Apple M4 Macbook Pro Cinebench 2024 scores leaked. Breaks 170 barrier.
Posted by Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit | hardware | View on Reddit | 236 comments
https://x.com/vadimyuryev/status/1844069410279129148?s=46
Single Thread score : 174 (23% faster than M3)
Multi Thread score : 977 (52% faster than M3) might have do with better cooling.
For reference, the ST cinebench score is
41% faster than X Elite (123 points)
34% faster than the 14900K (130 points)
31% faster than 9950x (132 points)
https://www.anandtech.com/show/21524/the-amd-ryzen-9-9950x-and-ryzen-9-9900x-review/8
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Microsoft-Surface-Pro-OLED-Copilot-review-A-high-end-2-in-1-now-with-the-Snapdragon-X-Elite.853756.0.html
No_Difficulty647@reddit
From my understanding, the mt score is super low. I can get 2400+ on my 14900k. However, it’s killing it in st
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Your 14900K is also a 300W monster. The M4 Ultra will be the answer.
phara-normal@reddit
I mean.. Your post is obviously biased and intended to mislead by omitting important information, like MT performance. Otherwise you would've included MT in your "for reference" section. Here I'll fix it for you:
For reference the MT score is
20% slower than the X Elite (1227)
50% slower than the 14900k (2003)
53% slower than the 9950x (2130)
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
How is it biased. It clearly focuses on ST performance. Lol
phara-normal@reddit
Except that it isn't. You're mentioning tge M4's MT score but then leave it out for every other mentioned CPU.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
I mentioned M4’s MT score as a YoY improvement over M3. Why would I compare a 14900K’s MT to the M4? Thats something Intel’s marketing dept would do. Lol.
phara-normal@reddit
Because that's what Apple has been marketing these chips for?? They've always advertised their Macbook series as workstations, except for the air. Macbooks have been used as desktop replacements for a loong time and MT is relevant for that.
Just look at the comments talking about compiling or video editing etc. I guarantee you that some people here think that their Macbook is faster than a PC with a 9950x or 14900k, in part to your shitty post completely leaving out that information.
If you were truly solely focused on ST you would've left MT out completely. If you were unbiased you would've included MT on all the chips, not only Apple's.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
I fail to see how anyone would be stupid enough to believe the M4 is faster than a 14900K, when it is explicitly specified in the heading as “Single Thread score”.
There’s very few people incapable of reading in this sub but you seem to think everyone is.
You’re picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.
phara-normal@reddit
I'm not. I'm picking a fight because you're purposefully leaving out information.
I've met several people that have been convinced that their M1/2/3 is faster than the corresponding top-end chips from AMD/Intel. On here and in real life, posts like yours contribute to that.
If it's not that big a deal and you're not being biased it shouldn't be a problem to fix your post with an edit and include MT, no? Let me guess, you won't for some arbitrary reason.
auradragon1@reddit
They are. In ST, certain accelerated workloads, and workloads that might utilize the GPU.
phara-normal@reddit
Yeah.. Unless a system has a dedicated GPU, which then again absolutely crushes the M series. Nobody is running a rig with a 14900k, 9950x or anything like that without a GPU and you know that.
This kind of comment is exactly what I'm talking about. Leaving out information that you'd need to see the whole picture and then saying "but it's faster". It's incredibly disingenuous and biased.
auradragon1@reddit
And people are running Apple Silicon chips in thin and light laptops with 20+ hours of battery life.
Context matters.
The point is that all Apple Silicon has great ST and the Max has great MT. Their GPUs are also really great and often beats laptop Nvidia GPUs while using less power.
AnuroopRohini@reddit
well Most of the heavy 3d work people do is using desktop (including me) not laptops because a laptop RTX GPU is very weak compared to Desktop grade GPUs remember apple is good only in ST but they are not going to beat Desktop chips in MT
phara-normal@reddit
And people are running Apple Silicon as desktop replacements.
Context matters.
Nobody is doing 3d work or cutting videos in a fucking coffee shop, that's marketing bs that you fell for.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Purposely leaving out information that the i9 14900K has faster MT performance than the M4?
Do you hear yourself?
That sounds like an issue with the people you’re speaking to. Not the post. It is specified multiple times as an ST comparison.
What on earth? It is specified multiple times as Single Thread performance. I’ve made similar posts dedicated to ST multiple times. When X Elite launched, when Zen 5 launched.
No one has had this complaint till you now. Because of “people” you met in real life?
Lmaoooo. I’ll do the edit as you ask. If it calms you down.
phara-normal@reddit
Yeah and in all those posts you at least mention it in the title. Also seems to me that if nobody had an issue with this my original comment would be downvoted to hell and not getting 10 upvotes instead.
Great with the edit! Good to see someone trying to leave their bias behind.
If I had to guess I'd say the edit is going to be extremely snarky, but I'm looking forward to being positively surprised.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
My edit doesn’t mention you at all. It just mentions the scores. Victim complex much?
RegularCircumstances@reddit
Yeah he’s being absurd lol. This is the type of AMD/Intel crap we put up with her
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
The wolverine got snared.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Got snared indeed!
vlakreeh@reddit
Comparing M4, a mobile energy efficient 4+6 design, to 12p/8+16/16p designs that draw significantly more power is comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). M4 Pro/Max will be giving these chips a run for their money and M4 Ultra will definitely be outpacing these chips. My M3 Max is damn near the same performance in MT code compile benchmarks as my 7950x on Linux, considering Apple has gotten way more of an uplift this gen than Intel or AMD it's hard to imagine them not beating both AMD and Intel in MT without Threadripper or Xeon W.
MrMobster@reddit
Yes, chips with more cores will be faster in multi-core, which is expected. You don't buy an M4 if you want exceptional multi-core performance, that is what M4 Pro/Max will be for. It is also an odd thing to nit-pick about as we are talking about the base CPU that goes into tablets and passively cooled consumer platforms.
