Wow. You have much better luck than I have. I think I might even have had to do it on my NeXT Cube a few times when I brought it home from Geneva.

Don't buy cheap garbage cases, and moving the machine around doesn't cause the case/board to flex which means nothing pops out.

I do not buy cheap cases, but I am not talking about moving around my office, I am talking about taking on air planes or vehicles to film shoots.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I'm really curious if Apple will ever produce a higher end iMac without a monitor.

They make two of them, the Mac mini, and the Mac Pro. Both are headless Macintosh systems. Not what what you mean by an iMac without a monitor if you do not think that is what they are.

 

[aleni]

Having had a 13inch and then upgrading to a 16inch, I really don't think I would want to make the trip back to the 13inch. The screen has spoiled me, and the speakers are something else.

I think I will be waiting until next year when we have a 16inch M machine before I consider anything. My current machine is great, if not a bit noisy if I do anything graphically intensive, but hey, I have silence to look forward to.

agreed. That’s a pretty silly thing to do to switch from intel 16” 2019 to the 13” m1. Looking forward to the 16” AS.

 

[uller6]

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.

I’m at a university, we don’t have people who write apps for us or enough money to buy new things
My iMac Pro should last another 5-6 years, and hopefully in that time x86 emulation on Apple silicon will be fast enough to run a virtual machine. I do have physical hardware running XP as a backup, but its much easier, and I prefer, to do the work on my Mac.

 

[Neberheim]

I'm talking about multicore score / number of cores. Multicore is the only measure of relevance here.

EDIT: Like this:

Mac mini (Late 2020)
Apple M1 @ 3.2 GHz (8 cores) 7643

Mac mini (Late 2018)
Intel Core i7-8700B @ 3.2 GHz (6 cores) 5476

7643 / 8 = 955
5476 / 6 = 913

A 5% difference for a machine that is 2 years newer. So what is the hoopla about, again??

This isn’t my area of expertise, but that doesn’t seem a valid way to compare two different architectures, right? It seems like performance per watt is the only valid comparison. In my head this seems like dividing vehicle performance by the number of wheels (e.g. car, motorcycle, AWD) instead of by the displacement of the engine. Especially considering the efficiency cores (like 6 tires on a dualie truck?), and if I’m not mistaken the fact that ARM doesn’t hyperthread like x86.

Even using your numbers, wouldn’t comparing threads make more sense than cores?
M1 7643 / 8 = 955 (71% difference)
i7 5476 / 12 = 456

or counting the four efficiency cores as two performance cores:
M1 7643 / 6 = 1274 (95% difference)

I think that’s why performance per watt is the only valid comparison, but maybe someone like @cmaier can correct me.

 

[cmaier]

This isn’t my area of expertise, but that doesn’t seem a valid way to compare two different architectures, right? It seems like performance per watt is the only valid comparison. In my head this seems like dividing vehicle performance by the number of wheels (e.g. car, motorcycle, AWD) instead of by the displacement of the engine. Especially considering the efficiency cores (like 6 tires on a dualie truck?), and if I’m not mistaken the fact that ARM doesn’t hyperthread like x86. Using your numbers, wouldn’t comparing threads make more sense?
M1 7643 / 8 = 955 (71% difference)
i7 5476 / 12 = 456

or counting the four efficiency cores as two performance cores:
M1 7643 / 6 = 1274 (95% difference)

I think that’s why performance per watt is the only valid comparison, but maybe someone like @cmaier can correct me.

If we are going to arbitrarily divide by number of cores, doesn’t make sense to divide by 8 for the M1 - 4 of them are intended primarily for background and low priority tasks.

What apple’s done is make a 4 cylinder car that is faster than an 8 cylinder car and gets double the gas mileage.

In a couple of months they’ll release a 6- or 8-cylinder car, which will still get better gas mileage and will blow the doors off the competing 8 cylinder cars.

 

[Neberheim]

If we are going to arbitrarily divide by number of cores, doesn’t make sense to divide by 8 for the M1 - 4 of them are intended primarily for background and low priority tasks.

What apple’s done is make a 4 cylinder car that is faster than an 8 cylinder car and gets double the gas mileage.

In a couple of months they’ll release a 6- or 8-cylinder car, which will still get better gas mileage and will blow the doors off the competing 8 cylinder cars.

So am I correct in assuming that performance per watt is a valid way to compare different architectures, or at least has more validity than macdos’s multicore method? Is there a better metric?

I appreciate you running with the car analogy 👍🏽

 

[terpsbball2002]

Omg, please release one with 32GB.

 

[thedocbwarren]

I love macOS. Period.

