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.
M1 Ultra Outperforms 28-Core Intel Mac Pro in First Leaked Benchmark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We listen a lot about creative apps performance, 3D rendering and so forth, but this professional market is just a fraction of the overall consumer market. With all this power, it is a shame that there is 0 focus on gaming from Apple side. Is it really that difficult to have native Apple silicon support for all 50 most played games on Steam? Is it really all that difficult to release M-series chip designed specifically for gaming with increased GPU cores number instead of CPU and Neural engine cores? And what if this same chip is put into Apple TV? Assassins Creed Valhalla sold 1,7 million copies in its first week. None of these copies were used on a Apple branded device and I don't understand WHY Apple is not doing anything about it.
Threadripper is based on Zen 2. The latest Threadripper Pro that is due is also only based on Zen 3. Zen 4 arrives in Aug/Sept along with RDNA 3.0 while Zen 4 EPYC arrives in July. Threadripper Pro Zen 4 won't arrive for another 18 months as OEMs don't upgrade until 18-24 months have passed.
Zen 4 is the last of the non Xilinx IP merged Zen processors. It's going to get crazy tough for Intel and Apple when those extra 5k deeply knowledgable ARM based engineers are fully integrated into AMD.
I am a BIG fan of the Desktop concept as I am always worried that if you use a laptop as a desktop for too long it cooks the battery and it inflates and damages the laptop.
Ps. sadly the Studio is out of my wallet range (I am waiting on my mortgage approval to go through to be able to buy gas in these times).
TB4 is 40 Gbit/s, so 5 GByte/s. Realistically, with overhead and all, you can run one medium-speed 3 GByte/s that way.
However, Apple's chips have multiple lanes. So you might actually be able to hook up multiple of those at full speed.
Not sure what you mean by 500mb/ps; that's actually quite slow for an SSD these days.
Uh. Sure, remind us when Sapphire Rapids Xeon-W 3400 ships in late 2023.
OK, so your argument here is "yeah, this computer I can buy next Friday" is nice, but the ones that are coming in two years could be even nicer, so hold your horses, Apple.
If AMD had a newer Threadripper shipping in volume, we'd be comparing benchmarks against those. But they don't.
Well one thing is for certain. The top Xeon in the refreshed Intel Mac Pro will have better multi-core performance than the M1 Ultra.
Be interesting to see how apps perform that are optimised for the M1 versus Threadripper too. We could see big gains in some places regardless of actual benchmark scores.
Possibly (assuming there will be another Intel Mac Pro, and that they'll upgrade the CPU to Ice Lake-W).
But the M1 Ultra can be had for $3800. A Mac Pro, much less one that is faster than the M1 Ultra? Probably more than twice that.
That's because "doing something about it" would be an unthinkable step for Apple: lower their prices sigfnificantly. Successful and supported game systems always were financially attractive to a wide audience. Furthermore, by leaving x86 they clearly prioritized power efficiency and performance over compatibility with native Windows. They don't want to be a AAA gaming platform. That's why they don't offer the combination of cores you suggested. So, where is the incentive for AAA developers? My advice: Build a windows PC to go along with that Mac Studio. That's what I will do.
The performance this system offers (especially for the price) has with it some implications for what's to come. A computer is a tool that unlocks a user's potential; and, in the case of these high-end M1 systems, that tool has become substantially sharper - all in the matter of a couple years. I see this not only unlocking even more potential but giving that opportunity to the masses: Threadripper performance that's within realistic affordability for many more people. We'll see the computers themselves in greater numbers as well, which means anyone who has an application for which a computer is required will be able to take their task even further. I see creative professionals and software developers benefiting enormously, and I see that translating into benefits for consumers of their creations. We'll see the boundaries pushed on what is possible to create with a personal computer, and we'll see workflows sped up considerably. I also anticipate M1-based Macs being very useful for Web 4.0 development and AI development. Anything is possible.
Someone here had mentioned how fast his Macintosh IIfx was. (It was in jest, I know.) I mention that because it certainly was a fast computer - perhaps one of the fastest personal computers on the market, in fact. The IIfx and its relatives opened up so many doors. Granted, the unfortunate thing was their prohibitive cost; few were able to experience that sort of power. So, this is where the M1 Macs come in, since they're both powerful and are a great value... and are also helping put x86-feet under.
It's funny, really: I feel that the scope for improvement in workflows is so wide that the outwardly apparent power of these systems will eventually become less noticeable: with better hardware usually comes more complex software demands. This sort of thing occurs in a cycle, and then the hardware has to play catchup. In so many words, it all suggests that we will be seeing people create things that they wouldn't have imagined creating on traditional PCs - or, at least would have not been able to complete within a realistic timeline. And, the advancements made in that area will at some point translate into just about everyone needing what at currently regarded as ridiculously powerful devices.