The focus here is on the architecture and the fact that Apple's mobile CPU core outperforms latest and greatest desktop tech by a substantial margin while being suitable for passively cooled tablets. Which is incredibly impressive if you ask me.
auradragon1@reddit
His post isn't biased and isn't intended to mislead people. No one expects a chip designed to be fanless to beat a 9950x in MT.
aelder@reddit
Nothing about this is suggesting it's winning multi-core scores.
And seriously, this is comparing the M4 that will be going into the base tier MacBooks and the passively cooled Air.
The M4 only has 4 performance cores, it's 10 cores and 10 threads total - the 24 core 36 thread 14900k pulling over 200 watts should be embarassed that the M4 is only 50% slower in MT score.
Due-Stretch-520@reddit
if apple is continuing the dual die approach, I wouldn't be surprised if the m4 ultra pushes well past 3500 in CB24 MT
auradragon1@reddit
If Apple truly wants to win Cinebench MT, they'd stuff as many e-cores as possible. Having many slow cores will usually get you a higher Cinebench score than a few P cores.
hishnash@reddit
In the end for high mutli threaded tasks that are long lived e-cores give you better perf. Since within the same die area you can put way more of them and the perf per mm\^2 is higher than the P cores.
auradragon1@reddit
Those tasks are exceptionally low for client applications. Most client apps will run faster with a few high performance P cores than many many e cores.
hishnash@reddit
Most consumer applications are not long running cpu loads.
And many multi threaded tasks are entangled non separable so as you increase the number of cores the overhead of core to core sync increases. The new Geekbench 6 does a good job of this in some of thier mutli threaded testing (it upset a load of people when if first shipped as the MT score did not scale linearly with core count!)
auradragon1@reddit
Yep. GB6 upset a lot of people who bought high core count CPUs, or CPUs that have many slower cores because GB6 measures more real world common application loads.
MrMobster@reddit
I'd expect it to be closer to 5000-6000 actually. CB scales well with the number of cores and M4 Max is expected to have 12 performance cores. A hypothetical Ultra would have 24x performance cores and between 8-12 E-cores, making it at least 5-6x faster than the base M4.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Cool your horses. Linear scaling is required for that.
The M3 Max is a good starting point.
M3 max scores 1677, a 20% improvement gives 2012 points for the M4 Max.
M4 Ultra with an 82% scaling as seen with M2 Ultra over M2, should give a ~3600-3700 score.
Power consumption should be around 130-150W, while performance should be 43% faster than a 9950x.
MrMobster@reddit
Fair enough, my estimate might be a bit too optimistic. Curious to see how things will work out.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
There's a crazy rumour that;
M4 Max will be two die of M4 Pro.
M4 Ultra will be monolithic.
Potentially paving the way for fusion of two M4 Ultras to form an M4 Extreme!
No_Difficulty647@reddit
To be fair, a 260w monster
MrMobster@reddit
It's an entry-level mobile processor with 4 performance cores and 6 efficiency cores, basically 1/4 the size of your 14900K and 10 times lower power consumption. The M4 goes into passively cooled laptops and tables. I think being 2.5 slower than your high-level desktop in MT is quite impressive for this kind of product.
Now, the M4 Max with 12 performance cores is likely to match or outperform the 14900K, which would be an incredible result for a 14" laptop.
ReipasTietokonePoju@reddit
Stock 9700x; 8 cores, 80 watts, scores 23% higher running Cinebench 2024 MT compared to this new M4 SOC.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9700x/9.html
MrMobster@reddit
That’s a great result, 2x performance cores and 4x more power for 23% higher score ;)
ReipasTietokonePoju@reddit
I usually do not care about arguing with people online, but now you are just being intellectually extremely dishonest.
We have new Apple SOC with 10 CPU cores and when OPTIMIZED CPU rendering benchmark is run on that system, only 4 cores out of 10 are used ?? Why would you do that ?
Of course all the fucking cores used.
It does not matter if those 6 cores are "weaker", have lower clocks, whatever. They are still modern CPU cores manufactured with (at the time) state of the art 3nm process.
You trying to present a case were they do no matter at all is simply totally false and dishonest.
MrMobster@reddit
I consider myself to be a tech enthusiast. I am excited by interesting, advanced technology. A particular aspect of being "advanced" to me is doing more with less. I think it is very impressive when an elite powerlifter can pull a 400+kg deadlift. I don't think it is nearly as impressive as 8 regular people pulling 50kg each.
You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Yet you downplay the fact that Apple's E-cores offer around 1/3-1/4 performance of the P-core, at 1/10 power draw. How much do you think E-cores are contributing to the score? 30%, best case? Incorporate that in your calculation, and Apple's P-cores still deliver twice the performance of Zen5 at half the power draw in this scenario. Which tech do you find more impressive: one that can deliver \~ 650 points with 4 cores running at 4-5 watts each, or one that can deliver \~ 1400 points with 8 cores running at 10 watts each?
There are different ways to compare things. You can compare by total cost, you can compare by versatility, you can compare by performance in certain relevant workloads. If I need to build a high-throughput system on a low budget, I won't be looking at a Mac, I will be looking at a Ryzen. That is a no-brainer. It doesn't mean that I find Zen5 interesting or exciting tech.
hishnash@reddit
Remember that then M4 max will cpu will be under 60W comapred to the over 400W on the 14900K!
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
That's because the M4 is 4P+6E, whereas your 14900K is 8P+16E.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
And Apple’s E cores are hyper E cores. Intel’s E cores pull 5W on their own in MT. Apple’s E cores pull 0.5-0.7W.
hishnash@reddit
Apples P cores draw less than 5W!
joachim783@reddit
I mean TBF intel's E cores aren't tuned for maximum power efficiency they're tune for space efficiency with low power being a side benefit.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Yes, I am aware of the distinction. I just wanted to simply get the point across to u/No_Difficulty647
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Yes. Makes little sense to compare to the 14900k like he did.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
LPE?
