MP All Models M2 Ultra Geekbench Scores

[Dopemaster]

Someone has got their hands on a M2 Ultra earlier than the rest of us.

220,000 in Geekbench 6 Metal is a big uptick from the M1 Ultra (150,000). It puts the Metal performance at 10% lower than a RTX4080, with 2.5x less power consumption. Seems as though those scaling issues may have been dealt with. Fairly impressive IMO.

M2 Ultra Is Only 10 Percent Slower Than The RTX 4080 In Latest Geekbench 6 Metal Benchmark

In the latest Geekbench 6 Metal scores, Apple’s latest M2 Ultra is only slightly slower than the RTX 4080, which is impressive to see

wccftech.com

 

[cpnotebook80]

While numbers are great, it should not be the only standard for performance. I'm more looking forward to the real world performance comparisons in video editing, topaz AI and other heavy memory and gpu intensive software. But it seems the scalings have been fixed a bit and hoping more software optimizations from thirdparty software will boost the m2 ultra. The less power consumption and running cool is big deal as always.

 

[Longplays]

Someone has got their hands on a M2 Ultra earlier than the rest of us.

220,000 in Geekbench 6 Metal is a big uptick from the M1 Ultra (150,000). It puts the Metal performance at 10% lower than a RTX4080, with 2.5 less power consumption. Seems as though those scaling issues may have been dealt with. Fairly impressive IMO.

M2 Ultra Is Only 10 Percent Slower Than The RTX 4080 In Latest Geekbench 6 Metal Benchmark

In the latest Geekbench 6 Metal scores, Apple’s latest M2 Ultra is only slightly slower than the RTX 4080, which is impressive to see

wccftech.com

Didn't r/Apple or r/hardware ban URLs to wccftech for clickbait?

I'd wait for Anandtech, ArsTechnica or other more reputable reviewers to talk about the benchmark scores.

 

[Dopemaster]

While numbers are great, it should not be the only standard for performance. I'm more looking forward to the real world performance comparisons in video editing, topaz AI and other heavy memory and gpu intensive software. But it seems the scalings have been fixed a bit and hoping more software optimizations from thirdparty software will boost the m2 ultra. The less power consumption and running cool is big deal as always.

Agreed. I’m mostly interested in Davinci Resolve performance given that’s where all my heavy lifting is, but promising numbers regardless, and a decent guide until we get real world stress tests in a few days time.

 

[cpnotebook80]

Strangely enough there are more numbers showing up on GB but not sure if some are mac pro, mac studio or base studio.

Geekbench Search - Geekbench

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

It’s still slower than a 6900xt. which I have. And is a sad old card at this point. But it is good progress and if the extreme M3 continues to scale well, that may bode well *if* they can put out an upgrade in 1 year.

 

[Matty_TypeR]

It’s still slower than a 6900xt. which I have. And is a sad old card at this point. But it is good progress and if the extreme M3 continues to scale well, that may bode well *if* they can put out an upgrade in 1 year.

The thing is by the time the M3 turns up the NV 5090 RT King will arrive along with AMD RDNA-4 which i expect will blow any M3 away. The Mac pro 8.1 is only released to put a time frame on Mac pro 7.1 support so they can develop for AS only and finally close the door on the Apple ecosphere, your either in or your out. it will also put and end to hackintosh machines with out intel support and mean the end of opencore.

 

[prefuse07]

The thing is by the time the M3 turns up the NV 5090 RT King will arrive along with AMD RDNA-4 which i expect will blow any M3 away. The Mac pro 8.1 is only released to put a time frame on Mac pro 7.1 support so they can develop for AS only and finally close the door on the Apple ecosphere, your either in or your out. it will also put and end to hackintosh machines with out intel support and mean the end of opencore.

Unfortunately, this is 100% spot on. A truly sad time in computer science history...

