M3 Max ? I would be disappointed because then M3 would be even more of a minor difference than going from M1 to M2.
I think they're trolling the entire planet, because to be honest, it also sucks on Windows. Easily one of the worst popular apps I've ever tried in the last 20 years.
You have to be a serious fanboy to write such nonsense without a reference.
I’m dealing with reality. In almost every case where a cross-platform benchmark is available, an Intel equipped system can be built that performs better (the exception, as I learned here, is processes that benefit from the architecture of Apple’s silicon). It IS black and white
I’m not doubting that there’s some number of high-end Mac desktop users would WANT more performance. If you tell them “this faster ever Mac scores (some arbitrary benchmark) 3” and “this Intel system scores (some arbitrary benchmark) 5”, wanting REALLY hard for the Mac to score 5 doesn’t change the reality that, at any current time, the fastest Mac available is still the ONLY fastest Mac available for purchase. That’s been true for years now and Apple Silicon doesn’t change it. If someone’s happiness with a computer is based on arbitrary numbers rather than “how much MORE work they can get done in the same amount of time”, it’s clear that Apple’s not very concerned about putting up the “best numbers” for “numbers” sake.
Indeed!! As someone else stated, it’s MUCH more likely that the single core score would be closer to the score of the normal M2 (based on what we already know about how Apple’s been producing M series chips, which, granted, is limited). They bumped the single core score to be something that would get more “traction” in the tech circles!
As someone who went from the same iMac to an M1Max , the difference is night n day, at least in adobe programs. Every use case is diff but predetermining worth based on benchmarks isn’t the only metric.
You speak very confidently from ignorance. You don't actually know which N3 process Apple will be using, nor whether they will ship in early or late 2023. Or even 2024, though let's hope not! "that reflect the latest ARM architecture" is utterly ridiculous:
Yeah. And with Apple’s return policies, if someone has the money saved up for a device, there’s little downside to just buying an appropriately configured device and seeing how it does.
Anyone know the release date for the M2 14 and 16. I bought a 14 M1 and can get a full refund until Jan 31 and am wondering if the M2 Pro will be worth the swap and will be available soon.
Last month, Geekbench scores for an unannounced Mac running the upcoming M2 Max chip surfaced online, showing only minor performance increases compared to the M1 Max. Now, another set of scores claiming to be for the M2 Max chip has surfaced online, showing a larger jump in performance.
In the Geekbench scores last week, the M2 Max chip scored 1,853 in single-core and 13,855 in multi-core, representing only a minor jump compared to its predecessor. Now, in a new set of scores alleged for the M2 Max, the chip scored 2,027 in single-core and 14,888 in multi-core. For reference, the M1 Max chip achieves 1,755 in single-core and 12,334 in multi-core.
The new Geekbench scores offer no further details over any upcoming Macs, which we expect first to be 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pros. The scores list the chip as running on a Mac with an identifier "Mac14,6" with 96GB of memory and running macOS Ventura 13.2. The only difference between today's scores and last month's ones is that the updated scores show an M2 Max chip with a higher base frequency of 3.68 GHz compared to 3.54 GHz, which could explain the higher scores.
Apple was initially expected to announce updated Macs with M2 Pro and M2 Max chips in November this year, but the company pushed plans until early 2023. Apple has multiple new Macs in the work, including an updated iMac and MacBook Pro.
Article Link: 'M2 Max' Geekbench Scores Surface Again Online Ahead of Release in 2023
Yeah, and these people are also all incorrect.I strongly disagree with the way you criticized this poster, since it's condescending in tone while also being incorrect. There's nothing wrong with the phrase "power consumption". It just means energy consumption per unit time. Indeed, it's commonly used in that way as a term of art. Here are just a few examples:
Televisions Key Product Criteria
www.energystar.gov
View attachment 2125912
View attachment 2125914
View attachment 2125915View attachment 2125916View attachment 2125917
Mathematica is right now far from optimized for Apple Silicon :-(
Honestly neither A15 nor A16 improved IPC much as far as I can tell. A15 included a cute trick for speeding up certain types of indirect branches (which plays out in JS and Obj-C method dispatch being faster) but otherwise seemed to be mainly about energy efficiency at slightly higher frequency. A16 seemed to be more of that same.
Quite some knowledge shared by a couple of individuals, up to the last post before this one I’m writing.
My guess was that Apple was working on improving the maximum clocks it could get. Because, while you're right that just pushing clocks is a stupid way to get better performance, it's still one of the things you want to do - and as we see, Apple is continuing to push the clocks up, though with impressive restraint. That's something it can work on further with in-house M2s without ever showing its cards in shipping products.Good to know about Adobe. I don't rely on benchmarks. I was just using GB as a shorthand for general performance improvement. In fact, I probably do more detailed performance testing with actual tasks than most on this site.
You misunderstand. I never took a position on your performance statements. Instead, I was arguing against your absolutist claim that anyone who cares about max performance would be using a PC. That's simply false. It's not reality.
To this:
*****
I'm not following what you're trying to say here—it sounds circular: 'the fastest mac is the fastest mac'.
Total straw man. These users who want max performance want it precisely because they can get work done faster with less friction (like intermittent spinning beachballs). It's an insulting mischaracterization to say these serious users are simply looking for benchmark bragging rights. The GB scores are just used as a coarse-grained measure of real-world performance.
Agreed. Numerical calculations are sometimes significantly slower than on my i9 iMac. As for symbolic calculations, as mentioned above, I created a suite of tests corresponding the to type of calculations I do and, while I didn't find any that were slower on AS, the speed improvement was much less than it should be (the AS device was a 16" M1 Pro MBP; similar results were, as expected, seen with an M1 Max Studio, since all these calculations are single-threaded only).
Also agreed.
Do you have references to support this? I've been curious why AS MMA has been underperforming, and the only semi-official info. I've seen (from a Wolfram employee posting on Mathematica Stack Exchange) is that the numerical libraries available with AS are not as fast as Intel's MKL. But that doesn't explain the mediocre symbolic results I posted. Also, which, if any, of the issues you posted would affect symbolic results?
Since I teach thermodynamics, I am somewhat aware of this
. [Feel free to peruse my answers at https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/users/68027/theorist?tab=answers&sort=votes]What your argument boils down to isn't that "power consumption" is a physically incorrect term (it's not), but rather that it's not the right metric to use because it doesn't account for the fact that a faster processor can get more done in the same amount of time. Those are two entirely different criticisms. The latter is legitimate, the former is not.
Is no different than if somone responded to your post with this:
Neither is a legitimate response. When someone writes "power consumption", we understand that it's a compact way of saying "energy consumption per unit time". And when someone writes "energy consumption", and it's for a computer, we understand that it's a compact way of saying "transformation of electrical energy to thermal energy."