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Like LPE crestmont? Hmm thats it!
hishnash@reddit
This is a 4p + 4r core.
14900k is a 8P + 16E. !
Qsand0@reddit
Two questions. Is m4 more efficient than M3 in terms of performance per watt.
Has x86 ever had up to 25% yoy improvement??
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
1) Only around 5-10%
2) Yes. Zen 4.
VastTension6022@reddit
zen 3 - 4 was 2 years, but intel/amd certainly had larger improvements when node scaling was better.
Qsand0@reddit
While apple is doing this each year. Its crazy how an m4 in the ipad is more powerful than amd and intel's latest and greatest in fan cooled apps. If this trend continues, x86 will be so far behind in a few years they'll be only used in toasters and luxurious gas pumps.
TheAgentOfTheNine@reddit
AMD/intel don't feel the heat from apple's chips. They are not competing with them except in the ultralaptop segment.
If Apple starts shipping server chips, then they'll have to adapt and start using more silicon per chip like apple does.
They could get bigger gains Gen over Gen increasing the size of the cores and the total area of the chips, but they don't feel the need because that'd cut into their margins a lot and they'd see no gain in markehshare as they are (at least AMD is) wafer constrained so the smaller the die, the more volume they can sell.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Actually, ARM cores are smaller than x86 rivals;
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1fuuucj/lunar_lake_die_shot/
TheAgentOfTheNine@reddit
That comparison doesn't take into account the shared L2 cache of apple cores
theQuandary@reddit
It also doesn’t factor in the massive L3 cache for x86 designs that Apple designs simply don’t have.
Qsand0@reddit
So x86 isnt inherently more efficient than arm. Its just that intel and amd are paying more attention to servers and desktops and then putting mobile as an afterthought?
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
I said something similar ;
Though I doubt x86 will be relegated to gas pumps or toasters anytime soon. X86 will stick around for many years to come.
Qsand0@reddit
Fig of speech ma nig
cangaroo_hamam@reddit
Not accurate. The M4 chip is more powerful, but the M4 chip in a tablet form factor can only do so much, and that is to write headlines about burst performance and reddit posts. It cannot deliver sustained performance at its max potential.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
That is not a handicap of chip. It's a handicap imposed by the device it's put into (the iPad in this case).
Apple will put the M4 in the Macbook Pro soon, and you'll see it fly.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
The question was if x86 ever had a 25% improvement. Thats why i pointed out zen 4
VastTension6022@reddit
_PPBottle@reddit
Westmere -> sandy bridge was 20% IPC but most importantly Fmax jumped also by 20%. IPS then was way higher.
And that on the exact same node, unlike M3 -> M4
Standard-Potential-6@reddit
Nehalem and then Sandy Bridge were like gifts from the heavens for x264 encoding at the time, excellent period
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
My bad. Then you would need to go to some old generation of x86. Pre 2015
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Zen 1 brought like 50% IPC increase. How many years was that?
Qesa@reddit
6 years, so only 7% annually
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Yea but that was over bulldozer. That doesn’t count😂
auradragon1@reddit
Probably. History is long.
Off the top of my head possibilities:
AMD Athlon XP to Athlon 64. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1517
Pentium 4 to Core 2 Duo.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Cortex A75 to Cortex A76 was massive 50% IPC improvement, and only with a 1 year gap too.
Nobody remembers this.
MrMobster@reddit
Depends on what part of the power curve you are looking at. At peak performance, the efficiency did not change much — M4 uses more power to deliver higher performance. At the same performance level, the efficiency has improved substantially (by 10-20%). I don't have the numbers right now, need to re-run my tests, but that is what I remember.
Qsand0@reddit
So 25% extra perf at 20% less power. Now aint that crazy. Equalizing for power, wont that be like a 50% perf increase? (Forgive my math)
MrMobster@reddit
No, that’s not what I wrote. It’s either 25% extra performance for around 20% more power, or same performance for 20% less power.
nplant@reddit
Is this some kind of a joke? Everything is improving at a snail’s pace compared to the past.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Apple brought a 25% ST improvement with M4, only 8 months after M3. That is extraordinary.
nplant@reddit
From the 286 to the Pentium 4/AMD Athlon, the average was like 60% per year. Even after that it was like over 20% for a long time.
The_EA_Nazi@reddit
It’s extraordinary but still within the realm of expectation for a Gen to Gen increase. The time frame here is what really makes it insane.
Iirc zen 2 to zen 3 has similar 20-25% gains
MissionInfluence123@reddit
Mind blowing
It may be possible for the M5 (pro or max most likely) to break the 200 points mark next year.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Ye. M5 needs to bring only 15% improvement to pass the 200 point mark.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Unlikely, its very likely that the next major microarchitecture update will be M6. M5 will more likely be an M2 like update. A tock generation.
auradragon1@reddit
Apple doesn’t do tick and tock. They’ve been quoted as saying they push hard every year.
Also, M3 was a huge change already.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
M3 - 3% IPC increase M4 - 8% IPC increase
Architecturally it seems that M3 is a big change that yielded poor results while M4 seemingly “fixed” M3.
theQuandary@reddit
Apple doesn’t have the luxury of only making new cores every couple of years, so they must plan in advance. There were parts of M3 that seem to have widened in anticipation of M4.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Only in terms of P-core. M3 introduced new P-core, E-core and brand new GPU architecture.
M4 only introduces a new P-core. E-core is same as M3, but clocked higher. GPU is also the same as M3, but with some slight architectural adjustments and higher clock speeds.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
GPU architecture may be the same, but the raytracing cores are not.
