Do you really get enjoyment from other people having slower renders than you?
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.
M4 Pro Chip Benchmark Results Reveal an Extremely Impressive Performance Feat
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
prompt 'A geek benching two Macs'
I did it mom! I became an AI artist!
I did it mom! I became an AI artist!
And who would buy an ultra for single core workload?
It will be faster in CPU tasks too. Look up how M3 and M2 Ultra compares in different benchmarks. In Geekbench, the ultra is ahead only 81%. In cinebech 177%, in passmark 162%. Don't buy hihg-end computers based on geekbench scores.
I bought a $3,000+ M1 Pro MacBook Pro knowing full well there'd be a much faster M-series chip several years later. The M4 Pro's existence doesn't suddenly make the machine I'm typing this on any worse. On the contrary, it makes me excited that I can go
- from 8p2e to 10p4e
- from 32 GiB RAM to 48 GiB RAM
- from Geekbench 6 scores 2387/12349 to 3925/22669
- from 500 nits SDR to 1,000 nits SDR
for the same price tag. (Plus, a newer webcam. And faster e-cores. And faster GPU. And other stuff I forgot.) That's great.
... absolutely right. And this is what most people seem to forget. I'm waiting a shiny new piece of kit - an M4 MBP 16 Max. When I've "moved in" from my old machine, that machine will be sold on the second hand market. It's a 2019 Intel MBP 16 and it will fetch a very useful price to offset against the cost of the new machine.
So I get a good trade in - because Apple kit does hold its value far better than others - and I've been able to use it for many years. Overall, the TCO for my shiny new bit of kit will be low, per year, because of this. Win and win again.
But then your complaint is "Apple devices offer very little internal expansion", which, true, but also nothing new.
You should get the hint that only the iMac gets binned M4s. It's the entry level for people who don't care/can't even decide on what monitor to buy for a mini. You can build a much better config around the mini for the price of an iMac.
Thats very nice from the marketing dept bullet points.
Now please show me how that affects real work scenarios.
Yes I understand what you mean. I’d suggest that if you need it to play games, maybe hold off for a while as while things are certainly improving, they aren’t there just yet.
But for everything else you do, why do you need the latest and greatest? If you bought an M1 Pro for example 4 years ago, you would still be able to do everything you could do when you bought it for some time to come.
A lot of people get caught up in the specs on paper but in reality, will you actually notice those differences under the hood in real world use? I’d argue not.
Luckily for you there's no gpu benchmark out there following geekbench 6's philosophy. That would be benchmarking for everyday use, like 4k playback or website rendering, then concluding that a 5060 is indeed faster "for the average user" because of some new codec or instructions. That's essentially the case here. Read my previous comment about how badly geekbench scales compared to other cpu benchmarks. Macrumors should amend this article to explain this.
The single worst improvement of M4 Pro vs. M3 Pro is Structure from Motion at 7.7%. Object Detection is indeed best at 122.8% (more than twice as fast). Nonetheless, it's an overall improvement (although partially attributable to the clock increase).
Single core perf is most imp..bec if the single core is trash then you can have 200cores and it will be far weaker than an 70 high end cores. Read again what i said. I said to wait for real apps testing. Some people can read but cannot understand
Yes but my point stands 100% if apple is starting to make big generations difference
On intel era to have triple the perf you could wait 5 years in some cases even longer. So for prof these macs longevity is weaker, we change them 1-2 /year
You might have missed this, but a computer you bought a year or two ago being slower than a cheaper computer bought today has been happening for nearly the entire history of home computing. Things were stagnant for a while there due to Intel's issues with chip development, but mostly rapid improvements are the rule, not the exception.
You would have loved the PPC transition--in early 1993 a top-of-the-line professional Quadra 800 started at $4680; just over a year later the consumer-grade Power Mac 6100 was announced at $2000 with the same amount of RAM and a slightly larger hard drive, and depending on the benchmark you use was between 1.6 and 4 times faster (its floating-point performance, in particular, was massively higher). Less than half the price, twice the performance.
Same thing happened with the 60x to G3 CPUs, and again with the Intel to M-series transition, as well as many, many times in between, regardless of whether you were an Apple or Windows user.
The absolute-top-of-line iMac I bought 4 years ago, with a 10-core i9 CPU, is 30% slower than the M1 Max laptop I bought about a year later for around the same price, and that iMac's CPU is now slightly slower than my phone, which cost a quarter what the iMac did and fits in my pocket. But I'm not complaining, much less advocating Apple stop improving things so quickly so I don't have to feel bad that I got exactly what I paid for at the time and then somebody else got an even better deal a year later, and someone else will get an even better deal than them the year after.
You buy a computer. There's something way faster available for less next year. That's how it works.
Last edited:
I mean, you can look at it that way, sure, but I'm not sure what the constructive suggestion would be. For Apple to artificially slow their pace of progress? Would the competition then also do that? And who benefits from this?
Mac Studio with M4 Ultra:
- CPU: 48-core CPU
- GPU: 128-core GPU
- Neural Engine: 64-core Neural Engine
- Unified Memory: 256GB unified memory
- Storage: 16TB SSD
- CPU: 64-core CPU
- GPU: 192-core GPU
- Neural Engine: 96-core Neural Engine
- Unified Memory: 512GB unified memory
- Storage: 32TB SSD
…Are you suggesting hardware to deliberately stagnate for older hardware customers to feel better?
Deliberate stagnation is one of the most disrespectful things you can do as a business or individual to an opportunity to do better.
That’s a loser mentality and not respecting the opportunity to do right by customers and the resources any effort in the millions related to.
I can’t believe you want a trillion-dollar corporation to deliberately milk customers—especially Apple whose high profit margins are finally being more respectfully earned more aggressively having gen-to-gen gains.
A reason for a new gen to matter is very much predicated on the improvements from the last gen on in-demand computing tasks.
You’re also exaggerating things a bit; the M4 Max’s GPU only being ~2.2x faster than a M1 Max’s GPU for example isn’t that impressive to industry norms.
Actually, Cinebench R23 is the problematic benchmark here as all x86 CPUs get high results. Cinebench R24 relatively would give better date to compare.
Sorry, you misunderstood me, this isnt bad for me, i would love foar aapple to bring 50% improvements even after 6months. 1.5h project for me to be cut in half?! Please Apple. For me my macs to be obsolete after 6 months for good reasons, is food on the table