Is Apple's M4 Max really more powerful than the top Intel and AMD chips?
Posted by StandardAd3747@reddit | buildapc | View on Reddit | 250 comments
Hi all,
New Geekbench scores were released for Apple's M4 Max CPU, and it gets over 4,000 single core and over 22,000 multi core, far superior to any stock Intel or AMD CPU (even the 9950x or ultra 9 285k).
While I understand these are just synthetic benchmarks, could it really be possible for an Apple ARM laptop CPU to easily surpass top of the line desktop CPUs from Intel and AMD? Did Apple just make the most powerful consumer CPU ever?
Hungry_Reception_724@reddit
Its not, no apple M chip haw ever been more powerful than the top of the line intel or amd chip. Their claims are to the efficieny, its the fastest chip for the wattage, but when you put any of the m chips up againts any top of the line intel chip that draws 300 watts it pales in comparison
unlinedd@reddit
It's a very, very good chip, but GeekBench is just one benchmark. What's incredible is M4 Max is a laptop chip. Apple has a huge efficiency advantage - they're able to get great performance on lower clock speeds.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
I see.
So if we tried to compile the Linux kernel on a 9950x or Ultra 9 285k, and then tried it on the m4 max, would the m4 max take longer (theoretically)?
geniuslogitech@reddit
passmark is best measure for CPU performance most of the time, their multi-core test is not actually pure multicore but takes into consideration both single and multi core performance, M4 Max has just shy of 41k, M4 Pro bit over 38k, bit under 25k for 10 core M4, bit over 22k for 9 core M4
for comparison M2 Max already did close to 27k, new ryzen 9 9900x(not even the most powerful consumer chip does close to 55k), Intel's 14900KS does over 62k, more than 50% over M4 Max
now THE big boy numbers, AMD Threadripper PRO 7995WX, 153k, it absolutely obliterates it
that said in single-core they do keep up with AMD and Intels best offerings, but so does A17 Pro in Iphones, it's not any better than their phone chips, it's just where you would expect it to fall being a lower powered chip, competing with same core count AMD in single-core but AMD winning by more than 50% in single core with 66k+
UlamsCosmicCipher@reddit
I’m not seeing the M4 Max as having been tested (although several other M4 chips do show up). Link?
Paddy_Tanninger@reddit
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_2024_multi_core
That's a good one to me, Cinebench is great at showing a full core workload. Somehow the M4 Max is way lower than the M2 Ultra though...granted it does have quite fewer cores, but just seems odd to me that 2 generations wouldn't be packing either more cores or the same number but higher IPC.
Personal_Return_4350@reddit
M3 was a mulligan so it's more like 1.25 generations.
geniuslogitech@reddit
it's not public yet because too little samples have been tested but they published like a forum post or something showing multi-core score of m4 max and m4 pro in comparison, will try to find it again
Edenz_@reddit
Why is passmark the best?
MyNameIsSushi@reddit
bro is a userbenchmark mod
Edenz_@reddit
Me ?? those are fighting words
coffeandcream@reddit
lol, fighting words.
Thanks for the humor. :)
MyNameIsSushi@reddit
I meant the guy you're replying to since he picked an Intel biased benchmark.
itsabearcannon@reddit
Okay just point of clarification Passmark and UserBenchmark are not the same. Not sure if that’s the joke you were making but they are very much not the same and PassMark (to my knowledge) is not involved with the same batshit dude that runs UBM.
toetx2@reddit
PassMark did change their grading system in the past because AMD started to beat Intel.
itsabearcannon@reddit
At my company (managed services), we use PassMark for gross approximations of performance class for office workloads.
We require our clients (if they want us to support it) to buy PCs that score 25,000 minimum on the CPU multi-core test. 35,000 for “power users” that do development work and such.
We’ve tested across a fleet of around 600 machines and found a couple things that are predicted by gross PassMark score:
Computers scoring less than about 10K can’t fully saturate a gigabit Internet connection, in general. They’ll struggle to get above 600-700 Mbps even over hardline.
Computers scoring less than 10K or so will have trouble even keeping basic OneDrive/SharePoint sync operations running, and users will frequently report files not syncing up to the cloud
Computers scoring less than about 15K struggle a fair bit with Windows 11 24H2 in our deployments. We think we’ve isolated the cause as just increased background task load, but the biggest culprits have been shitty U-series and G-series 9th-11th Gen Intel chips so it’s possible those chips are just aging like crap
PassMark is great for an office PC benchmark because it simulates performance in things like multitasking, browsing, photo editing, and PDF editing/loading. That’s why we use it - because the workload it tests is similar enough to what most of our clients do that we can accurately say that double the PassMark score, for example, should result in a noticeable improvement in the tasks our clients actually do.
But it’s not helpful for all tasks, and some tasks may not scale in user-visible performance as much as the score change between CPUs might indicate. You have to use multiple benchmarks to accurately gauge “better”, and all that performance in the M4 Max is worthless if your workload doesn’t run on macOS/ARM.
blodskaal@reddit
Well... Because it passes the mark.
I'll see myself out
Warhouse512@reddit
Yea I don’t think this is accurate. Passmark is heavily Intel biased, even when just looking at x64.
Edenz_@reddit
Yeah, I would love to see a battery of tests showing a 285k beating a M4 Max by ~50% geometric average. I don’t think it exists.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks!
Barefoot_Mtn_Boy@reddit
If you watch a YouTube from Jayztwocents, there have been some interesting results for the Intel Ultra 9 285K when a new type of memory is installed. The memory is called CUDIMM, and the jump from your usual DDR-5 to the CUDIMM was way faster than anything else turned out by Intel to date! I say this, as I am an IT guy, and to me, whether an Intel/AMD Windows machine or an Apple offering ALL of them are PC's, and I'd love to see one of the M4's against the new 285K's with the very different CUDIMM's installed. I bet it would be close.
norbertus@reddit
The M4 is an ARM-based instruction set and is not compatible with the AMD64 set, so, no, you can't compile the kernel on an AMD or Intel chip and expect it to run on an M4.
The only Linux distro I know of that will run on new Apple chips is the Ashai Fedora spin.
https://asahilinux.org/fedora/
Their support appears limited to M1 and M2 chips, and not all drivers are complete, though graphics work.
kreayshunist@reddit
What? You can cross-compile the kernel from an x86 machine for arm64. You can also do it in reverse. You may not be able to run it without emulation, but it'll build and generate the correct binaries.
squirrel_crosswalk@reddit
Cross compile exists....