2x jump from previous generation is a huge upgrade and not just from clock speeds.
auradragon1@reddit
I think you just contradicted your own point. Apple makes rather large changes every year. You can't label Apple's cadence as a tick/tock.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
The M2 was definitely a tick generation.
anival024@reddit
Nobody calls things "tick" or "tock" anymore. That died a long, long time ago. Even Intel, who was basically the only reason behind the naming, hated it because it had long become meaningless.
Geddagod@reddit
Plenty of people call things "tick" or "tocks" still here.
Chips and Cheese refers to RWC as feeling as a "tick", for example. Even if it doesn't exactly apply to every core anymore, describing certain things that way certainly is still fine.
The idea that a company would target lower IPC gains or fewer architectural changes on a new node while targeting the largest changes on an older node still ring true even in recent history, from both Intel and AMD's side. AMD's large architectural changes were made on the same node - "tocks" with Zen 3 and Zen 5, while Zen 2 and Zen 4 saw relatively smaller changes while being node jumps.
And Intel hates tick tock because they can't execute, but even Gelsinger talked about returning to tick-tock back in 2021. GLC> RWC (tick), LNC (tick and tock tbh), core in PTL (rumored to be tick), core in NVL (rumored to be tock).
auradragon1@reddit
Label it however you want. Apple does not follow tick/tock cadence.
giorgilli@reddit
M3 and a17 were dogshit
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
They weren’t. From a mobile standpoint sure. From a desktop standpoint, the M3’s GPU architecture accelerated 3d rendering (a core weakness of Mac) by nearly 3-4x.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Even M2 brought a >15% ST uplift.
Geekbench 6.
M1 Max (2400 points)
M2 Max (2800 points)
M3 Max (3200 points)
Kryohi@reddit
Frequency gains were easier to make from M1 to M2.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
M1 : 3.2 GHz.
M1 Max : 3.4 GHz.
M2 : 3.5 GHz.
M2 Max : 3.4 GHz.
M3 : 4.05 GHz.
M4 : 4.5 GHz.
Kryohi@reddit
My point being that increasing clocks becomes much harder and with diminishing returns once you go far beyond 4GHz. They could maybe build a CPU with a 5GHz "boost clock", but after that?
Standard-Potential-6@reddit
after that comes an Arrow Lake, yup
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Then they might break 200 after all.
Noble00_@reddit
Apple is on another league, having a vertical stack on their products. The base M SoCs are like at most ~30W SKUs and they rival power heavy desktop CPUs.
It's interesting how Intel with ARL main marketing point is same great Intel performance at much lower wattage when Apple seemingly is doing it much more, even more performancr at mobile level power draw. Of course not talking about nT here
jonydevidson@reddit
Yep, I moved to a M3 Max MacBook Pro for professional work after being on a 12900k and I have not really felt any performance loss.
The MacBook is in a vertical stand, plug and play with a single cable into FusionDock Max1 which hosts my entire desktop setup. It's dead quiet unless doing heavy rendering and the room is noticeably cooler, especially during the summer.
I can just plug it out and take it with me wherever I go without having to maintain a separate laptop's installation. Plus, any power outages, rare as they are, are no longer a concern whatsoever.
jhwestfoundry@reddit
Is your m3 max macbook pro 14 or 16inch? Reason i am asking is that tests show that 14 inch may limit the M3 Max
jonydevidson@reddit
It's 16", but because I wanted the bigger screen.
It may limit it but only in sustained full load over longer periods, which is not a very realistic scenario. if you're rendering something that takes half an hour, you're taking off and getting coffee. Whether it lasts 30 or 33 minutes is irrelevant.
If that's your primary workload, you probably already have a much stronger machine that serves as a server where you're offloading this to.
If convenience is important, the form factor and convenience of a 14" over 16" is much more important that the throttling that happens after 20 minutes or whatever and clips the performance down 5-10%.
Therefore, for 99% of people in 99% of the time, there is no performance difference.
jhwestfoundry@reddit
Good points made. Is the M3 Max your only machine or do you have another more powerful machine?
jonydevidson@reddit
It's the only one. I sold my desktop PC.
CwRrrr@reddit
Apple silicon is such a game changer for Apple, yet we have people constantly saying Apple has not progressed/does not innovate enough. Went from overheating Intel MacBooks to these efficient powerhouses in a switch.
KeyboardGunner@reddit
I'm still amazed at how smooth the transition was.
hishnash@reddit
Apple put a LOT of work to presepare the ecosystem for the switch:
Here are just some of the things they did years out to make it smother:
* Moved the default for apps on x86 Macs to link against the hardened runtime and thus not support JITs with RWX only support RW and RX but not RWX. This makes it much much much simpler for Rosseta2 to deal with x86 applications that use a JIT since when the app switches from RW to RX (writable to executable) it cant expect to continue to mutate the intrucitnos in that memory page range. As such rosseta2 can then fully JIT these to ARM and run them and not need to worry that they might be changed at any point. (the other benefits of this is security)
* Made a load of changes to the default used by the clang compiler with respect to the nature of the generated machine code to make it easier (faster) to run through rosseta2
* Shipped a lot of performance acceration as runtime linked system libs, eg video encoding/decoding, accelerate framework for BLASS etc. This means that devs did not need to re-compile or rewrite the apps to target new HW features, even x86 apps were able to use the video encode decode without changes, and able to use the vector and matrix etc units of apple silicon as they were just calling into system libs.
* Intentionally limited Metal features to not include some things that the HW from AMD on x86 Macs could run well but they new would be a pain to run on thier gpus due to arc differences.
auradragon1@reddit
macOS dropped 32bit support in 2019. I wonder if industry players such as Intel/AMD management knew immediately that Apple was going to make their own Mac chips.
RusticMachine@reddit
Andrei from Anandtech was reporting about replacing Intel with Apple AX chips (the iPad chips that became later known as the M series), years before that. He was already favorably comparing performance on Spec for the A10 (2016) with Intel/AMD cores and pointing out the fact that they were competitive.
