Apple leaks M1 Max Duo, and M1 Ultra

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,024
It turns out that the M1 Chips are MCM capable, and we are probably going to see the Desktop variants soon.
1638657981579.png


1638657997686.png


https://www.tomshardware.com/news/pics-of-apple-m1-max-hint-at-incoming-chiplet-designs

Capable of scaling out to 40 CPU cores and 128 GPU cores
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,584
Not bad, hopefully we get to see these in action.
Competition is a good thing.

E16Kwy_WYAM7vuO?format=jpg.jpg
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,259

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,487
It fucks their memory... CPU and GPU unified memory, but NUMA'd to fuck.
How can this even be determined since presumably no one but AMD has access to them at this point? Are you just guessing or am I missing something?
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
308
How can this even be determined since presumably no one but AMD has access to them at this point? Are you just guessing or am I missing something?
Ram is attached to the CPU/GPU blocks, not hanging off the IO middle block. Would have the same issues as the first Epycs had with cache, but with the whole memory block, if it is laid out as per the article.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,891
I'm skeptical of this as people are treating that image like it's a leak of official imagery. It's not — it's speculation. Now, it would make sense that Apple's workstation-class chips would be multiples of laptop chips, but we don't even know if Apple will still be leaning on M1-based architecture by the time desktop workstation Macs show up. The rumors had Apple using an M2 for the redesigned MacBook Air, and if that's the case I would expect any systems beyond that to run on M2 variants as well.
 

kaneO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
142
I came here looking for a bimmer-Apple collab oh well. This duo looks promising in terms of power capabilities but the potential cost is what leaves me unenthusiastic and skeptical. They need to embrace the gaming community.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,891
I came here looking for a bimmer-Apple collab oh well. This duo looks promising in terms of power capabilities but the potential cost is what leaves me unenthusiastic and skeptical. They need to embrace the gaming community.
It'd be nice to see Apple cater more to gamers, but it doesn't "need" to embrace the gaming community. It really, truly doesn't.

Computer gaming is significant, but here's a dirty secret: most people don't buy a computer with gaming as a major factor. Research indicates 69 percent of the graphics hardware sold at the end of 2020 was Intel's, and a lot of that AMD video is likely integrated... in other words, few people buy PCs capable of smoothly playing the latest first-person shooter (or even ones from a few years back). So Apple would be chasing after a subset of the market, and one where it's difficult to get meaningful market share even for heavyweights like Dell and HP.

Apple is still generally best-served by appealing to everyday computer users and creatives. That covers a lot of people and plays to its strengths. Any attempt to court 'traditional' PC gamers wouldn't just involve new hardware and a more gaming-friendly framework; Apple would have to spend a very, very long time persuading major developers to release AAA titles on the Mac. And given that the PC gaming camp is practically the home of Anything But Apple fanatics, even that might not be enough.
 

kaneO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
142
It'd be nice to see Apple cater more to gamers, but it doesn't "need" to embrace the gaming community. It really, truly doesn't.

Computer gaming is significant, but here's a dirty secret: most people don't buy a computer with gaming as a major factor. Research indicates 69 percent of the graphics hardware sold at the end of 2020 was Intel's, and a lot of that AMD video is likely integrated... in other words, few people buy PCs capable of smoothly playing the latest first-person shooter (or even ones from a few years back). So Apple would be chasing after a subset of the market, and one where it's difficult to get meaningful market share even for heavyweights like Dell and HP.

Apple is still generally best-served by appealing to everyday computer users and creatives. That covers a lot of people and plays to its strengths. Any attempt to court 'traditional' PC gamers wouldn't just involve new hardware and a more gaming-friendly framework; Apple would have to spend a very, very long time persuading major developers to release AAA titles on the Mac. And given that the PC gaming camp is practically the home of Anything But Apple fanatics, even that might not be enough.
When you right your right!
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,820
I'm skeptical of this as people are treating that image like it's a leak of official imagery. It's not — it's speculation. Now, it would make sense that Apple's workstation-class chips would be multiples of laptop chips, but we don't even know if Apple will still be leaning on M1-based architecture by the time desktop workstation Macs show up. The rumors had Apple using an M2 for the redesigned MacBook Air, and if that's the case I would expect any systems beyond that to run on M2 variants as well.
Yeah. As far as I can tell, someone sacrificed a laptop to get his own die shot, saw a stripe on the edge of it that wasn't in Apple's beauty shots, and just invented the idea that it's an interconnect out of whole cloth.

Be cool if it was real[1], but the hyperventilating about it as if it's confirmed is just silly.