I use a lot of software, like Maya, Ableton Live, Cubase, Studio One, tons of audio plugins, financial & accounting stuff, brokerage stuff, Papyrus, Jetbrains Toolbox, Adobe Cloud...

So going full Linux isn't an option anyway. However, I do have multiple Linux servers and use them remote from my Mac. Mostly for large databases and number crunching.

I'm really curious if Apple will ever produce a higher end iMac without a monitor. Especially because it's nearly 2021 and I think not just most enthusiasts will soon use ultra widescreen monitors. It's just brilliant to work with these. I'm curious if Apple will really go for iMacs with UW monitors or stick with 27". Who wants a 27" if you have an UW already on your desk? And who wants to pay a $2000 premium for an Apple with UW monitor if you have one already?

P.S.: And who the hell would want to take an ultra widescreen iMac to a Genius Bar? I would have to rent a transporter and someone to help me for that.

Yup I agree, why I own so many macs myself. I do like the idea of a high-end machine without a monitor. I've bought Mac Pros many times (can't now, too expensive.) Hackintoshs are a thing, but honestly a lot of trouble. Never wanted an iMac because I always have nice monitors. Mac Mini Apple Silicon seems like a nice option.

 

[steve123]

Thanks for the explanation. Do you think without real competition intel have not been very innovative in the past but with the new M1, there will be a shift in increase and higher performing chips from intel in the near future?

I think Intel is innovative, no question. They would not be where they are otherwise. Apple was being tethered and the M1 released the teather. Putting that all aside, I think the historical event of most import that crystalized Apple's resolved to transition was security. The x86 side channel vulnerabilities disclosed several years ago and Intel's response motivated Apple to commit to the transition.

 

[cmaier]

So am I correct in assuming that performance per watt is a valid way to compare different architectures, or at least has more validity than macdos’s multicore method? Is there a better metric?

I appreciate you running with the car analogy 👍🏽

Performance per watt is the best way to evaluate different architectures generally, yes. Or, depending on the purpose of your comparison, per dollar.

Generally the way I look at it is that I look at two machines with similar prices and form factors. In this case we can compare the intel version of each mac to the m1.

If our goal is to speculate what the upper limit is - how will a ”high end” version of M1 for MBP 16” top-of-the-line, or iMac Pro, etc. perform, then performance per watt tells us a lot. We can see that Apple can easily add 2+2 more cores, plus 2 or 4 graphics cores, and still be well within the power budget of those machines.

 

[throAU]

I do not buy cheap cases, but I am not talking about moving around my office, I am talking about taking on air planes or vehicles to film shoots.

Carted my own machines around in my car plenty. Including 600 km road trip. No issues.

 

[throAU]

So am I correct in assuming that performance per watt is a valid way to compare different architectures, or at least has more validity than macdos’s multicore method? Is there a better metric?

Performance per watt is basically the key these days.

In a laptop: obvious - you have a power budget
In a desktop/server: you are cooling limited and more power = more heat. Not sure if you've been in a datacenter before, but even there (definitely there!), cooling is a big deal. More cooling = more air conditioning = more power on top of the more power you needed to drive your processors...

The typical "reasonable" desktop power budgets are say 100w for a desktop CPU and 200 watts or so for a server CPU.

Laptops depends on class - typically 15w for ultrabook, 30w for pro 13" notebook and say 45w for a 16" class notebook.

 

[DeepIn2U]

They already made a (pretty vague) statement on how well it runs Logic, a fairly general remark that you can run three times as many plug ins as you could before. By "before" I presume they mean on the equivalent previous Intel model. As for the plug ins they tested, I think I saw some small print that said they ran Amp designers, or maybe some reverbs as well. But definitely only stock plug ins, no mention of anything 3rd party, especially given few if any are native for Apple Silicon yet. As a general rule of thumb from even from a vague test like this, it looks like the performance should be pretty great.

You'll want to keep in mind btw that unless you only use the built in plug ins and instruments in Logic, there's going to be a wait before 3rd party ones are native. Also, I read on a music pro forum that if you want to use even one non-native plug in, you may have to run the Rosetta translated Intel version of Logic as well. I'd need to see some confirmation of this to be sure, but the source was an email from the developer of a different DAW (I think Cubase). Basically they said that you can't mix and match native AU plug ins and ones that are translated by Rosetta 2. So you either have to wait till every 3rd party plug in and instrument you need is available native, or run the entire DAW as a Rosetta 2 translated app for the Intel plug ins to work. It could be different for Logic though.