People, including a few Intel engineers on Twitter, were just in denial about the results for years. Though it wasn’t a big surprise to anyone following closely.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Read the comments under this post;
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/axyzju/arm_processors_like_the_a12x_bionic_are_nearing/
:)
radient@reddit
Hot damn that’s a lot of confidently incorrect people
wpm@reddit
I was personally unconvinced of the ARM switch rumors until Thunderbolt went "open", ie, until you could get Thunderbolt without being hitched to an Intel processor. A lot of Apple rumors are just "wouldn't it be cool!" without much thought to the technical underpinnings of what needs to be true in order for it to happen. And of course, in retrospect, it's always easier to see the little steps and changes that all lead to a specific change.
Really, going back to 2016 or so, when Skylake launched and Apple got pissed at Intel for the quality of the silicon they were getting, you start seeing the changes that made the transition relatively painless.
spazturtle@reddit
Even before that there had been multiple occasions where Mac OS betas had included executables compiled for ARM.
TheGreenTormentor@reddit
Anyone who experienced their original move to Intel probably wasn't surprised. Opening your old software still using PowerPC binaries and it just works™? Mindblowing at the time. Just like today native binaries still get way better performance, but for most applications you wouldn't notice.
They've even done it once before for 68k, but I wasn't alive early enough to comment on that one.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Yeah.
Looks at Microsoft, Qualcomm dumpling with Windows-on-ARM...
hishnash@reddit
MS is not committed. The reason it work for apple is they new 10 years out when they were moving and that they were moving 100%. This ment for years leading up to the move they were preparing they way, making sure apps were using apis that they could support during the transition (aka dropping 32bit), making sure binaries were compiled to be easy to emulator through rosseta2, making sure things using JIT were not mutating the blocks of code that they were running at the same time. etc...
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Microsoft fumbling with WoA. Not Qualcomm lol. When the software vendor is as incompetent as MS, whats the point of having the speed of 100 i9s in a laptop.
onan@reddit
They've had a lot of practice. ARM is the fourth architecture Macs have had.
TangerineExotic8316@reddit
Too bad the software has gotten more and more unstable.
wichwigga@reddit
Intel Macs shudders
Culbrelai@reddit
That multicore score is ass lmao
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Lol what. Its got 4P cores.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Inb4 M4 Max smashes the Ryzen 9950X
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Unlikely. But should get really close. Scarily close. Estimating a 2000 points for the M4 Max (20% increase) would give AMD a 25% advantage despite using like 3x more power and having access to 2x the threads.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
You presume the M4 Max will have the same 12P+4E configuration as M3 Max.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
There could be a core count upgrade. But I think so yea.
Culbrelai@reddit
Probably will thermal throttle lol
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
No it won’t. The M4 Max even at peak probably pulls 70W.
Logseman@reddit
The 2019 chassis would have been great with a chip like this.
hishnash@reddit
Not possible to make the cpu thermal throttle in a Max max book under a pure CPU load.
If you do a full fat GPU and CPU load you may see power throttling (not thermal) but under a pure cpu load (or even a heavy cpu and mid level GPU power virus) your not going to thermal throttle a modern Mac.
Edenz_@reddit
Tbf it is only a thin and light SoC, 4p + 4e cores.
loveiseverything@reddit
Why these M-series benchmarks do not translate to real world performance. My M3 pro still gets absolutely destroyed immediately when I try to do more than one thing at the same time.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Eh? That sounds like BS, sorry.
Not only is your statement stupidly vague, but it makes zero sense that your M3 pro struggles with opening apps.
What kinda apps are you opening
loveiseverything@reddit
Anything even remotely more heavy duty than an idle browser while trying to multitask anything. Terminal with dev environment and Chrome. Nope. Xcode and Outlook. Dead.
Funny that you said opening apps because that is also a lot slower on mac versus windows and linux machines I use even with a fresh start, but that does not bother me much.
The problem is that the performance craters badly immediately when I use more than one app at the same time.
Niosus@reddit
Not the guy you originally replied to. But as an example: at work my M2 Pro does struggle from time to time with IntelliJ. Sometimes it will kind of just hang for a few seconds. I had much less of that on my previous machine, even though the M2 Pro is a good chunk faster. Although this could also be more of an issue with IntelliJ than with raw performance.
Also when the application we build is actually running and processing data, the OS really slows down a lot. It seems very sensitive to applications that pin the CPU at 100%. It's been a long time since I've noticed something like that on my Windows PC (currently with a 7800X3D). This also goes beyond just the raw performance. In this case I think the Windows scheduler is just a bit smarter in prioritizing the application the user is interacting with.
So both cases are probably not caused by the chip itself, but they do contribute to the experience that my M2 Pro laptop just feels significantly slower than my desktop even though the M2 Pro has a significantly higher ST performance (balanced out by a good deal slower MT performance). I'm really happy with the laptop, but the 7800X3D system just feel a good bit snappier.
okoroezenwa@reddit
Probably just some pathetic liar.
Moist-Ideal1263@reddit
Whats the current state of Linux on those things?
Initial-Hawk-1161@reddit
As far as i know, its... usable but a lot of things lacking.
Not sure if it works on the newer chips though
but i did read a headline saying Linus Thorvald uses a mac with linux daily now - that was like a year ago.
It's certainly runnable on m1 and m2
https://medium.com/thedeephub/install-linux-ubuntu-20-04-on-m1-m2-mac-silicon-de1992d5fa26
_KingDreyer@reddit
alyssa is making an announcement at xdc i think today about vulkan 1.3 compliant reverse engineered drivers
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
Not supported past M2 or something?
Rjman86@reddit
Not even really available on the M3 yet, so it'll be a long time before we see it on the M4. Even on the M1 and 2 it's missing plenty of basic features like the microphone, USB-C video, 120hz, fingerprint reader etc. Plus you lose a lot of the efficiency improvements because it doesn't support things like hardware video encode/decode and proper sleep support.
hardware2win@reddit
How does it stand against Lunar Lake?