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
I'm not trying to compile something on x86 and then try and run it on a different architecture, obviously that wouldn't work. I'm asking, as u/n0damage pointed out, the compile time for something as big as the Linux kernel on an m4 Macbook vs a top x86 chip like the 9950x.
norbertus@reddit
Gotcha, didn't quite catch that
n0damage@reddit
They are asking about compile times using a M4 CPU vs AMD/Intel, not actually trying to run Linux on M4.
V4Revver@reddit
No
StrongTxWoman@reddit
A powerful chip without softwares that you can use won't help you much.
For most gamers, they are stuck with PC. Most softwares will need to be rewritten to take advantage of the M4 architecture. By then, those softwares could be optimised for their PC counterparts.
no-mad@reddit
https://asahilinux.org/ linux for Apples M chip.
Civil_Medium_3032@reddit
All benchmarks exist within a vacuum, not reflecting real world scenarios.
So you cant really make any claims or conclusions ESPECIALLY when you compare entirely different OS and architecture.
If it were to be Windows 10, Geekbench6 AMD vs AMD then sure it would have some meaning but not Windows 11 AMD vs MacOS Apple chip.
k_elo@reddit
Geekbench doesn't support hyperthreading iirc. That's literally hobbling the amd cpus. But still m4 is an impressive chip - Enough so that I got my self one for daily tasks and other not windows work after borrowing an old m1 mac from work. In my context I have access to powerful ish workstations and laptops of 4090s 3090s and 3070 laptops. Cpus ranging from 3950 to 7950 up to 5th gen thread rippers. I can say that they are all good but it mostly depends on what are you doing and how are you doing it. I would not work on my Mac on my work table. My Mac would be on the go or in the sofa/bed.
Edenz_@reddit
Why do you think geekbench doesn’t support hyperthreading? I have not read that anywhere before.
k_elo@reddit
Look at blender or cinebench numbers iirc. I only saw that in a video
Edenz_@reddit
I dont understand, do you mean that they perform worse in geekbench vs blender/cinebench therefore geekbench doesnt have hyperthreading?
k_elo@reddit
Turn out I am super wrong, I'll have to dig through my history on where I got that.
hanotak@reddit
You'd need to look at compile benchmarks for that.
TxSeamoss@reddit
It’s not a laptop chip. It’s an ARM chip found in a laptop
42SpanishInquisition@reddit
The said arm chip was designed with a laptop use in mind.
TxSeamoss@reddit
No. Its designed to go in most of the computers by apple, most of which are desktops. Mac studio & mac pro
42SpanishInquisition@reddit
So they never intended that it would go into a macbook?
Pyrohypomanic@reddit
That was not the main intention, yes
Glebun@reddit
lol
TxSeamoss@reddit
I think you have trouble with reading comprehension
Glebun@reddit
Most computers that Apple makes are laptops.
TxSeamoss@reddit
does not change the fact that 1. laptops chips do not exist, they are called mobile chips 2. they are going in some of the biggest most performant desktops by Apple, proving you wrong by definition
Glebun@reddit
Nope, the most performant desktops get the Ultra.
They are in fact going into the most performant laptops that Apple makes, proving you wrong by definition.
TheLostColonist@reddit
Mac Pro and Mac Studio combined are less than 5% of Mac sales.
Laptops outsell desktops by 3:1
https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/06/whats-the-most-popular-mac-study/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20CIRP%E2%80%99s%20data%20showed%20that%20Apple%E2%80%99s%20MacBooks,while%20the%20desktop%20models%20only%20accounted%20for%2025%25.
TxSeamoss@reddit
I’m aware. It’s not a mobile chip. It goes even in the highest most powerful desktops by Apple. By definition, you are wrong. It’s an ARM chip found in Apple computers, desktops and laptops
duplissi@reddit
It'll still suck down like 70 watts under full load tho.
Still super impressive
fuzzynyanko@reddit
This post almost reads like a marketing blurb
You can't rely just on synthetic benchmarks. They are an indicator, but you can really screw yourself over. Real-world tend to reflect, well, the real-world better. A benchmarking strategy with custom tests is best. You also have to ask "with what?" When with Intel vs AMD, we ask that question.
A lot of PC gamers will use a variety of sources. The iGPU in the M4 Mac Mini is really good, but put a RX 6600 into a PC and the PC wins.
Don't me wrong: the efficiency on those chips is fantastic. 22W TDP with an M4? That kind-of thing makes it a very useful CPU even if it's slower.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Sorry if my post sounds like that, just trying to learn here, because I saw the M4 Max's crazy geekbench score and thought it was impossible.
I saw someone else in this post mentioned that passmark is the best benchmarking tool.
Thanks for the additional info
123_alex@reddit
Hell no. Please don't just believe anything you read online.
dank_imagemacro@reddit
The person who said passmark was the best was found to be a mod for userbenchmark, and extremely biased site.
Passmark isn't nearly as bad as userbenchmark, but it was probably the most biased one that won't set off instant alarm bells. Try to find people who are actually doing the kinds of applications you are wanting to do, and benchmarking them if possible.
Birkeland1992@reddit
I mean the "person's" username is StandardAd .. what did you expect? Lol
winterkoalefant@reddit
It isn’t, in most core-heavy workloads. Geekbench is very memory-intensive and the M4 Max has a large memory bandwidth shared between the CPU and GPU. The GPU is idle during that test.
In Cinebench 2024, which is less memory-intensive, Ryzen 9 9950X and Core 285K are much faster, as expected for high-clocked desktop CPUs.
Very impressive in single-core though. But this shouldn’t be a surprise. Apple has been making very good CPUs for the last 10 years and their M-series has frequently had the best single-core scores.
bankyll@reddit
In Cinebench 2024, Both the 9950X and 285K are only about 20% faster than the M4 Max in Multi-core performance.
In Cinebench R23, 9950X is about 50% faster, 285K is about 60% faster than the M4 Max.
But 9950X uses 200 Watts in Cinebench, 285K uses 215Watts.
M4 Max CPU uses 60 Watts and can deliver all that performance on a laptop, on battery power.
Intel/AMD use about 250% more power to deliver 20 to 60% more CPU performance.
As for GPUs. The M4 Max GPU uses 50 to 60 Watts and is somewhere between a laptop 4070 (100W) and 4080 (150W)
The M4 Ultra is going to be a monster. Rumor has it that instead of fusing two M4 Max Chips, it will be one giant monolithic chip. 32 CPU Cores (24P + 8e)........and an 80 Core GPU running at higher clocks.
It's 120W CPU will be in the realm of a 32 Core threadripper in CPU performance......and it's 120W GPU will beat the desktop 4090 in GPU performance, maybe match the 5090.
