Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First Geekbench Score Surfaces for MacBook Pro M1 Max With 2x Faster Multi-Core Performance Compared to M1

Fomalhaut said:
Humans are adept at filtering out things in their visual field that they don't want to see :)
Click to expand...
That I agree with, at least for things that one is ambivalent about, but on that same token, things that bother us, bother us and can't be ignored. Think about the Mini iPad and Jelly scroll -- I've seen "it cannot be unseen" several times, and the notch is exactly like that to me.

Illogical, yes, I agree, but that's the way it is. I wish the notch didn't bother me, but it does and is distracting because of that.
 
weaztek said:
I've been looking but have not seen one yet. For comparison sake, the Apple M1 score is ~21,000.
Click to expand...

that one i know

my 5700xt does around 75,000. i think think the 6900xt’s do around 175,000. long way to go still
 
deconstruct60 said:
Intel's discrete GPU are coming out on TMSC N6. I suspect they will have a better power curve than Nvidia's (and AMD's) stuff. And that mobile GPUs will be something they are more focused on. [ Not chasing the upper 25% of the GPU market for a while. 3080-3090 6800-6900 . ] Pairing up mobile CPUs to mobile GPUs is potentially more lucrative for Intel than the other two.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean. Days ago, Intel CEO and Chief Marketing publicly declared that they want to win back Apple in both CPU and GPU performance. They just ate their words and properly need to play catch up for quite a long time.
 
nathansz said:
my 5700xt does around 75,000. i think think the 6900xt’s do around 175,000. long way to go still
Click to expand...
True. But most users won't need nearly that much unless they are gaming.

My RX570 eGPU helps my Mini go plenty fast for some major photo editing.

Gaming is a different story. I bought an Xbox Series S for that and absolutely love it.
 
Comparing the latest Apple M1Max chips with those Intel chips inside my Late 2019 Mac Pro

I am excited over the reported single processor score of 1749, way better than my 1062 - 1181 loaded Mac Pro 2019

Multicore comparison is not fair as there are 28 cores in my Mac Pro
Love to hear or (not hear) the fans of the 16.2 M1Max when mine arrives.

Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 12.48.01 PM.png




Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 12.44.09 PM.png





Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 12.42.52 PM.png




Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 12.43.52 PM.png
 
Larabee119 said:
This is what I mean. Days ago, Intel CEO and Chief Marketing publicly declared that they want to win back Apple in both CPU and GPU performance. They just ate their words and properly need to play catch up for quite a long time.
Click to expand...

For the Mac Pro Intel does have a better offering right now. Probably will for couple more years unless want to redefine what "Mac Pro" means.

Intel isn't counting on winning back Apple. He was more saying compete to get back in. That will more so help Intel keep the other 90% of their customer base. Just like previous AMD CEO would mention that they were competing to get into Apple also ( and not winning on CPU front). Intel's primary business is to sell a wide array of components to almost all vendors ( "everything for everybody" ) ; why would he not say they were competing to get into Apple? It would be like Apple CEO saying they were not interested in cellphones. Imagine what would happen to Apple stock if Cook said that?

Now that Apple has had a taste of taking the Intel CPU package markup, they are hooked on that profit "crack" just as much as it is a performance issue. Intel wouldn't have to not just match to grossly pass up for Apple to "give back" that money. ( even more so if a substantive amount of their services revenue dries up in anti-competitiveness judgements against Apple. )

Intel already knows they need to play catch up. Also likely not surprised anything presented yesterday ( probably have had forecasts for at least 2 years on that. )
 
Marshall73 said:
I thought the M1 max might have had a higher single core score but it’s almost the same as the M1. Obviously the multi core score is higher due to 8 performance cores vs 4 on the M1 although not double the M1”s multi core score.
Click to expand...
not exactly unexpected — it's the same exact core as M1, aside from the memory interface. That's why it has the same name...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Santiago
DeepIn2U said:
beyond this performance- if lives up to be true, will we start to see premium top tier game houses finally put in real effort for their games for macOS? Or will we be stuck with monument etc?!

will studios bring us top tier games finally?
Click to expand...
they won't. Not just because there's a powerful chip. The problem is that there is no game market for $3000+ laptops. Until Apple packs the performance of M1 Max into a $1000-$1200 computer, no one will dare touch it.
 
Right now, the M chipset is a great mid level chip. Due to its efficiency, it makes it the best in its class for mobile and portable computing. When it comes to high end Windows vs M1 Max its no comparison. For $3300-$6000 you can build a top notch PC for that kind of money that will surpass the M1 Max MBP. You can build a AMD Ryzen 9 5950X + AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and still have money left over! Sorry, but these components make it league leading. Not to hate on the M1 Max, but it is an incredible chipset! However, to compare it to lower efficiency, high end graphics card it will come up short. I believe the M3 Max may be more competitive, but Apple is still 3-4 years behind of overthrowing AMD or Intel in raw CPU/GPU benchmarks.