Initial-Hawk-1161@reddit
A review i found, says 122 points for lunar lake, 141 points for M3
1 on list: M3 - 141 points
2 on list: quallcomm snapdragon 127 points
3 on list - some other snapdragon
4 on list: lunar lake 122 points (cpu in 'full speed mode') in normal mode it gets 120 points - wonder if its with or without plugged into power, and if it has an effect.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
Lunar Lake has pitiful MT performance. It's a regression not only compared to last gen, but slower than previous gen (Alder Lake) too. These are results from Linux, but Windows MT performance isn't much better:
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/intel-core-ultra-7-256v-lunar-lake-linux-benchmarks/geometric-mean-of-all-test-results-result-composite-icu72lllb.svgz
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
45% LL
37% elite x
54% HX 370
Piotr_Barcz@reddit
I thought the M1 was new but I guess I'm way behind xD
RScrewed@reddit
Lol at "leaked"
These are ads.
vlakreeh@reddit
Apple doesn't hand out unannounced devices in search of free publicity. It's Apple, they really don't need the help to drum up excitement for their products.
Electricpants@reddit
If these were actual leaks, Apple would punish the leaker.
I've been on projects that have partnered with Apple. Everything is under strict non-disclosure agreements.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Geekbench 6.
M3 (3200) -> M4 (4000) +25% gain.
Cinebench 2024.
M3 (141) -> M4 (174) +25% gain.
How does M4 have a ~25% gain in Cinebench 2024 as well? I was expecting less, because the +25% gain in Geekbench6 is partly due to the addition OF SME. Cinebench 2024 doesn't leverage SME.
jaaval@reddit
It seems to have very good fp vector performance in geekbench (especially object detection which specifically uses SME instructions). The integer tests are less incredible, within few percent of intel and amd results, though apple of course achieves it with far better efficiency.
The exception is the clang compiler subtest where apple sweeps the competition which I don't quite understand at the moment. But somebody just pointed out to me that clang is basically apple compiler collection now, with apple developers being very active in its development during past years. It might have several optimizations designed for apple hardware. I'd like to see gcc comparison.
mavere@reddit
Compilations tasks are very branchy with large footprints. That matches well with a lot of general user tasks, so it'd make sense for Apple design teams to focus on it because Apple's bread and butter is still the general iPhone user experience.
Lol the internet.
GCC subtest in Spec would have similar performance uplift as Geekbench's Clang subtest. See https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ir421j7vR/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0 @ 8:56 and compare against subtests in https://www.anandtech.com/show/21524/the-amd-ryzen-9-9950x-and-ryzen-9-9900x-review/5
jaaval@reddit
Nobody said anything about any conspiracy. Stop making shit up.
ReipasTietokonePoju@reddit
Cinebench 2024 benchmarks are optimised for Apple M3 / M3 SOCs...
https://postperspective.com/maxons-redshift-and-cinebench-optimized-for-apples-m3-chips/
they use internal SOC GPU for rendering together with CPU.
okoroezenwa@reddit
Nice, we’re doing this for Cinebench too now 🤡
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Lol, I know it would be coming.
First Geekbench 5, then Geekbench 6.
Now Cinebench 2024.
Is SPEC2017 next? 🤣
okoroezenwa@reddit
I’d say Blender, if the M4 Ultra ends up impressive. Blender 4.2 increased ASi scores but reduced Nvidia scores after all. However since no M3 Mac came close to Nvidia’s highest it didn’t really mean much, but that could change if Apple actually release an Ultra chip this generation.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
How about an M4 Extreme?
okoroezenwa@reddit
Honestly I think I’ve given up hope. I think it’s more likely the Mac Pro will be killed lol
Due-Stretch-520@reddit
lmfao im pretty sure SPEC has actually been ganged up on in the past already for these same reasons
okoroezenwa@reddit
Yeah I’ve definitely seen this for SPEC as well. It’s not as much of a concerted effort as the one against Geekbench or the one bubbling against Cinebench, but it’s there.
auradragon1@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1es4ayc/amds_new_zen_5_cpus_fail_to_impress_during_early/li41erc/
Author is definitely an AMD fan. I bet AMD fans would like to base all CPU metrics on Cinebench R23 where Apple loses due to lack of ARM optimization.
Funny thing is, almost all software developers in Silicon Valley and other tech companies founded in the last 20 years use Macs.
xUsernameChecksOutx@reddit
Oh we’re back in 2020 again haha
CalmSpinach2140@reddit
The CPU test is CPU only. The GPU doesn’t get used at all in the CPU test. The optimisation Maxon are talking about is for the Metal which the GPU uses.
You can see the GPU load in macOS when the CPU test is run, it barely uses/stresses the GPU.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
No they don’t lol. There are two tests in Cinebench. One tests the CPU and the other tests the GPU. This test is the CPU part and only the CPU part.
SERIVUBSEV@reddit
8GB Base M3 -> 16GB Base M4
M3 results are gimped by 8GB RAM, and most performance improvement could come from adding another 8GB, possibly in dual channel.
CalmSpinach2140@reddit
M3 16GB model scores 142 in ST and 710 in MT.
auradragon1@reddit
Do you have source for this?
CalmSpinach2140@reddit
Yep Max tech. https://youtu.be/tS1DeT7dBvE?t=139&si=ZjSv6CrYAspCJSQM
auradragon1@reddit
Interesting. Thanks.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
8 GB M3 is already dual channel. And I doubt RAM capacity is a bottleneck in these benchmarks.
hishnash@reddit
Better cache, wider decode etc. Remember to support SME (and not be bottlenecked) apple needed to increase the FP (and int) throughput a LOT under the hood SME gets broken down into the same micro ops as you can have through stanared instructions. And apples wide decode and easy decode (due to fixed width instructions) gives them this.
