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

M1 Ultra Outperforms 28-Core Intel Mac Pro in First Leaked Benchmark

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,542
30,850


The first benchmark for Apple's M1 Ultra chip popped up on Geekbench following today's event, confirming that the doubled-up M1 Max is indeed able to outperform the highest-end Mac Pro as Apple claims.

f1646763971.jpg

Labeled Mac13,2, the Mac Studio with 20-core M1 Ultra that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1793 and a multi-core score of 24055.

Comparatively, the highest-end Mac Pro with 28-core Intel Xeon W chip has a single-core score of 1152 and a multi-core score of 19951, so the M1 Ultra is 21 percent faster in this particular benchmark comparison when it comes to multi-core performance. As for single-core performance, the M1 Ultra is 56 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro.

m1-ultraa-benchmark.jpg

Apple has claimed that the M1 Ultra is up to 60 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro when it comes to CPU performance, so Apple may be referencing single-core differences in the metrics that it shared during today's event. This is just one benchmark, so we could see the M1 Ultra performing better in additional benchmarks following the March 18 release of the Mac Studio.

(Thanks, Dion!)

Article Link: M1 Ultra Outperforms 28-Core Intel Mac Pro in First Leaked Benchmark
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/08/m1-ultra-first-leaked-benchmark/
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
R

randyhudson

macrumors 6502a
Oct 28, 2007
680
980
USA
MacRumors said:
This is just one benchmark...
Click to expand...
It's at least two. The single-core score was 56% faster, so that's quite close to the claimed 60%, and much higher than the 21% mentioned in the "article", which only attempted to compare the multi-core benchmarks. However, since it was 20 cores vs. 28, each M1 core was actually performing 69% faster than each intel core.

Got them to update the original:
As for single-core performance, the M1 Ultra is 56 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: mhnd, Argoduck, Reggaenald and 8 others
RonMan

RonMan

macrumors newbie
Oct 24, 2008
8
13
Alaskan doing time in Texas
MacRumors said:


The first benchmark for Apple's M1 Ultra chip popped up on Geekbench following today's event, confirming that the doubled-up M1 Max is indeed able to outperform the highest-end Mac Pro as Apple claims.

f1646763971.jpg

Labeled Mac13,2, the Mac Studio with 20-core M1 Ultra that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1793 and a multi-core score of 24055.

Comparatively, the highest-end Mac Pro with 28-core Intel Xeon W chip has a single-core score of 1152 and a multi-core score of 19951, so the M1 Ultra is 21 percent faster in this particular benchmark comparison when it comes to multi-core performance. As for single-core performance, the M1 Ultra is 56 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro.

m1-ultraa-benchmark.jpg

Apple has claimed that the M1 Ultra is up to 60 percent faster than the 28-core Mac Pro when it comes to CPU performance, so Apple may be referencing single-core differences in the metrics that it shared during today's event. This is just one benchmark, so we could see the M1 Ultra performing better in additional benchmarks following the March 18 release of the Mac Studio.

(Thanks, Dion!)

Article Link: M1 Ultra Outperforms 28-Core Intel Mac Pro in First Leaked Benchmark
Click to expand...
I already ordered my Ultra. Vectorworks is finally going to fly. Does anyone need a Razor eGPU with an AMD Radeon Pro X 7100? I have one I need that needs to move on by the first of April.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U, imnotthewalrus, Trolle and 2 others
M

Makosuke

macrumors 604
Aug 15, 2001
6,662
1,242
The Cool Part of CA, USA
Given the performance of the M1 Max, this result is right around where you'd expect it to be, so seems completely believable. The only interesting bit is that performance per-core scales linearly. Which is great, but not surprising given the incredible thermal profile of the chip.

With the caveat that, yes, Geekbench is a synthetic benchmark, this thing appears to be significantly outperforming the top-of-line, just-launched 12th-gen i9 desktop parts. Given that the i9-12900K has a TDP of 125W and turbo power rating of 240W, and this thing fits in a compact desktop, I would be feeling more than a little nervous if I were Intel.

The M1 Ultra is even competitive with all but the most extreme big-iron many-core Xeon and Threadripper CPUs, and the entire computer costs less than many of those chips (its also probably smaller than the CPU cooler on some of them)... but it doesn't have 1TB+ of ECC RAM or some of the other features big-iron desktops have.

Which is why I'd be even more nervous, if I were Intel, that Apple hasn't put their own silicon in the Mac Pro yet. That's a pretty strong indication that Apple has something even-higher-end in the pipeline.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: peterxv, haruhiko, SFjohn and 28 others
PsykX

PsykX

macrumors 68020
Sep 16, 2006
2,398
3,152
So it's NOT faster than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X.
It would then be the 2nd best consumer processor in the world.
The entire computer is less expensive than the Threadripper though.

But I don't care, wow... what are people going to do with such a monster of performance... ?
I remember a few people in the cinema industry left Macs because FCPX lacked features when it was released. Are they going to come back ?! Will game developers finally consider the Mac? (the best Mac Studio is 2X as powerful as the PS5)
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: peterxv, diandi, DeepIn2U and 8 others
R

richinaus

macrumors 68020
Oct 26, 2014
2,376
2,126
PsykX said:
So it's NOT faster than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X.
It would then be the 2nd best consumer processor in the world.
The entire computer is less expensive than the Threadripper though.

But I don't care, wow... what are people going to do with such a monster of performance... ?
I remember a few people in the cinema industry left Macs because FCPX lacked features when it was released. Are they going to come back ?! Will game developers finally consider the Mac? (the best Mac Studio is 2X as powerful as the PS5)
Click to expand...
I am going to chime in here.

Apps I use max out the GPU. The more I add into the 3D model the more RAM it uses plus FPS drop [geometry and textures]. This is gaming engine software.
My 3080ti is already maxed in RAM on my PC, and I am totally over the heat and noise from it.

It simply is insane what apps can use these days in terms of resources and power, and personally I never want my computer to restrict my work in any way.
We get paid a lot of money to be able to deliver good quality design work, quickly. This machine is still actually less than the app subscriptions used on it, believe it or not.

I actually believe the studio is well priced for what it delivers [or at least what I expect it to].
 
  • Like
Reactions: peterxv, diandi, Mcity and 27 others
H

HommePomme

macrumors member
Oct 28, 2009
99
28
PsykX said:
So it's NOT faster than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X.
It would then be the 2nd best consumer processor in the world.
The entire computer is less expensive than the Threadripper though.

But I don't care, wow... what are people going to do with such a monster of performance... ?
I remember a few people in the cinema industry left Macs because FCPX lacked features when it was released. Are they going to come back ?! Will game developers finally consider the Mac? (the best Mac Studio is 2X as powerful as the PS5)
Click to expand...

It also absolutely smokes the Threadripper in single core performance while also almost being as fast in multi core... usually it's one or the other
 
  • Like
Reactions: haruhiko, wyrdness, Argoduck and 8 others
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