While having 256GB of Unified Memory.
That's the real chip people need to look out for.
In Cinebench 2024.
M4 Max: 1950 to 2000.
9950X : 2250 to 2350
285K: 2400 to 2450
In Cinebench R23
M4 Max: 26500 to 27500
9950X: 40000 to 41000
285K: 42000 to 43000
chillaban@reddit
I think it’s worth putting into context that the M4 Max is a mobile chip and even the MC performance is pretty impressive compared to desktop chips.
I was skeptical before Blender and Cinebench benchmarks came out because Geekbench has a pretty sneaky advantage to armv9 chips that implement SME, but for a 30W mobile part that as a whole system draws 100W at the wall for the SoC, the performance is impressive even if it’s not MC king.
f1del1us@reddit
damn its been that long already?
SirMaster@reddit
Well the Apple A4 launched in April 2013.
micgat@reddit
April 2010. The A7 launched in 2013 (September).
SirMaster@reddit
Yeah oops 2013 is when the A4 was discontinued lol.
winterkoalefant@reddit
initially it was for iPhones
Friendly_Top6561@reddit
They have a node advantage as well, it’s made on N3E, second gen N3 while AMD is on N4P. Intels 285 is on N3B, (first gen N3) which is also less efficient than N3E.
bazooka_penguin@reddit
N3E offers a small improvement over N4P in performance and efficiency, its main advantage is the higher density. N4P reduces power by up to 22% vs N5 or improves performance by up to 11% vs N5. N3E reduces power by up to 32% vs N5 or improves performance by up to 18% vs N5.
zerostyle@reddit
If I recall N3B was actually a little better. N3E was just crazy more efficient. No one wanted to stay on N3B because it's expensive to use.
Geddagod@reddit
N3E was never crazy more efficient. The difference in TSMC's own perf/watt figures for the two nodes were single digits.
zerostyle@reddit
I mean more efficient for production in yields
Friendly_Top6561@reddit
It depends on what you design for, power envelope, frequencies etc all nodes have different focus, obviously it worked out for Apple using N3E for M4 vs N3B for M3 they got a significant improvement.
Hot_Kaleidoscope_961@reddit
Yes, maybe, you are right. There was info that N3B is “better” than N3E, but as the time passed: people saw some crucial drawbacks in N3B, and N3E turned out to be better.
jecowa@reddit
Hot_Kaleidoscope_961@reddit
Yep, thanks!
Ouaouaron@reddit
Aren't all the form factors the exact same chips, just with different cooling? Can't someone just stick decent cooling onto a laptop M4 Max?
winterkoalefant@reddit
cooling, power delivery, and manufacturer-specified boost parameters. Idk if they'll be clocked much higher but they could be, who knows. A hypothetical M4 Ultra with more cores would probably beat the Ryzen/Core chips.
Edenz_@reddit
This is a bold claim when in the singlethreaded tests for Cinebench R24 the M4 cores are literally faster than the 9950X and 285k.
Trungyaphets@reddit
I thought "core-heavy" workloads means multi-core/multi-threaded workloads?
CatalyticDragon@reddit
Yes.
Edenz_@reddit
I have only seen "core heavy" used to make a distinction between memory bound workloads and compute bound workloads, as they stress different aspects of the CPU microarchitecture. Cinebench used to be a really bad workload for memory subsystems as up until recently the entirety of its code footprint would fit within modern L3 caches, which is a little unrealistic even for raytracing/rendering.
"Core-heavy" to describe multithreaded performance doesn't really make sense, as multithreaded software can be varied in how it operates.
Trungyaphets@reddit
Makes sense. Apple recently have been making really good stuff. If only they didn't intentionally lock down their machines both hardware and software-wise.
I personally think the new base Mac mini M4, coupled with an external SSD, is really a good deal for a compact, silent, strong productivity PC.
karmapopsicle@reddit
That new M4 Mini is pretty squarely aimed at increasing their overall marketshare in a variety of segments.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone comes out with a matching-sized aluminum stand for it that adds in 1-2 NVMe slots and additional I/O.
calcium@reddit
If by additional IO you mean a dock, then yea that already exists. In any case, the new M4 mini is gonna sell like hotcakes cause they’re priced aggressively and will beat the pants off of any comparable windows mini pc.
calcium@reddit
Apple also has literally the most performant chips when it comes to cycles per watt. Their chips are insanely powerful when compared to anything Intel or AMD has when looking at performance per watt.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks, this is very helpful!
Kallens303@reddit
Apple m4 geek bench score
Scerned@reddit
Not their desktop cpus no
But it does beat the laptop cpus
itomeshi@reddit
To add onto this: it's all application dependent.
BI0Z_@reddit
Yes.
The M4 Max is better than the alternative chips at it's rated power.
It is much more efficient and powerful at content creation than anything up to this point in terms of portable power.
However, it will never be better at running videogames.
Delicious_South2955@reddit
Pretty sure it's much better than any integrated graphics
Friendly_Top6561@reddit
PS5 and Xbox series X have integrated graphics.
neobow2@reddit
and technically it is much master than them. People keep forgetting that when fortnight was available on iPadOS an M1 iPad Pro ran 1440p fortnite at 120fps. If game developers focused on gaming on ARM, it will be a night and day difference
iszoloscope@reddit
And how expensive was an iPad Pro M1 when it launched?
ih8schumer@reddit
An m2 iPad Air I just picked up for 499.
iszoloscope@reddit
That was not the question..
neobow2@reddit
it’s a stupid question because you can get an m4 mac mini for 500$ right now. like it’s literally such a useless question. All i know is that the device i bought for college classes also was a gaming power house
Fresh-Ad3834@reddit
Who's buying a Mac Mini for college classes? LMAO
neobow2@reddit
If you could follow a comment thread you’d understand i was referring to the iPad not the mac mini. Regardless, you really think no college kids would buy a mac mini? lol I know 3 personally
iszoloscope@reddit
It's not.
ih8schumer@reddit
It is a stupid question because it has no relevance to today.
iszoloscope@reddit
That anger over a simple question, crazy... have a nice day regardless.
GregMaffei@reddit
Switch is ARM.
Game makers were really turned off by Apple when they dropped 32 bit support. The entire library of mac games vanished.
vkevlar@reddit
minus Blizzard, Valve, and some others. Overwatch was the only Blizzard title that didn't get a Mac port.
calcium@reddit
Those are purpose built machines for gaming and isn’t a fair comparison. I think OP is referring to processors with integrated graphics from Intel and AMD while AMD comes closest.
elliotborst@reddit
You think the M4 Max isn’t better than Intel or AMD. CPUs with integrated graphics?