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
It has a dedicated execution backend shared among all cores, so this sounds very unlikely.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
No? The SME instructions are executed by a separate coprocessor block that is not part of the CPU cores.
https://x.com/Frederic_Orange/status/1804125571670036831
You can see the distinct AMX/SME blocks marked in the dieshots.
hishnash@reddit
AMX is separate SME is not using AMX block it is using the stanared FP units on the cpu core. (AMX is great for single threaded tasks but since you have a single AMX unit shared it does not scale like we see here).
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Source? I have never heard that before.
hishnash@reddit
You can test it yourself.
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
https://github.com/tzakharko/m4-sme-exploration
"Apple's matrix accelerator is a dedicated hardware unit — it is not part of the CPU core. There is one AMX/SME block in a CPU cluster, shared by all CPU cores."
This seems to strongly disagree with you...
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?!
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Sorry, yes you are right. I misread your initial comment.
AbhishMuk@reddit
Slightly noob question, what’s stopping say Qualcomm or ARM (apart from cost) to make wider chips with more cache etc? Are there significant differences in branch handling or other aspects that have patents protecting them?
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
ARM cores are actually the widest in the industry. This is why they also have higher IPC than competing x86 cores.
M4-P : 10 wide.
M3-P : 9 wide.
Cortex X925 : 10 wide.
Cortex X4 : 10 wide.
Oryon : 8 wide.
Lion Cove : 8 wide.
Skymont : 3+3+3 wide.
Zen5 = 4+4 wide.
hishnash@reddit
I believe the 8 wide in lion cove is a theoretical max (aka if all 8 instructions are perfect) in reality for most workloads you're not going to successfully decode 8 instructions at once.
AbhishMuk@reddit
Thanks, didn’t realise cortex already had such wide cores.
hishnash@reddit
You need to build the rest of the chip to deal with the width, having a ultra wide decoder (as you see with Cortex) does not always mean you can pull more compute through since you might be cache, bandwidth or branch predictor starved. (there are other reasons for making a wider decoder such as lower power draw so others wide designs are not useless just not using it fully for throughput).
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
Same reason why Zen 5 got a 20% FP boost even when not using AVX512...
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
SME wasn't "added" to M4. In M3 and previous SoCs, Apple already had a unit called AMX. Both AMX and SME deal with matrices. The difference is in the technicality of the extensions. AMX was a custom Apple extension, so it could not be used by any 3rd party apps including Geekbench. SME on the other hand is a standard ARM extension.
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
I know all of this, and nowhere did I claim that "SME was added to M4". But again: per your own statement, Cinebench doesn't leverage SME, so the speedup is from the rest of the core.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
No, what I am saying is that Apple already had AMX in M3. They already had the things in place to support AMX. Since AMX and SME are almost the same thing, I doubt that Apple had to "beef up" the FP to specifically help SME.
Pristine-Woodpecker@reddit
SME is pretty different to program compared to AMX, so it's quite possible it requires more support to not lose performance to get data in/out in the right formats (see links I posted in the other thread). But I won't argue this, as I've luckily never had to program them directly :P
MrMobster@reddit
Around 10% higher clock, faster RAM, more (faster) E-cores, architectural improvements across the int and fp domains.
VastTension6022@reddit
Isn't the 4000 score from fridged ipads? I think the typical score is 3800.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
In the blender subtest in SPEC, M4 had a similar gain so this was expected.
Rendering seems to be a strongpoint for the P core this time.
Appropriate_Fault298@reddit
finally a benchmark that isn't geekbench
Sopel97@reddit
too bad it's cinebench
Appropriate_Fault298@reddit
yeah, real world benchmarks are honestly the only valid benchmarks.
sl0wrx@reddit
Really impressive scores. What kind of power are these things using in all core workloads?
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
25W probably.
auradragon1@reddit
No. Base M typically goes up to 10-12w max. I’m guessing they could push it a bit harder on the MBP and go up to 15w.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Geekerwan’s M4 test on ipad with proper cooling showed 25W as peak.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
30W actually.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Unlikely to reach that in Macs. They’ve got good cooling, not liquid cooling.
And Geekerwan’s usage of said liquid nitrogen is likely resulting in a flat performance curve.
Very likely that it hovers at 20-25W in a normal air cooled product.
hishnash@reddit
modern Macs are rather good at cooling.
Also in a laptop liquid cooling is not goin to help as you still need to get the heat out of the case.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
According to Geekerwan'a graph, at 30W M4 scores about 13k points in Geekbench 6. How much does the leaked M4 Macbook Pro score in Geekbench 6 Multi Core?
Due-Stretch-520@reddit
that's strange since the m4 ipad pro routinely scores above 15k in GB6.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Geekbench 5
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
I saw scores as high as 15.3k
Kryohi@reddit
So assuming (big assumption) linear scaling of power and performance with the number of cores, they would need about 75W to match 9950X and 14900 MT performance. More realistically, something like 90-100W, which is still impressive.
hishnash@reddit
M3 max is more like 60W I would be surprised if it goes over that much.
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
Downvotes rdy, apple strategy is weird, they're giving up marketshare with these fast updates.
https://www.techpowerup.com/327464/global-pc-shipments-dip-slightly-despite-recovery-economy-but-ai-integration-is-the-key-to-future-market-success
samaritan1331_@reddit
They aren't giving up market share they're killing the competition.
pianobench007@reddit
They are not killing the competition. Nvidia is destroying the competition. Apple has both Dell, Lenovo, Acer, and a whole host of other competitors to handle.
They are even against the Samsung. Samsung phone vs iPhone is about even in favor of Samsung. But we can just call it a wash.
If you want Apple to kill it, they will need to do more than edge out a couple of points in ST score. Like single threaded points are alright. Just ask Intel.
What really wins in the long term is developer support. Apple knows it but Apple has totally halted that for their developers. Early they were okay with the 30% tax but Apple doesn't support their developers like NVIDIA has done.