Personally, anyone shelling out this kind of money for a laptop are drinking the kool-aid. I would love to see the M1 Pro/Max performance in a smartphone. This would be truly game changing. The iPad Pro will get the M1 Pro chip next year so this wouldn't be considered ground breaking. For the average PC world the M1 Pro/Max are not game changers, but only in efficiency. That is why the keynote explained efficiency over performance. Very calculated.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: 0134168, mi7chy and escapevelocity
weaztek said:
True. But most users won't need nearly that much unless they are gaming.

My RX570 eGPU helps my Mini go plenty fast for some major photo editing.

Gaming is a different story. I bought an Xbox Series S for that and absolutely love it.
Click to expand...

once my hackintosh needs replacing i would certainly consider a console if i had enough time for gaming to justify having two machines. i will certainly miss being able to boot nearly any operating system on any consumer computer hardware. sort of the end of a neat era

DeepIn2U said:
beyond this performance- if lives up to be true, will we start to see premium top tier game houses finally put in real effort for their games for macOS? Or will we be stuck with monument etc?!

will studios bring us top tier games finally?
Click to expand...

haven’t seen the numbers for these yet but the gpu benchmarks on the m1 were pretty lacklustre. not intel integrate gpu bad, but not great either
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
wwinter86 said:
Could be the same or even less as they are using their own chips
Click to expand...

Apple will likely keep the difference, rationalising that while cheaper to produce, you are still getting way better performance than an equivalent intel laptops and so the higher price is a fair reflection of the value you are getting.
 
level1807 said:
they won't. Not just because there's a powerful chip. The problem is that there is no game market for $3000+ laptops. Until Apple packs the performance of M1 Max into a $1000-$1200 computer, no one will dare touch it.
Click to expand...

what?!
There are HUGE markets of gaming laptops that start at just under $3000US - Razor 14” starts at $1400 for 16GB of ram and top VC it’s closer to $30000

Get into the 15”+ you’re getting close to $5K US.
 
Last edited:
creediddy said:
Right now, the M chipset is a great mid level chip. Due to its efficiency, it makes it the best in its class for mobile and portable computing. When it comes to high end Windows vs M1 Max its no comparison. For $3300-$6000 you can build a top notch PC for that kind of money that will surpass the M1 Max MBP. You can build a AMD Ryzen 9 5950X + AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and still have money left over! Sorry, but these components make it league leading. Not to hate on the M1 Max, but it is an incredible chipset! However, to compare it to lower efficiency, high end graphics card it will come up short. I believe the M3 Max may be more competitive, but Apple is still 3-4 years behind of overthrowing AMD or Intel in raw CPU/GPU benchmarks.

Personally, anyone shelling out this kind of money for a laptop are drinking the kool-aid. I would love to see the M1 Pro/Max performance in a smartphone. This would be truly game changing. The iPad Pro will get the M1 Pro chip next year so this wouldn't be considered ground breaking. For the average PC world the M1 Pro/Max are not game changers, but only in efficiency. That is why the keynote explained efficiency over performance. Very calculated.
Click to expand...

here we go the classic Intel is better argument comparing a full desktop with higher TDP (already shown and comparisons during the keynote) that costs more and currently no M1 comparison for desktop.

wait until Xmas next year than Apple with have custom silicon for a desktop architecture that compares. Sry year the same comparison occurs on every Apple release but fails to compare all aspects just what suits wintel only. Also Apple doesn’t upgrade the chipset every year just because.
 
nathansz said:
please correct me if I'm wrong. but isn't the cheapest new MacBook Pro more expensive than the cheapest last intel MacBook Pro?
Click to expand...
I believe if you spec out a 16” intel with the top cpu & gpu, the M1 Max will be cheaper
 
creediddy said:
Right now, the M chipset is a great mid level chip. Due to its efficiency, it makes it the best in its class for mobile and portable computing. When it comes to high end Windows vs M1 Max its no comparison. For $3300-$6000 you can build a top notch PC for that kind of money that will surpass the M1 Max MBP. You can build a AMD Ryzen 9 5950X + AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and still have money left over! Sorry, but these components make it league leading. Not to hate on the M1 Max, but it is an incredible chipset! However, to compare it to lower efficiency, high end graphics card it will come up short. I believe the M3 Max may be more competitive, but Apple is still 3-4 years behind of overthrowing AMD or Intel in raw CPU/GPU benchmarks.

Personally, anyone shelling out this kind of money for a laptop are drinking the kool-aid. I would love to see the M1 Pro/Max performance in a smartphone. This would be truly game changing. The iPad Pro will get the M1 Pro chip next year so this wouldn't be considered ground breaking. For the average PC world the M1 Pro/Max are not game changers, but only in efficiency. That is why the keynote explained efficiency over performance. Very calculated.
Click to expand...
Why would you possibly need something like the M1 Pro/Max in a phone, or even an iPad? There are diminishing returns in processor power beyond which there is no perceptable improvement, particularly for mobile apps with relatively low processing and memory requirements. They need to be responsive and have decent graphical performance for maps, photo management and maybe games, but you are hardly going to need 10 CPU cores or RTX 3080 equivalent GPUs on a phone, are you?

The SoCs have far too high a TDP in any case - thermal management and battery life are far more important in mobile devices than raw processing power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back