Abject-Rent4662@reddit
Who cares for iGPU Performance? Gaming in Mac is never going to bee viable
udat42@reddit
I can play Baldurs Gate 3 on my Macbook Air and it's perfectly playable. Mostly I play it on my desktop PC but it's awesome to be able to play it on my laptop.
xdesm0@reddit
which chip? my m1 couldn't even run pathfinder 2.
udat42@reddit
2022 M2. I could play it on the M1 Air but only at pretty low settings.
xdesm0@reddit
next year I'll update mine then. It has given 4 solid years, but the power upgrade is clear.
elliotborst@reddit
Well it’s literally the topic and question that this post is about.
And Mac’s are about to get cyberpunk for example so gaming on mac is a thing now and will realistically only become more viable as each Apple Silicone generation releases.
Abject-Rent4662@reddit
They still won't have the old Games. Not every PC Game will Release on Mac. Also they won't be the Prime target for optimising. Also the price Point will Always keep them from being relevant in gaming. Gaming on Mac will Always be small unless Apple Changes price. They don't have upscaling. They're iGPU is also was behind dedicated gpu's.
mountainunicycler@reddit
Most old games already run pretty well! It’s super fun and nice to run them silently and smoothly, much better experience than on my razer blade.
Like I can sit in bed next to my fiancée while she’s watching Netflix and run games in 4k on my MacBook and there’s not fan noise to bother her. Zero windows laptops can do that. Most can’t even do 4k very well.
Abject-Rent4662@reddit
Still hast was less Performance and storage than my gaming PC which was probably cheaper
mountainunicycler@reddit
For gaming yes, but for me spending $3k or $4k ish (there are no windows laptops less than that which come close to my MacBook even in gaming, on supported games) on a laptop I know I will only use for gaming is a lot.
I use the MacBook for work, and I need it, it’s over twice as fast for work tasks than my windows laptop which has 64gb of ram and the most recent i9 and an RTX 2070 gpu. The windows laptop isn’t even close for performance for my job (programming and LLM work).
ElementalWorld@reddit
What laptop has a new i9 combined with a 2 generation old GPU?
mountainunicycler@reddit
Ha, typo, it’s a 4070
ElementalWorld@reddit
Ah okay, that makes more sense!
TurboClag@reddit
Why are you coping so hard? There’s no threat here.
iwentouttogetfags@reddit
Theres like 6 games for the mac
MrEcksDeah@reddit
Considering Mac isn’t a viable gaming platform yes.
ovO_Zzzzzzzzz@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/175di7w/is_geekbench_biased_to_apple/
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Interesting. So how would the M4 Max compare to the 9950x in reality, if you had to say?
Martin_au@reddit
It varies depending on what you're doing, but there's not much between them. On some things the M4 is faster, on others the 9950x. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1gltzey/quick_look_at_apples_m4_pro_and_m4_max_compute/
geniuslogitech@reddit
single core same but gets stomped in multi-core workloads, partially because 9950x can draw more power but it's also more efficient even at same power it will outperform m4 max
Edenz_@reddit
Bro what are you talking about, the 9950X idles at a higher power use than the M4 Max will under all-core load.
ovO_Zzzzzzzzz@reddit
They are facing two different needs. Just compare the truck to the cars. Truck is good at moving things, but obviously you won't pick it as commuting options.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
So the top AMD/Intel CPUs will remain a superior choice for maximum raw performance, while Apple's M4/other chips will remain superior for good performance for mobile use? Am I getting the right idea?
Friendly_Top6561@reddit
They are built to operate in different power envelopes, they are optimized for different things so naturally they will be optimal for what they are designed to do.
ovO_Zzzzzzzzz@reddit
Yes.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks
Shadowarriorx@reddit
Yeah, that's the whole point. Products geared for the user case. To be the best given those user case goals and constraints
geniuslogitech@reddit
AMD/Intel also compete in mobile, just Apple is getting destroyed if there is higher power budget, also wouldn't be first time Alienware or someone puts a desktop ryzen into a laptop and give it some juice
Zorewin@reddit
Depends are you looking for a work station? Then pc or apple doesn't matter.. it probably is faster and even then in the real world practices you will not notice it..
Now if your talking games then the answer is simpler: No
Gaming on a mac is baffling.. you have limited game choices and if you don't want that you have to emulate windows... pc will always be better here.
leandroc76@reddit
What makes the M4 max more "powerful" is the memory bandwidth. Which is amount of data the CPU, the unified memory and integrated GPU all combined can theoretically process per second. This may or may not translate to gaming, but is an "overall" reason why the ARM architecture "feels" so good to Mac users. FYI, the M2 Ultra is going to probably gonna weird you out. This metric is great for content creators, video and photo editors and 3D development.
Memory Bandwidth
NovelValue7311@reddit
The high bandwidth is result of soc because the ram is closer to the cpu/gpu and not detachable.
leandroc76@reddit
These are theoretical values. Memory bandwidth is still limited to how much RAM a CPU can address. These numbers are based solely on the premise that a given CPU has maxed out its addressable RAM in its memory controller. It has nothing to do with location.
NovelValue7311@reddit
True. However, a lot of m4s performance comes from having everything on one chip tuned to work seamlessly. Generally pc components cannot be tuned as well because the parts are swappable and not soldered together.
leandroc76@reddit
I don’t disagree with that. That was/is true with the M2 also.
NovelValue7311@reddit
Sadly, when x86 does die, I will be that one guy who refuses to give up on it.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
The problem with a macintosh, apart from the obvious "being locked into their walled garden" and not being able to game...much, is that apple are gouging you with the RAM and storage. To get a decent amount of RAM where the RAM bandwidth is an actual benefit, costs more than you should be willing to pay unless it's a tax write off for you.
leandroc76@reddit
I agree 100%. FYI I'm the moderator and creator of /r/buildapcvideoediting. For most of us, we can save $1000's by building your own PC. Apple's premium is definitely way more than what the average user can spend. My other moderator /u/yopoyo, does a lot of research and puts in amazing work to come up with builds configurations best suited for video editors. We do get question about Mac's and the answer is always nearly exactly as yours... if you own a business it may be for you.
Novelaa@reddit
What you use the PC for ? benchmark isn't everything. If you're an average user then you would be paying a lot of money for nothing.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Programming/compiling code, video editing, and similar.
sirshura@reddit
you got to be careful with programming, not everything supports mac. Theres a boat load of software that doesnt support that chip and you are either gonna have to fuck around to get it to work or get another pc.