Apple iPhone marketshare can only go so far and has in fact seen a decline in newer markets like China. Even with all these iPhone GPU accelerated games coming out (Resident Evil IP) it is still not enough. They need to have another strategy and they can't do it all.
There will be a time when they cannot do it all. AI and GPU domination is very difficult especially when you have fierce competition everywhere.
Sure Apple was able to shift away from Intel that's miracle number 2. Miracle number 1 was the iPhone.
What's micrale number 3? Slightly faster ST performance in cinebench? When any reasonable GPU just completely destroys the fastest multithread CPU ever.....
My 4080 gets like 27K points. The fastest $30K dollar 256 cpu server cores get less than 6,000 points.
anival024@reddit
Apple doesn't give a crap about iPhone sales. The iPhone only exists as a shackle tying people to Apple's ecosystem.
They care about App Store sales. Apple users pay for apps. Android users don't. And when the rare Android user pays for an app or in-app purchase, Google takes 30% and Samsung gets... nothing. Are you buying Samsung apps? Or games and crap from third parties? Are you buying apps on the Samsung Store, or on the Play Store?
onan@reddit
78% of Apple's revenue is from hardware sales. Their services revenue is not insignificant, but it's a bit silly to claim that the 78% is just an afterthought on the way to that juicy 22%.
pianobench007@reddit
They all get their fair share of that data and app purchasing pie. We the consumer don't see the fees behind the curtain but they definitely get a share.
I don't know the fees that Google pay exactly to be the #1 search engine on Android/Samsung and I won't pretend I know the exact deal for Google and Apple but we've all seen the headlines.
Apple and Apple share holders do in fact care about iPhone sales for exactly what you point out. It was iPhone that paid for everything that Apple has become and more. And it is not just about app purchases. It is also the in app purchases. It is how all those apps stay free. And BTW they aren't free.
Either the in app purchases pay for it, the search and data/location aggregation pay for it, or the straight up advertisement pay for it. Either way you and I all pay.
So iPhone sales matter. Where they are gaining sales also matter. And with which age demographic. It all hella* matters despite opinions.
My stance is the same. Single Threaded scores dont matter. Today's newest and latest game is all in the datacenter, Ai, and GPUs. That is entirely what is driving today's market, the investment, and the datacenter build out.
Seriously. Just look at the numbers. The downvoters because some ST score? Those don't matter a second. No one cares about CPU single threaded scores. They can't scale.
Everything is in the parallel processing power of a GPU/NPU which use the same things. And that CUDA gpu environment is what they need to crack right now. That is the developer support environment that took decades to build that NVIDIA invested in. Not some in app purchases fee or tax on app fees. Which BTW solely depend on new iPhone adoption.
Older iPhone users are already saturated and there isn't a ton of growth there. All the growth will be in Ai.
onan@reddit
Apple makes 85% of all profit in the global smartphone market. That is very much not a wash.
I guess that would mean that miracle number 0 was being the company that made online media sales possible at all. And miracle number -1 would be the ipod. Miracle number -2 would be dvd burners. Miracle -3 would be wifi. Miracle number -4 would be osx. And miracle number -5 would be the imac. Miracle number -6 would be the macintosh. And your miracle number 2 is also miracles number -3.5 and -5.5, as they have seamlessly moved uarch three times now.
People have been predicting that apple is surely out of miracles and about to collapse for nearly fifty years now. And yet.
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
What? You dont have to refute hard evidence. Its right there, its even lower than prem1. All im saying is why give up short term?
auradragon1@reddit
Apple growth rates are highly dependent on when they launch laptops.
NeroClaudius199907@reddit
Yes it is because jumping on cutting edge means your volume decreases. We've seen samething happen to mtl, every amd mobile skus. Theres just not enough volume
Lalaland94292425@reddit
/r/Famous_Wolverine3203 How does it compare to the M1 Pro?
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
M4 Multicore performance is 22% faster than M1 pro . (977 points vs 803 points)
M4 Single core performance is 54% faster than M1 pro. (174 points vs 113 points)
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_2024_single_core
According to this website, the X Elite (top SKU), 14900K and 9950X all score 139 points.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
CPU monkey is notoriously unreliable. And I wouldn’t recommend using them. They’ve been called out multiple times for fabricated scores.
They had a listing for an M1 Max score 9 months before it launched.
TwelveSilverSwords@reddit
Oh yes, I am well aware.
What I wanted to say is that you should double-check the scores you listed in the post.
123 points is for the X Elite 80 version. The 84 can do 128 points, and the 00-1DE in the Dev Kit exceeds 130 points.
TheFapaholic@reddit
What benchmark site would you recommend?
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
Notebookcheck
auradragon1@reddit
CPU monkey fakes benchmark scores. They basically do a projection for many CPUs instead of actually do any testing.
They don’t do any testing themselves.
Due-Stretch-520@reddit
cpu monkey is essentially the “i saw it in a dream” benchmark website
InclusivePhitness@reddit
How come some idiot hasn't complained yet, "oh we need to wait for official results!!!!!"
These days raw benchmarks are 100% accurate.
Famous_Wolverine3203@reddit (OP)
There’s nothing wrong with waiting for official benchmarks. Even though leaks are accurate nowadays, I won’t begrudge someone wanting to verify stuff.
InclusivePhitness@reddit
Nah, there's an actual distrust of Apple, 'oh they're exaggerating'. Yeah i know these aren't leaked by Apple.
The key question is, when a leaked benchmark has actually been wrong in like the past 5 years? I don't even remember one solitary case. Yet people complaining during chip launches that Apple was lying.
ThankGodImBipolar@reddit
It would be pretty trivial to pull up false “leaked”benchmarks for both Zen 5 and ARL (say less about the previous five years).
RegularCircumstances@reddit
Integer performance is more important of course but still impressive and this is still general indicator.