[1] of course, even then, it's meaningless to people who aren't using Macs.
 

Halon

Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
703
Is there past precedent for an HBM-style mass of central high-bandwidth RAM supplemented by installable slower RAM for additional storage? Because a top-end Mac Pro with an M1 Ultra and 256GB of RAM that could then be built out to a terabyte plus would be extremely appealing for a lot of content creators.
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
308
Chaining SoC's together is a far cry from chaining CCX's together. If Apple does a chiplet design it will be significantly different from their M1 Max chip. 4 GPU's over an interconnect sucks compared to a single monolithic GPU. Same for CPU's.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,259
Chaining SoC's together is a far cry from chaining CCX's together. If Apple does a chiplet design it will be significantly different from their M1 Max chip. 4 GPU's over an interconnect sucks compared to a single monolithic GPU. Same for CPU's.
Apples implementation is yet to be seen.
The biggest problem with multi CPU and GPU in the past was ultimately scheduling. Latency across the bus of course being another problem, but in theory perfect scheduling would alleviate a lot of the problems with scaling that came up on PC’s.

One of the major points of Metal is to make all of the programming simple for developers. If Apple has all of the Metal scheduling built out well, then it’s theoretically possible that Apple could achieve near perfect scaling. Point being, Arm programmed apps could already be ready to scale with such a platform without any additional coding from developers.

The naysayers bet against Apple for their Arm transition. If this is the path they’re going, I would bet that it will work well.
 
Last edited:

Jinto

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
1,812
Hard to bet against Apple at this point. They have a ridiculous amount of resources to throw at talent and tech. Apple is like double the market cap of Nvidia, Intel and AMD combined.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,024
Hard to bet against Apple at this point. They have a ridiculous amount of resources to throw at talent and tech. Apple is like double the market cap of Nvidia, Intel and AMD combined.
Love'em or Hate'em, they have picked a direction and they are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to make it work and they have the name and money behind that name to get any bit of talent they think they need to get there.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,891
Hard to bet against Apple at this point. They have a ridiculous amount of resources to throw at talent and tech. Apple is like double the market cap of Nvidia, Intel and AMD combined.
People like to claim Apple will never pose an existential threat to Intel or AMD, and it might not, but they forget that Apple is relentless in a way its rivals aren't.

Part of why Apple dominates performance in phones, tablets and watches is that it's constantly iterating, using newer manufacturing processes and generally pushing the limits of what it can do. Updates are occasionally modest (like the A12z or S7), but you can count on them. There's no Intel-like stallouts, no AMD-style dark eras (remember how bad it was pre-Ryzen!), no Qualcomm-like laziness on non-phone SoCs. Apple moves ahead because its competitors either trip up or get complacent, if just occasionally.

I like to think of Apple as the student who aces the final exam because it consistently showed up for class and paid attention. Intel, AMD and Qualcomm are the spoiled pupils who might be intelligent, but skip half the classes and wonder why they flunked the last test.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,324
One of the major points of Metal is to make all of the programming simple for developers. If Apple has all of the Metal scheduling built out well, then it’s theoretically possible that Apple could achieve near perfect scaling.
Apple should dump Metal in favor of Vulkan. Metal isn't making developers lives easier, which can be seen with how many use MoltenVK.
Point being, Arm programmed apps could already be ready to scale with such a platform without any additional coding from developers.
That's not how things work, unless the work load isn't dependent on in order execution. If it isn't then that's what GPU's are for.
The naysayers bet against Apple for their Arm transition. If this is the path they’re going, I would bet that it will work well.
I already see Apple losing market share as a result. Their market share is lower compared to last year, during a time period where the PC market has seen 13% growth. I had predicted that Apple would lose sales and their Intel based Macs would retain their value better. Here Apple is offering up to $1k in trade in value for a new M1 based Mac, which to me seems to support that Intel Macs are more desirable.

Apple did see a 10% increase compared to last year, but others have grown a lot more and gain more market share due to COVID19.
rategy-Analytics-notebook-market-report-in-Q3-2021.jpg


You don't think that maybe some consumers might avoid ARM based Macs because they want better Windows compatibility and performance that they got with Intel based Macs?
 
Last edited:

sadsteve

Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
608
It'd be nice to see Apple cater more to gamers, but it doesn't "need" to embrace the gaming community. It really, truly doesn't.

Computer gaming is significant, but here's a dirty secret: most people don't buy a computer with gaming as a major factor. Research indicates 69 percent of the graphics hardware sold at the end of 2020 was Intel's, and a lot of that AMD video is likely integrated... in other words, few people buy PCs capable of smoothly playing the latest first-person shooter (or even ones from a few years back). So Apple would be chasing after a subset of the market, and one where it's difficult to get meaningful market share even for heavyweights like Dell and HP.