Last edited:
does anyone know how well Parallels would run on this? As much as I love my Hackintosh, the studio even in the base configuration, is so much more powerful, and smaller!! It would be a great edit station, and gaming machine
Or, perhaps developers will no longer wish to remain on archaic x86 systems - and both Intel and M$ will be SOL. Especially given the gaming industry has grown exponentially in recent years, I'm sure Apple will at some point wish to capitalize on it. Or, they'll focus more on "experiences" than on games - maybe some VR content, etc. We'll see. But, yeah, having a dedicated gaming PC on the side is still a viable route. That whole ship hasn't sunk yet.
These benchmarks are comparing a brand new Apple M1 Ultra CPU to a nearly-3-year old CPU...so, yes, I would EXPECT 20% or more CPU performance gain based on the number of years as well as these Intel and M1 chips are explicitly designed for high performance (so their respective successors are going to have marked improvements each iteration). I'd also like to see real-world testing and comparisons from someone other than Apple and its marketing engine.
I would also add that it seems a bit unfair to solder 2 M1 chips together and call it a new, single chip with its own branded name... AND then compare it to a single CPU from another manufacturer. Even if Apple didn't make the benchmark comparison (to its own CPU family as well as other manufacturers), it still seems slight of hand.
From a price point of view, yes, it's great and significantly cheaper than Mac Pro. But now you have to consider that the Studio is a non-upgradeable black box while the Mac Pro is specifically designed for internal expandability and ease of access as well as external expandability. It will be nice to see what the next Mac Pro looks like and prices at.
I would also add that it seems a bit unfair to solder 2 M1 chips together and call it a new, single chip with its own branded name... AND then compare it to a single CPU from another manufacturer. Even if Apple didn't make the benchmark comparison (to its own CPU family as well as other manufacturers), it still seems slight of hand.
From a price point of view, yes, it's great and significantly cheaper than Mac Pro. But now you have to consider that the Studio is a non-upgradeable black box while the Mac Pro is specifically designed for internal expandability and ease of access as well as external expandability. It will be nice to see what the next Mac Pro looks like and prices at.
Are you aware how a GeekBench score is evaluated ? sure there are downsides like crypto using AVX and driving Intel scores way up , which would be fixed soon according to the developers , but overall it tracks relative performance really well as it compiles Int / Floating point and vectors mini simulations and avg them out.
Try and find a CPU that does amazing in GeekBench but then fails on "real world" tests.
Right, comparable Mac Pro starts at 20k+
Intel still can have more memory if needed, so depends on use case what is better.
But there is no newer Threadripper. There is a newer Xeon W-3000, and indeed, it seems a bit faster.
Here's the kicker, though: the Xeon W needs a TDP of 205W and 32 cores to accomplish those results. The Threadripper needs 280W and 64 cores. Apple needs just 20 cores, and will probably generate heat of around 90W, judging from Anandtech results for the M1 Max, which were around 40-50 (and the M1 Ultra is really just two of those, at the same clock speed).
So, those require a lot more cooling, which comes with various complications. Oh, and that M1 Ultra figure includes the RAM and GPU, whereas the Xeon W and Threadripper numbers include neither of those.
But on top of that, both CPUs also require a lot more cores to accomplish the result the M1 Ultra does, especially the Threadripper. In practice, this means that you'll be a lot less likely to actually accomplish the results. Very few tasks parallelize well to 32 cores, let alone 64.
This has nothing to do with a "marketing engine". It's simply an early test. More tests will appear in the coming weeks.
Why?
This isn't a case where software needs to address two sockets separately. The CPU and GPU appear as a single device rather than two.
AMD has been doing this for years, that’s what the “chiplet” design means. AFAIK recall Intel also did something similar with the early quad-core CORE 2 chips. (I think I found it: Core 2 Quad Q9100) So, while Apple seems to be doing it better (maybe!) they aren’t the first and the Ultra is not as trivial as “solder[ing] two M1 chips together”. Nothing new or unfair here.
I will say the $1400 price bump for the Ultra has got to be the highest margin Apple upgrade. The chips are big, but they aren’t THAT big and the R&D is already spread out between all the M1 MAX SoCs which are already selling like crazy. For those who need/use it that’s still a decent value but that’s $1000+ of profit for Apple.
This is a slap in the face for 'pro users'? Ouch...
That new Mac Pro had better come quickly, I'm thinking... Is this an 'unforced error' for Apple? How will/are the 'pro market' take this?
That new Mac Pro had better come quickly, I'm thinking... Is this an 'unforced error' for Apple? How will/are the 'pro market' take this?
Well, as usual, Apple does not update Intel CPUs to the last generation for a very long time and then compares those already obsolete Intel chips to latest-gen Apple product. And then, what a surprise, the Apple chip is faster. Not to mention that in a proper workstation nowadays you can have 2 sockets with 64-core [128-thread] CPU per socket and up to 4TB of RAM.
Max 128GB of RAM in a workstation in the year 2022.... same amount as my 2010 Mac Pro.... Yawn.
Max 128GB of RAM in a workstation in the year 2022.... same amount as my 2010 Mac Pro.... Yawn.