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Metal Benchmarks - Geekbench

 

[Matty_TypeR]

Metal Benchmarks - Geekbench

Why do you think apple wont release drivers for the 7900xtx because it would beat that score. Can it run OpenGL bench the M2?

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Why do you think apple wont release drivers for the 7900xtx because it would beat that score. Can it run OpenGL bench the M2?

Regardless, it still an excellent score and more than enough performance for most users.

 

[MisterAndrew]

Those are interesting benchmark scores.

For Geekbench 6 the M2 Ultra excels over my W6900X except in Stereo Matching and Particle Physics were it falls short, and also about even with Horizon Detection. It has a tiny lead with Feature Matching and Edge Detection, but mostly a toss up. Face Detection is really the only part of the test the M2 Ultra really triumphs, and a little with Background Blur and Gaussian Blur.
Metal scores: M2 Ultra 223927 vs. W6900X 175792

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

For Geekbench 5 the M2 Ultra falls far behind in everything except SFFT, Face Detection, and Feature Matching. The tests it's worst at are Depth of Field and Histogram Equalization.
Metal scores: M2 Ultra 136494 vs. W6900X 162853

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

The OpenCL scores show something a little different. The M2 Ultra falls short in Face Detection, Feature Matching, and Stereo Matching. (Geekbench 6)
M2 Ultra 129302 vs. W6900X 109704

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

For Geekbench 5 in OpenCL the M2 Ultra only leads in Sobel, Canny, Face Detection, and SFFT. Particle Physics and Stereo Matching are about even.
M2 Ultra 121938 vs W6900X 115917

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

The M2 Ultra falls short of the new W7900 in everything with OpenCL (Geekbench 6), except Edge Detection which is about even.
M2 Ultra 129302 vs W7900 202451

Dell Inc. Precision 7865 Tower vs Mac14,14 - Geekbench

The W7900 is also better than W6900X in every test (OpenCL Geekbench 6). Twice as fast in several areas.
W7900 202451 vs. W6900X 109704

Dell Inc. Precision 7865 Tower vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

It will be interesting to see reviews of how the performance compares in the real world.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Regardless, it still an excellent score and more than enough performance for most users.

And most no one will ever need more than 640k…

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Those are interesting benchmark scores.

For Geekbench 6 the M2 Ultra excels over my W6900X except in Stereo Matching and Particle Physics were it falls short, and also about even with Horizon Detection. It has a tiny lead with Feature Matching and Edge Detection, but mostly a toss up. Face Detection is really the only part of the test the M2 Ultra really triumphs, and a little with Background Blur and Gaussian Blur.
Metal scores: M2 Ultra 223927 vs. W6900X 175792

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

For Geekbench 5 the M2 Ultra falls far behind in everything except SFFT, Face Detection, and Feature Matching. The tests it's worst at are Depth of Field and Histogram Equalization.
Metal scores: M2 Ultra 136494 vs. W6900X 162853

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

The OpenCL scores show something a little different. The M2 Ultra falls short in Face Detection, Feature Matching, and Stereo Matching. (Geekbench 6)
M2 Ultra 129302 vs. W6900X 109704

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

For Geekbench 5 in OpenCL the M2 Ultra only leads in Sobel, Canny, Face Detection, and SFFT. Particle Physics and Stereo Matching are about even.
M2 Ultra 121938 vs W6900X 115917

Mac14,14 vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

The M2 Ultra falls short of the new W7900 in everything with OpenCL (Geekbench 6), except Edge Detection which is about even.
M2 Ultra 129302 vs W7900 202451

Dell Inc. Precision 7865 Tower vs Mac14,14 - Geekbench

The W7900 is also better than W6900X in every test (OpenCL Geekbench 6). Twice as fast in several areas.
W7900 202451 vs. W6900X 109704

Dell Inc. Precision 7865 Tower vs Mac Pro (Late 2019) - Geekbench

It will be interesting to see reviews of how the performance compares in the real world.