I'd also be careful buying now if you're someone who uses a lot of very large sound libraries, like orchestral instruments in Kontakt. 16GB of RAM is probably fine for general music production, but if you use big libraries, you'll want a lot more and you'd be better off waiting for the next wave of machines that will offer it.

Apple also specifically mentioned how many more tracks you can play simultaneous I believe ... not just plugins. Can someone verify?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple also specifically mentioned how many more tracks you can play simultaneous I believe ... not just plugins. Can someone verify?

Up to 3 times more instruments and effect plugins.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Up to 3 times more instruments and effect plugins.

Gotta love that Barry White 'Playing Your Game Baby'

Thanks for the confirmation!!

 

[DeepIn2U]

I’m at a university, we don’t have people who write apps for us or enough money to buy new things
My iMac Pro should last another 5-6 years, and hopefully in that time x86 emulation on Apple silicon will be fast enough to run a virtual machine. I do have physical hardware running XP as a backup, but its much easier, and I prefer, to do the work on my Mac.

Well if you code ... seems like you've potentially found a niche customer for your efforts bargain reduced tuition and interest fees Hmmm?

- austin powers strikes again hahaha.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I depend on windows xp applications to do my job. It’s obviously not my choice, but I would much rather run a virtualized XP than keep a physical XP machine around. Sometimes you have a million dollar machine that can’t easily be replaced that happens to run windows XP and spit out data in a proprietary format. Life’s complicated.

I also use AutoCAD frequently. I’m in the small minority of users who have very specialized software needs that determine my flexibility. I’ve loved the long run of intel macs, but even before that I was running windows on PPC using virtualPC (very, very slowly). I hope something like virtualPC comes along and let’s me keep running my windows XP code.

You're serious?

The applications/code you need to run on Windows XP to spit out data cannot or has not yet been done on Windows 8 or Windows 10 thus far? Is the company that sourced such tools dead? Have you searched any particular windows tech forums/sites digging for a more modern solution?

Last time I heard of something like this it was with IBM's mainframe 3270 sessions and even those were running in a hosted VM environment and employees of Burlington Northern accessed it via legacy browser support over a decade ago. Took about 4yrs and finally they were able to move away from that.

Right now this is more than just a technical sticking point this is more a critical matter as Windows XP is not receiving any support whatsoever so anything that happens bad in that environment ... sorry to say but that's your butt out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

[cmaier]

You're serious?

The applications/code you need to run on Windows XP to spit out data cannot or has not yet been done on Windows 8 or Windows 10 thus far? Is the company that sourced such tools dead? Have you searched any particular windows tech forums/sites digging for a more modern solution?

Last time I heard of something like this it was with IBM's mainframe 3270 sessions and even those were running in a hosted VM environment and employees of Burlington Northern accessed it via legacy browser support over a decade ago. Took about 4yrs and finally they were able to move away from that.

Right now this is more than just a technical sticking point this is more a critical matter as Windows XP is not receiving any support whatsoever so anything that happens bad in that environment ... sorry to say but that's your butt out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I keep an old windows xp laptop In a closet for no other use than to reprogram a specific universal remote control, because the software i need is not available on other machines

 

[throAU]

The applications/code you need to run on Windows XP to spit out data cannot or has not yet been done on Windows 8 or Windows 10 thus far?

Some people refuse to spend money to keep platforms up to date.

Eventually it bites them in the ass when the hardware required to run their busted old ancient software no longer exists.

I had a friend who was in that situation (at his employer) with a robotic device of some kind that was dependent on DOS (or Win9x) and ISA slots for the controller card, meaning ancient PC motherboards.

Eventually something dies and you're screwed.

People running things like that who haven't been planning for that day for a decade by now are risking their business.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I keep an old windows xp laptop In a closet for no other use than to reprogram a specific universal remote control, because the software i need is not available on other machines

A universal remote? I know what those are but what do you have that you need to use that still requires this that a newer under $10 universal remote cannot resolve?

 

[cmaier]

A universal remote? I know what those are but what do you have that you need to use that still requires this that a newer under $10 universal remote cannot resolve?

I have a very complicated system (screen comes down from the ceiling, front projector and flat screen, overhead lighting, etc.)

$10 remote won’t cut it - you’d have to press a dozen buttons just to power on the amp, select the source, select which display to use, adjust the lighting, etc. My wife would divorce me.

 

[ian87w]

Here is what Apple didn't discuss in the November event and what happen if Intel is ready to launch a CPU build with 7nm.



View attachment 1668982

All intel needs to do is ship those better chips.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

All intel needs to do is ship those better chips.

When you think about it, me and Intel have had the same success at shipping 7nm. And, well, I’m not even trying.