Apple is still generally best-served by appealing to everyday computer users and creatives. That covers a lot of people and plays to its strengths. Any attempt to court 'traditional' PC gamers wouldn't just involve new hardware and a more gaming-friendly framework; Apple would have to spend a very, very long time persuading major developers to release AAA titles on the Mac. And given that the PC gaming camp is practically the home of Anything But Apple fanatics, even that might not be enough.
Personally, I'd be a bit skeptical of the gaming buy numbers for the last couple of years. Cryptomining has really borked the prices for higher end graphics cards. I'm betting it's put a damper on gaming purchases. I know I've not bought a new graphics card due to the drastic price increases.
People like to claim Apple will never pose an existential threat to Intel or AMD, and it might not, but they forget that Apple is relentless in a way its rivals aren't.

Part of why Apple dominates performance in phones, tablets and watches is that it's constantly iterating, using newer manufacturing processes and generally pushing the limits of what it can do. Updates are occasionally modest (like the A12z or S7), but you can count on them. There's no Intel-like stallouts, no AMD-style dark eras (remember how bad it was pre-Ryzen!), no Qualcomm-like laziness on non-phone SoCs. Apple moves ahead because its competitors either trip up or get complacent, if just occasionally.

I like to think of Apple as the student who aces the final exam because it consistently showed up for class and paid attention. Intel, AMD and Qualcomm are the spoiled pupils who might be intelligent, but skip half the classes and wonder why they flunked the last test.
Unless Apple opens up their processors to the likes of Lenovo, Dell, HP, Asus, etc, I don't see them as an threat to Intel and AMD. Look at how things have played out with cell phones. There's around twice as many Android phone users as there are Apple phone users.
 

paradoxical

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
201
You don't think that maybe some consumers might avoid ARM based Macs because they want better Windows compatibility and performance that they got with Intel based Macs?

If the software you need is available on MacOS and Windows (and for most users it is), people who value overall system performance actually don't have a choice - they have to go Apple if they can afford it. Nothing in the PC laptop world even remotely comes close in a similar form factor to what a maxed out 14in MBP with the M1 Max will do.

I have a 14in laptop with a M1 Max that is faster than my 9900k in my desktop, 64GB of ram, 8TB SSD that writes at 7300mb/s, a mini-led screen, multiple Thunderbolt 4 ports, that weighs 3.5lbs and that the fan never spins on and I get 10hrs of battery life on. It's in a class of its own when it comes to performance.
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,820
If the software you need is available on MacOS and Windows (and for most users it is), people who value overall system performance actually don't have a choice - they have to go Apple if they can afford it. Nothing in the PC laptop world even remotely comes close in a similar form factor to what a maxed out 14in MBP with the M1 Max will do.

I have a 14in laptop with a M1 Max that is faster than my 9900k in my desktop, 64GB of ram, 8TB SSD that writes at 7300mb/s, a mini-led screen, multiple Thunderbolt 4 ports, that weighs 3.5lbs and that the fan never spins on and I get 10hrs of battery life on. It's in a class of its own when it comes to performance.
I don't see businesses replacing $1000 laptops with $2000 ones for everyday usage by people who use mostly Office and a couple of 3rd party apps like MRP and payroll or whatever.

Edit: this isn't Mac-bashing, just a statement about spending more than you "need". Another thing that just occurred to me--if your company always buys Dells because of the hardware support, I doubt anyone's going to be able to buy a Mac.
 

paradoxical

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
201
I don't see businesses replacing $1000 laptops with $2000 ones for everyday usage by people who use mostly Office and a couple of 3rd party apps like MRP and payroll or whatever.

Edit: this isn't Mac-bashing, just a statement about spending more than you "need". Another thing that just occurred to me--if your company always buys Dells because of the hardware support, I doubt anyone's going to be able to buy a Mac.

The sky is blue and I like pizza. We're replying to each other with things that have nothing to do with the original comment, right?

People who value overall system performance aren't using office and running payroll. They aren't the target market for a $3000 computer.

I agree with your comment! It just has nothing to do with mine.
 

longblock454

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
2,358
I really want this hardware but can't use MacOS. Nothing worse than a CPU fan blowing when the only workload is a YT video.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,259
Apple should dump Metal in favor of Vulkan. Metal isn't making developers lives easier, which can be seen with how many use MoltenVK.
Its made their lives very easy. People having been coding for Apple ARM for over 10 years now. The iPhone has been out since 2007, and I think the App Store came no later than 2009? My timeline is fuzzy but certainly before 2010.