It’s more interesting to me at least that the regular cheap 6900xt does better than the m2 ultra. Metal score around 235000 (some show over 240000) in the now old and cheap 6900xt vs 220000 of the ultra. Not sure what’s going on with apples w version, but my cheap and now old 6900xt still tops the m2 ultra.

 

[Dopemaster]

Impossible to say given GB compute doesn’t identify GPU core count in the Ultras, but seems as though the 220K may be the base Ultra models arriving early, and the 76 core configs may be hitting up to 280K. V impressive scaling if so:

 

[Dopemaster]

Was chatting to a Blackmagic engineer recently who said the higher shared RAM pool will be well utilised For GPU centric tasks. I.e. Up to 192GB Nvram vs 24GB on the 7900xtx.

 

[flowrider]

Just to add - Geekbench has been updated to V6.1 along this this note:

Thanks to these changes, Geekbench 6.1 single-core scores are up to 5% higher, and multi-core scores are up to 10% higher than Geekbench 6.0 scores. As a result of these methodological differences, which have a non-trivial impact on scores, we recommend users not compare Geekbench 6.1 scores against Geekbench 6.0 scores.

Geekbench 6.1 is a recommended update for all Geekbench 6 users.

Geekbench

www.geekbench.com

Lou

 

[prefuse07]

Just gonna leave this here, to show that the scores in the screenshots above, for the RX6800XT, are incorrect:

Back to Lou's point about not cross-comparing GB versions -- Under GB5 this is equally hilarious, this is my 2009 cMP vs the M2 Ultra:

 

[Dopemaster]

Just gonna leave this here, to show that the scores in the screenshots above, for the RX6800XT, are incorrect:

View attachment 2216295
View attachment 2216296
View attachment 2216297

Back to Lou's point about not cross-comparing GB versions -- Under GB5 this is equally hilarious, this is my 2009 cMP vs the M2 Ultra:

View attachment 2216325
View attachment 2216326
View attachment 2216327
View attachment 2216329

Not necessarily incorrect, just averages of multiple cards across multiple system configs, so there will naturally be variation which will bring down the overall average.

 

[prefuse07]

Not necessarily incorrect, just averages of multiple cards across multiple system configs, so there will naturally be variation which will bring down the overall average.

Ah, gotcha! Thanks for clarifying -- Didn't see anything in that post mentioning that those results were averages of all scores...

 

[MisterAndrew]

I think Geekbench scores in general need to be taken with a grain of salt. The chart data is wrong. There are only 4 results for M2 Ultra on Geekbench 6 Metal and none of them are as high as the chart shows. The figure for W6900X on the chart is wrong also. Most of the results are from Hackintoshs with spoofed GPUs. I'm guessing probably mostly RX 6900 XT and RX 6950 XT.

 

[ric22]

M2 Ultra dominated by competition

 

[goMac]

Regardless, it still an excellent score and more than enough performance for most users.

For $7000 it's not an excellent score. For $2500 it would be excellent.

 

[Dopemaster]

The other consideration is that raw compute scores only tell part of the story for media pros who these systems are geared towards.

Editing/VFX/colour grading feature films will be more performant in some cases with the on-chip accelerators than GPUs with higher compute benchmarks.

Interested to see real-world comparisons in software like Davinci Resolve, which should start coming out in the next few days.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

M2 Ultra dominated by competition

The CPU managed to post a single-core score of up to 2809 points in single-core and 21,531 points in the multi-core tests. For comparison, the Intel Core i9-13900KS scores 3083 points while AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X scores 2875 points. In multi-threaded benchmarks, the same chips score 21665 and 19342 points, respectively. So as you can see, the workstation-grade Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn't faster than the mainstream CPU offerings from Intel and AMD.

Wow. If those numbers are accurate it makes the Mac ‘doh look like a real rip off sad sack. Those are for middling machines. Not high end! and that’s just for the regular cpu, forget the spanking it takes on its gpu… Wow. And they have the gall to charge $7k for this mess.