SmooK_LV@reddit
I am surprised you are being downvoted. I am Software QA for living and for work have to now use Mac. It's absolutely more limited in support and for a lot of things I need to look for workaround. For some of my team members I had to order extra Windows machines because their project tools just don't run on Mac.
sirshura@reddit
its common to get downvoted if you ever hint at an apple limitation. I was a defense contractor at some point, everything was built for windows. Linux or mac were out of luck in that environment. I managed to build my own linux support but apples cpu architecture might make that harder.
kbick675@reddit
Yup. It really depends on the industry you work in. For just regular application development that runs on docker/k8s in the cloud? Mac is fine. But if you work in some specialized environment like aerospace, Windows and Linux primarily. I've had lots of devs in those environments use Macs, but basically as fancy terminals and that was before the M chips became a thing.
qexk@reddit
Depends on the type of programming I guess - I think the vast majority of mobile app and web developers use macOS, with a minority on Linux (eg Fedora, Ubuntu) or Windows. I often come across software and tools with no Windows support so I have to use Windows Subsystem for Linux or a VM, with heavy performance penalties.
Novelaa@reddit
I am no expert in this category but from what I read around the Mac is better for you in that case. Honestly I dont think you will go wrong with any modern device but the only thing that matter is what the platform offers. I see many programmers go with Mac, there is probably a reason why outside performance.
mountainunicycler@reddit
I’m a developer, the first reason is performance (my MacBook is literally twice as fast for a lot of my stuff than my Thinkpad P7 i9 with 64gb ram), the second is the operating system, because it’s unix based so everything runs just like it does on the server, and the third is stability, I save probably 30 minutes per day at least just not having to trouble shoot and reboot it and find my place after it crashes.
Until my work made me use the windows laptop I thought crashes on windows were kinda just a joke from old times… I was wrong… I don’t use the windows machine anymore.
SmooK_LV@reddit
I am using M2 Mac for work for some of these tasks. It is noticeably more limited in software support compared to Windows machine. So it really depends on what kind of specific tasks you will do and specific tools you will use. Usually you can get around limitations one way or another.
Novelaa@reddit
yea true, I also didnt like that I click enter on a file and it renames it instead of opening 😂😂 Dont get me wrong, I loved the stylish platform and some apps available in there but I couldn't live with the storage and ram.
Arashi-Tempesta@reddit
after M1, efficience, battery lasting days.
before M1, apple had amazing software support compared to alternatives, if you just want a platform that works.
But main reason would be, you wanna sell to iphone/mac users? you need a mac, no alternatives, safari is only on mac and ios, even if you use services like browserstack that doesnt cover mobile apps.
you want app store? you need a mac to upload to it, doesnt matter if you already have a development subscription.
k_elo@reddit
Battery life and general silence of the platform are the main things besides performance.
Rhypnic@reddit
And not fricking heavy brick laptop with brick charger
k_elo@reddit
Haha I know I have the strix g14 and the m4 pro 14 for a few days now, I can see why it's really loved by the users. No question what I would bring If I needed windows apps otg I would set up a remote connection. If there isn't internet where I'm going I shouldn't be bringing laptops or working there in any case.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
I see. Thank you!
mountainunicycler@reddit
I don’t do video editing but for programming… it’s not even close.
I have an M3 Max with 128gb ram and the most recent thinkpad P7 with 64gb ram and the latest i9 chip.
For most of my real-world use cases at work, the MacBook is twice as fast or more.
Lots of programming tasks in analyzing or building code are single-threaded, so even a MacBook Air can crush any windows laptop there (like, if you want to do data science in python it’s the best for the budget), and at the high end like mine, for some multi-core tasks it still wins because the 400gbps ram bandwidth can actually handle keeping the cpu running full tilt with data-intensive tasks (not just benchmarks).
Plus you can’t even order 128gb ram on windows laptops very easily.
Winsaucerer@reddit
There's a lot of programmers using Mac's as their daily driver. Adding in video editing, I think a Mac is well worth you looking into. The answer might also depend on the kind of programming you're doing though.
zerostyle@reddit
Buy a mac. Even linus at linus tech tips switched everyone over to macs for video editing for stability reasons.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks
poliver1988@reddit
Apple users are average users though
Pitiful-Assistance-1@reddit
I just ran my own software's testing suites on my brand new M4 Max and it VERY CLOSELY matches my watercooled Ryzen 7950X. Note that these suites are carefully tuned for my 7950X and did 0 tuning on my new M4 Max. I just installed and ran it. And the best thing? The macbook wasn't even plugged in. It was running from battery.
It is an incredible performer. More powerful? In my very limited experience? No. But it does trade blows depending on what software I throw at it.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks!
Pitiful-Assistance-1@reddit
I just played some games on it and they ran fine although I wouldn't consider it a viable gaming machine due to the widely inconsistent performance between games and weird glitches around the screen resolution and framerate. (but I've used the machine a few hours so it's really a "hands-on experience" and absolutely not a review of any kind)
Turtledonuts@reddit
The M4 Max might be the most impressive CPU on the market - it's not going to beat a threadripper or the like, but it gets incredible performance while also being impressively efficient and pretty affordable.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
Affordable? You kinda lost me on that one.
Turtledonuts@reddit
Base model M4 max laptop comes in around the same price as a AMD Ryzen 9 build with much faster specs, but you're also getting a well built laptop. If you can tolerate external hard drives and don't need 128 gigs of ram, its competitively priced while being impressively fast.
Similar-Pea-1612@reddit
The laptops that compete with a 9950x aren't affordable in any sense of the word. You could build a threadripper setup for the cost of those laptops.
Turtledonuts@reddit
specs wise, they are competitive with a r9 desktop though.
Similar-Pea-1612@reddit
Yes, that's the issue. Their top tier M4 chips have a better single core and slightly worse multicore than a 9950x. The issue is how expensive they are. It's too expensive to be competing with the 9950x ($3500 was the cheapest setup I could find which would compete with a 9950x rig), it's competing with threadrippers and similar CPUs where it gets bodied.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
M4 Max laptops are much more expensive than what R9 laptops are available for. The prices I'm looking at have the M4 Max laptops at at least 3 times the price, with a worse configuration.
AM27C256@reddit
"Did Apple just make the most powerful consumer CPU ever?" I guess one can argue that yes, Apple did so. By getting people to perceive the M4 Max as a consumer CPU, gettinghtem to compareit with much cheaper AMD CPUs. The Apple M4 Max has a memory bandwidth and price similar to an AMD Threadripper, but people typically don't consider the Threadripper a consumer CPU.