Although really I misspoke. I should have said XCode. And their entire coding stack in general. None of Apples developer tools require devs to specifically code for multi core.
That's not how things work, unless the work load isn't dependent on in order execution. If it isn't then that's what GPU's are for.
Which is found on every M1 die.
I already see Apple losing market share as a result. Their market share is lower compared to last year, during a time period where the PC market has seen 13% growth.
A lot of this I would bet is pent up market for gaming, but I would also bet a good portion of it is for crypto miners. People have long been buying Dell or whatever pre built machines just for the GPU’s. And the folks that are willing to pay a ridiculous premium on GPU’s are mostly people making money from them.

I had predicted that Apple would lose sales and their Intel based Macs would retain their value better. Here Apple is offering up to $1k in trade in value for a new M1 based Mac, which to me seems to support that Intel Macs are more desirable.
It begs the question: trade them for what? There are only two Intel based Macs at this point. The 27” iMac and the Mac Pro. If people are trading their $1200-$3000 computer in for ‘up to’ $1000 credit for a $1800 to $80,000 one then I guess Apple is good with that? (Edit: also the article itself also clearly states this is to get people to upgrade to new M1 Pros and M1 Max machines. And as another addendum Apple is committed to being Arm only by the end of 2022. The 27” iMac will likely be replaced no later than late Q2 22’ and the Mac Pro will likely be the last to come in November 22’)

Otherwise you’re trading an Arm Mac for an Arm Mac. Basically this is the same scheme as a phone buyback/trade in. It speaks to the fact that Apple is more than willing to sell you a new computer every year, which is genius - when speaking of profit motive. They’re just going to refurbish those machines and sell them again anyway, they’re making money both ways.

Your premise is silly.
Apple did see a 10% increase compared to last year, but others have grown a lot more and gain more market share due to COVID19.
View attachment 419360

You don't think that maybe some consumers might avoid ARM based Macs because they want better Windows compatibility and performance that they got with Intel based Macs?
No one cares. The group of people that need to boot windows while on a Mac is a very small group of people. ARM Macs can already virtualize Windows through VMware or Parallels. If you need a PC to run things natively then you buy a PC.

If you need a van buy a van. If you need a car buy a car. If you want electric buy electric. If you don’t then you don’t. It’s not necessary to explain business cases. People just get what they want/need and I think it’s absurd to have to explain this to you.

It’s like trying to have a discussion about buying a Tesla. If you don’t get that most people don’t need to drive 300 miles in a day and that recharging doesn’t matter to commuters then we’re already discussing stuff that is irrelevant because you don’t even understand the market or the user base that is interested. Are Teslas for everyone?: No. Neither is any Mac. Neither is any PC.
I don't see businesses replacing $1000 laptops with $2000 ones for everyday usage by people who use mostly Office and a couple of 3rd party apps like MRP and payroll or whatever.
And they don’t need to. They can buy $750 entry level Mac Mini’s and call it a day. Likely will require no maintenance or CS intervention more than once a year if they decide to rollout the next version of macOS and all of it can happen remotely now anyway.

If it needs to be a laptop there are sales on M1 Macs more or less constantly. And can be had for $1200, sometimes less.
Edit: this isn't Mac-bashing, just a statement about spending more than you "need". Another thing that just occurred to me--if your company always buys Dells because of the hardware support, I doubt anyone's going to be able to buy a Mac.
Absolutely. I think it’s silly that this convo is still necessary: but if you need to run Windows software than obviously buy Windows. For most office workers though that group of people is becoming vanishingly small.

Depending on what industry you’re in there is niche software only available on one platform or the other. If you’re doing CAD, that’s still the realm of PC’s only. Which is fine. Buy what you need, especially if you’re a business. There is literally no product that is designed for everyone. Hence why a market place exists.

Apple doesn’t need the whole market. And no company can have it all anyway (so often people talk about all or nothing and it makes no sense. Take entry level business classes and you find our immediately that your goal is a place in the market not the whole market). I think it’s obvious though that their potential to increase their market share at the cost of the PC market is high though.

In terms of TCO and what an office worker needs, there are options there. No one is saying buy a $3000 Mac when a $1000 one will do. Hence why there is a product stack.
Unless Apple opens up their processors to the likes of Lenovo, Dell, HP, Asus, etc, I don't see them as an threat to Intel and AMD. Look at how things have played out with cell phones. There's around twice as many Android phone users as there are Apple phone users.
All of those phones runs on ARM and nvidia is attempting to move that direction on desktop as well with their potential ARM acquisition.