MattBrey@reddit
Following that train of thought: Putting something so powerful on a 600 usd computer like the new Mac mini is an achievement in an of itself. There's no realistic way to build a 600 usd threadripper machine, and the performance of such a power heavy chip would take a big hit if somebody attempted to put it on a mini pc. It makes the price to performance look amazing on the mini in particular.
Delta_V09@reddit
OP was talking about the M4 Max, which isn't available on the Mini. The $599 model is "only" a base M4, which is still a beast of chip at that price point. Seriously, if somebody just wants a general purpose computer (no gaming, no heavy productivity, etc) that base Mac Mini looks awesome.
RDOG907@reddit
600 bucks with no peripherals and a laughable amount of drive space an anemic amount of ram.
If you just need a general purpose computer, there are cheaper for the money options out there that get you more for less and you can run Linux or windows
Maddave10@reddit
Comes with 16gb ram as standard which is more than enough for macOS and basic photo editing. Probably couldn’t buy a significantly better sff productivity machine for the same money. But Yh the storage is disgraceful for 2024
LOSTandCONFUSEDinMAY@reddit
The Minisforum UM890 Pro is pretty comparable and comes with 32gb ram and 1tb storage for $650.
Also the barebones model only cost $70 less which really shows how much apple is ripping you off on memory and storage.
Delta_V09@reddit
The Mac Mini also has a built-in power supply, so you don't have to deal with a charging brick. Plus it will almost certainly be quieter.
Yeah, Apple gouges on storage, but if someone doesn't need a lot of local storage, that base Mini would be awesome.
PsyOmega@reddit
A tale as old as time
Kolz@reddit
No peripherals is a good thing, imagine they increase the price and just bundled in that stupid mouse with the charging port on the bottom.
You can’t spec and feature match the baseline m4 mini for the same price though, not really. As long as the ram and memory are enough for you (and they aren’t for me or probably most of this subreddit, but they are for many people out there), the thing is extremely compelling. That’s without even getting into how compact it is.
li_shi@reddit
Cheapest max machine you can buy is 3500 usd. That is with an amount of ram and disk that is not really in line with the cpu.
mduell@reddit
The Max isn’t available at $600 either.
aurumae@reddit
People also don’t put the Threadripper in a laptop
AM27C256@reddit
Yes. While the M4 Max and Threadripper have similar rpices and memory bandwidth. There is a difference in power (both computing power and energy use): the Threadripper needs/has more. And the M4 Max has an integrated GPU.
So from the M1 to the M4 Max, Apple is the only company that brought this idea of a high memory bandwidth laptop APU to the market. These Apple vs. AMD CPU comparisons will get a lot more interesting with Strix Halo ("AMD Ryzen AI Max" series for laptops, expected in early January). These APUs are expected to have a memory bandwidth similar to the M4 Pro (i.e. substantially below M4 Max and Threadripper, but far above AM5 CPUs and the M4).
RisingDeadMan0@reddit
How much is it lol?
Charredwee@reddit
My 13700K with 32GB DDR4 3600 CL14 feels way snappier than my M2 Pro MacBook Pro. like, not even close.
Marcus0513@reddit
In which tasks?
engaffirmative@reddit
Multi core is almost ill relevant in this field, Epyc and such are beasts with numbers. However, I do think for single core operations, it probably is near or at the top.
Apple clearly wanted to push this generation a bit further.
Sweaty_Pomegranate34@reddit
Not with the M4 Max but they will with the M4 Ultra.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
The M4 Ultra will be out by the time Strix Halo is out. Should be interesting.
Only for fun though, I would never consider a macintosh myself. I like operating systems where I choose what I can install, and systems I can game on.
ToThePillory@reddit
In laptops, definitely.
In desktops, I think it'll be a bit more mixed, depending on what you're looking for, but right now the M4 Max is probably the best CPU you can buy in that price bracket, and some higher brackets too.
Pitiful-Assistance-1@reddit
My M4 Max trades blows with my 7950X, closely matching and sometimes exceeding the performance, while running from battery and being completely silent.
"is it faster"? Not really. But it is an amazing performer.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6346vs6345vs5031/Apple-M4-Pro-12-Core-vs-Apple-M4-Pro-14-Core-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X
Xcissors280@reddit
Depends on what you want to do Technically some massive nvidia arm CPU might be more powerful but you can’t use it with normal apps
If you want to play games then it’s definitely not the right choice, if you want to transcode AV1 then it might be, but there also might be a dedicated encoding device that could be way faster
thenord321@reddit
Amd and Intel: our CPU has 5.2 Elephant power.
Apple: I'm more powerful! I have 22,000 mouse power.
See, the numbers mean something, but they aren't very compatible and at the end of the day, it's all "salesperson jargon" that can't be trusted anyway, because they change the scenarios and cheat at their own test results.
Arashi-Tempesta@reddit
So efficiency M4 will run laps around amd and intel.
What you also need to compare is upgrading the machine and comparing pricing, because a fully spec M4 max will be very very expensive compared to a AMD or Intel machine with even more ram or storage for example.
The platform is really efficient, you need to evaluate what you will use it for, development? its worth if you plan to heavily target apple users, because you need a mac regardless of what you care or want.
But even then you can get away with a 16gb machine and external storage is plentiful depending on what you are making or building.
If you also want to edit 4k video and render on the machine too then the m4 pro/max starts making more sense but it wont beat a AMD/Intel machine with a 4090, but you will also be comparing different editing tools, final cut pro is very good but its only on Mac and such.
pc-builder@reddit
Yeah price per dollar shits very wacky for apple.
Stick to base models with an SSD or build a PC. Apple now has some very compelling base model offerings. Anything premium is a waste of money.
dandroid-exe@reddit
This is bad advice. There are a few upgrades well worth the money throughout the different Mac product lines
Arashi-Tempesta@reddit
those 200 upgrade upcharges are wild
the m4 mac mini is the ultimate base machine that you dont wanna upgrade ever. Good thing it has plentyful thunderbolt ports so could have good external storage, RAM is a pita but 16gb is plenty even for docker development, not sure about compiles with the base M4 but M3 pro is snappy which I use for work so m4 should be comparable from what I've seen.
Turtledonuts@reddit
I checked apple's website. The best spec M4 max laptop is 7000, but that factors in keyboard / mouse / screen / webcam / speakers, and it comes with shipping and handling, tech support, and an OS. In all honesty, if you were buying a custom prebuilt PC on par with that laptop, you could easily run 7k with the works.
themustachemark@reddit
Yeah, but if it's limited to Apple products then it's shit.
Putrid-Flan-1289@reddit
Certain productivity tasks only. Some games will run smooth on it but most run like potatoes.
JustADirtyLurker@reddit
Let me just drop my anecdote. I just got a replacement MacBook at work, gone from the Intel i7 (2019 model) to M3 Pro model.
I was cautious when they announced the M1 years ago but this platform rocks.
The sad truth is that PC manufacturers will eventually move to the same or similar approach, but that will kill a lot of the enthusiastic PC building market due to integrated memory and locked down expansion.
Pitiful-Assistance-1@reddit
Just 2x? In my experience, the difference is much greater (i9 2019 16")
Turtledonuts@reddit
PCs are going the way of the car engine - incredible performance, but so complicated that you can't do a thing to make them better or fix them.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks! This is helpful
Comprehensive-Ship-7@reddit
Honestly, I'm kind of shocked by those scores! 🤯 It's wild to see an ARM chip holding its own against desktop powerhouses. Benchmarks are one thing, but if it translates to real-world performance, Apple might've really nailed it this time. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it handles actual workloads, but it's super exciting for sure!
djsat2@reddit
For tasks apple allows you to do on them, they are very good and efficient, because the software is heavily optimised. For anything else it's "ok", with a bit of a power efficiency advantage.
I'd imagine an incoming issue is that software Devs will have to go from making one or two builds of their app that covers 90% of CPUs on the market to having to make many builds with diverse code-basis optimised for specific CPU and platform combinations. Think back to the 80s and 90s when there were dozens of micro computer manufacturers all with their own architectures and operating systems.
And if course apple doesn't like to share or encourage healthy competition so expect a narrow app market for premium/productivity software in the future.
drgn670@reddit
I think it also helps that the Mac OS (and every single app in the Mac OS which includes synthetic benchmarks) are extremely optimized for their M4 CPUs. I mean just look at all the performance improvements with Windows when they actually tried optimizing on Ryzen. That doesn't take away how good the M4 chips are though.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Do you have a link to these performance improvements for Windows optimized on Ryzen?
Also, if you had to say, how would the m4 max compare to top desktop CPUs like the 9950x in reality? Assuming these benchmarks are useless
drgn670@reddit
Search up a video with "AMD Windows 24H2" and you'll find videos mostly talking about the performance improvement in gaming. This link from Techpowerup does have some AMD's internal testing of how much performance improvement you will see with the Windows optimization which showed improvements in something that isn't gaming focused which is Procyon Office. I would assume there would be more improvements outside of gaming.
Hard to say depending on what workload we're talking about. Apple really excels in most Graphic Design workloads since they have a really good media engine in their SoC. Apple also wins in efficiency being on the latest node and having better power management. Outside of those I think I give the win to AMD and Intel.
tokeytime@reddit
I wouldn't be giving any wins to Intel right now. The only real options currently are Mac or Ryzen imo. I'm hoping arm proper catches up a bit in the next couple gens for actually good windows laptops, but we'll have to see how it plays out.
I'm personally expecting Intel to throw in the towel in design in the next decade, unless they can wildly radically shift their current trajectory.
SuperPork1@reddit
https://youtu.be/rlfTHCzBnnQ On average, 10% more performance for Zen 3, 4, and 5 CPUs from the 24H2 Windows update.
Nicolay77@reddit
Using a real compiled language to write an OS and not using Java or C# gives you that.
Anyone could have done it, Apple simply choose not to follow the trend of the day.
Mrcod1997@reddit
They are pretty damn good chips. Definitely some of the best performance for the power draw. Only downside is you are stuck in the apple ecosystem. If what you do is in that ecosystem then great, but you are kind SOL if not.
fiero-fire@reddit
Like all CPUs it depends on application. Apple has a more narrowed focused and it kicks ass at it but you have to buy into the walled garden.
Personally as someone who uses their CPU for gaming and some mild CAD work/rendering my 7800x3d is perfect.
Apple is clearly targeting a market and killing it, it's also something that doesn't work with my specific use case. I've used apple products for photo editing and really enjoyed the experience but it's not a thing I do enough to invest in the platform. I have friends who swear by apple for photo and video stuff
1corn@reddit
Yeah I'm a UX designer and I have 2 MacBook Pros, an iPad and a USB-C screen that powers and connects to everything. It's a dream setup for design work and app testing, especially thanks to Continuity.
And I still have a Windows PC for gaming next to my desk, because it's just the better platform for that, overall.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks
mprevot@reddit
Unless you know what the benchmark tests and how the score is established, you may not know certainly the ranking reflects real world / hardware and your experience. And you may not know if the benchmark is using correctly, updated instruction, or if it's conservative.
Also, putting a mean score of specific tests is not really helping because the weight of each test is kind of arbitrary. Your user case may change radically the hierarchy.
You may have applications where float/double computation is important, AVX512 will matter, or NPU will matter a lot ("AI"), or caches and monothread speed will matter (games). Video accelerators (encoder, decoder, memory architecture) may matter a lot.
For instance, the 285k has HPU, but benchmark tools were not updated to use that, at the 285k disadvantage. Same with AVX 512, which gives strong advantage to 9950x. If you run SQL server 2022 and manipulate massive float data, 9950x is the best over 285k and M4. For AI, we don't know for sure, 9950x is ahead in a few benchmarks, but what about NPUs instructions ? I think 285k might be ahead, despite absence of AVX512.
For instance if you do video editing, Apple chip may be an advantage, gpu and cpu are close, memory is common, you may have more efficiency, and this can give significant advantage to M4 because the video accelerators are included. It's more a SoC, with everything included, wifi, usb controllers, medai accelerators. I am not sure those software will take into account the discrete gpu associated to the x86-64 CPUs; if it does in Apple case and not in the x86 case, you got a bias.
One thing is sure, M4 is RISC while x86 is CISC, so M4 is more energy efficient, and takes less logic size on chip, and probably is less expensive, this leaves more rooms for other accelerators.
Unless you know well what is tested, and how the scores are established, you rely on half measures-half beliefs. In the end, what matters too is the ecosystem.
If you do simple music and video, and need silence, M4 seems to be a better choice. If you do CAD, and use (multi) GPU rendering, or 3D with GPU rendering, AI training and inference, x86-64 (threadrippers) and a few 4090 gpus are the way to go. If you program and use SQL server 2022, or gaming, 9950x and 9950x3D are kings. You need HCI servers and HA, x86-64 ecosystem is best by far.
ConsistencyWelder@reddit
Apples chips do really well in Geekbench, but not as great in other benchmarks, which is why you only really see them mention the Geekbench results.
In other benchmarks the single core performance still impresses, but the multicore performance lags behind AMD's chips.
GonstroCZ@reddit
No
AM27C256@reddit
Yes. The M4 Max is really more powerful. In particular, it has 6x the memory bandwidth of the AM5 socket. Where memory bandwidth matter, the AMD 9950x doesn't stand a chance against the M4 Max. With the M4 Max, Apple delivers the memory bandwidth of an AMD Threadripper at the price of an AMD Threadripper.
GonstroCZ@reddit
but since when is memory bandwidth everything? put if into real world use, how can laptop M4 even challenge threadripper in intense CPU tasks?
lemmiwink84@reddit
It can’t. They are both for different use cases.
M4 MAX is a great chip. It will be exciting to see it Qualcomm can compete with it now that they are pushing for laptop compatibility. I think Apple got a gem on their hand and will remain top for a while.
In a x86 use case though, there is no way the M4 is comparable to intel/AMD. If it were, then they would be selling these chips independently or tweak them to sell to windows users at least.
It would be a multi billion dollar opportunity for them and downright stupid if they didn’t.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Can you explain?
GonstroCZ@reddit
It is created for MacOS environment, and apps optimized for it. Benchmarks arent everything and outside the optimized apps bubble others will crush it, regular desktop CPU have much better cooling options, so does the dedicated GPU card
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks!
GonstroCZ@reddit
If you plan to program on your PC, i highly recommend to avoid macOS and just buy intel/amd laptop/desktop with Linux OS
GonstroCZ@reddit
to people who downvote me: in university I see nothing be problems with macOS, not necessary bad, but what has 1 step setup in linux and 2 step setup in windows has 5+ steps in macOS, big nono from my side
(I agree that if you know you gonna use only e.g. Visual studio code and wont install new stuff often, than it is ok)
vernSdL@reddit
I’ve been following Apple’s silicon transition closely, and it’s impressive how far they've come. When I first saw the M1 chip outperforming Intel’s offerings, I was skeptical, but the M4 Max scores seem even more astonishing. While synthetic benchmarks don’t always reflect real-world performance, Apple’s ARM architecture seems to be a game changer. I believe they’ve created a powerful CPU, but I’m curious to see how it handles heavy workloads over time. It’s exciting to witness how quickly Apple has shifted the computing landscape.
INocturnalI@reddit
yes it is, if only the release it for public. i dont wanna use mac :(
Archer_Sterling@reddit
Main complaint is the shared GPU. Makes it a non-starter when it comes to GPU tasks that consume vram or rely on CUDA. Another instance as a professional colourist I need realtime playback with heavy raw clips that may have noise reduction, depth mapping and/or other alterations to show a client. A dedicated 4099 with 24gb dedicated vram flies through it, a Mac pro/studio simply can't.
Another nitpick is that you're locked in to the hand-holding MacOS. No, i do not want 'true tone', i want a professional broadcast standard. Yes, Mac, please let me run the calibration device drivers from the manufacturer's website. Yes, I know its not from the app store, etc.
These are great consumer devices, but there area lot of professional applications its frankly not suited to, despite 'pro' being in the branding, haha.
holastickboy@reddit
Yeah I’d go with less synthetic (eg geekbench, passmark, etc) and try something like Phoronix. Not only can you compare real loads against other cpus and hardware configurations, but the results are far more realistic.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks
SurprisedBottle@reddit
So yes and no, is it incredibly efficient and strong on production? Yes entertainment? No.
Because Apple only needs to focus on their own ecosystem, all they can do is optimize and improve rather than creating new products to show off its optimization. So they have more time refining on what essentially is the same thing year after year.
However, the small ecosystem is also a double edged blade because it’s so secluded, it’s really up to Apple to decide what they want to do with it. That’s why you don’t see much gaming from it, as they choose to focus on a more productive/professional approach, and it ends up resulting into a divide where this chip can haul ass for work but suck ass for playing.
StandardAd3747@reddit (OP)
Thanks
max1001@reddit
Not really. Geekbench always favors Apple silicone.
ihatepoliticsreee@reddit
Depends what you use your pc for, anything outside of gaming is irrelevant
hitman0187@reddit
It's a good chip but it depends on your use case. If you're building or buying a new pc what do you intend to use it for?
Any_Manufacturer5237@reddit
When Apple makes their CPUs readily available for consumers to install whatever Operating System on it that they want to, I will concern myself with their performance compared to chips that aren't optimized for a single operating system. Anything else is an Apple Fan self gratification event.
Ok_Combination_6881@reddit
I don’t think they can quite match the multi core beasts from intel and amd, but they are definitely winning in the laptop department comparing to zen 5 and lunar lake. Also their media encoding engine makes up the difference and allows them to beat intel and amd in video editing
FunBuilding2707@reddit
LOL can't even run Crysis.
Mend1cant@reddit
Overall? No, they can put out a lot higher performance than the M4. However, they can’t begin to compete for a laptop form factor, and that’s where Apple has won the market. Try running that ultra 9 in a half inch thick form factor.
Arhheniuss@reddit
Geforce experience doesnt see gpu
vargavision@reddit
I'm agnostic about what methods these companies deploy, other than the basics. As long as I can have a system that's modular, I'm good. Having said that, this thing is a beast. For such a compact system, it's pretty powerful relative to other companies that make mini-factor PC's. If you want a simple, but powerful enough system that's transportable and doesn't take up space, this thing is nice.
BadAdviceAI@reddit
In sure others have said it, but geekbench is not indicative of real world performance.
ARM cpus (especially with a node advantage) perform really good at low power. Its undeniable. However, turn up the power needs and they fall flat on their faces and x86 takes the crown.
NovelValue7311@reddit
No, there is no real winner. ARM and x86 benchmarks are not compatible for finding the "most powerful". You can find which is better for certain tasks though, like best for gaming. Also, geekbench runs through the os and macos is c based. C runs faster than Java, and java based systems usually use more resources to run. (This is why android phones have 8gb to 16gb ram while iphones can run ios 18 with like 4gb) this to say geekbench Is not that great of a benchmark. Generally as a rule don't listen to benchmarks or companies. Just get some real world reviews.
Edenz_@reddit
Yes, M4 Max is actually that fast. It tracks with Spec and the performance in Spec is class leading.
Worth noting that geekbench’s multithreaded score is not like Cinebench, it isn’t a perfectly parallel test. It’s more akin to something like code compilation where you’re sometimes limited to single threaded performance rather than nT threads working almost independently.
NewestAccount2023@reddit
They are a process node ahead. Intel or amd on the same nanometer process could be faster, but they don't get those contracts
LanguageLoose157@reddit
Agreeing with what has been posted so far, lets not forget Apple chip is ARM based and Intel/AMD chip are x86 based...