Apple doesn’t have to give anyone anything. ARM is pushing itself. Apple is just a ‘first mover’. In quotes since technically Microsoft developed Surface ARM tablets (Surface RT) and Windows Arm before Apple transitioned over.

This is also ignoring products from Google like Arm based chrome books or things like Android tablets or the nvidia shield.
 
Last edited:

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,891
Personally, I'd be a bit skeptical of the gaming buy numbers for the last couple of years. Cryptomining has really borked the prices for higher end graphics cards. I'm betting it's put a damper on gaming purchases. I know I've not bought a new graphics card due to the drastic price increases.

Unless Apple opens up their processors to the likes of Lenovo, Dell, HP, Asus, etc, I don't see them as an threat to Intel and AMD. Look at how things have played out with cell phones. There's around twice as many Android phone users as there are Apple phone users.
You're right on crypto mining. It's difficult to know how many GPU purchases were actually for gamers, and how much pent-up demand there is for gaming GPUs.

I do see Apple as a threat in that it might own the high-end space (for non-gamers, anyway) in time, like it does in other areas. Windows PCs flourished not just because of the open hardware ecosystem, but because Apple could never really pull ahead in a meaningful way. Its advantages in the PowerPC era were limited to a handful of situations, and of course in the x86 period it was rarely going to outperform Windows using similar or identical hardware. This is the first time Apple has been free to dictate its own designs and performance expectations, and so far it's already giving Intel and AMD some heat.

Phones aren't a great example. Apple typically has around a sixth of the broader market, but nearly all of its lineup is upper-mid-range or higher... and in that arena, Apple dominates. You see what I'm getting at? It's not that people will buy a $999 MacBook Air in lieu of a no-frills $400 Windows laptop, it's that they may pass on a comparable Windows machine if they see clear-enough improvements from the Mac. And that could have a knock-on effect for the reputations of Intel- and AMD-based PCs, even if Apple never cracks the gaming market.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,024
I don't see businesses replacing $1000 laptops with $2000 ones for everyday usage by people who use mostly Office and a couple of 3rd party apps like MRP and payroll or whatever.

Edit: this isn't Mac-bashing, just a statement about spending more than you "need". Another thing that just occurred to me--if your company always buys Dells because of the hardware support, I doubt anyone's going to be able to buy a Mac.
Not exactly the TCO on a Mac is lower over a 4 year period than a PC in an Enterprise environment, a $2000 Macbook pro will easily outlive a $2000 PC in a grab and go environment, and once you factor in IT costs, software licensing, MDM systems, asset management, and all those other things Apple pulls way ahead for Total Cost of Ownership, there are a lot of studies to back this up.
But it is very dependant on the work environment, but if you are primarily cloud-based using O365, that ties seamlessly into the Apple Management portal via SAML, which can then tie into any one of the existing MDM solutions for Apple hardware. Which then gives you complete asset and user management with very little IT work and just a couple of forms to fill out for very little money. Apple is actually doing a lot of back-end work to make itself a lot more appealing to enterprises and now that just about everything is a web app it is making it a lot easier to do so.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,024
You don't think that maybe some consumers might avoid ARM based Macs because they want better Windows compatibility and performance that they got with Intel based Macs?
From the business side of things, at least on my end, I don't have any windows only programs left that you would notice any performance difference on, nobody really has time to reboot their machine during the workday to use Bootcamp so we use Parallels and it's doing great, the Windows-only software is more than happy running on a 7-year-old i3, the M1's and their Rosetta 2 still run circles around those, so running an ancient i3 at 60% load vs a new M1 at 8% load for a full-screen application does nothing but cut down on fan noise and the electrical bill. Just about everything is now running as a web app, in Citrix, or has a macOS version so "better" windows performance is at best arbitrary. The only thing they really care about is power on times, how long it takes from clicking the icon until it is in front of them, and how loud everybody else's keyboard seems to be now that they no longer have the humming of a desktop fan running next to them.

Apple did a very good job of making sure their developers and app stores were ready for the transition.

That said it will be a cold day in hell before I give up my Dell G5 laptop and will be replacing it with another once its warranty expires.
 

bonehead123

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,435
The naysayers bet against Apple for their Arm transition
As they did for the intel transition, and the one before that, and the one before that.... and yet me thinks that those transitions all worked out better for Apple than it did for those naysayers, hahahaha....

maybe that's why they have like a gazillion $$ in da bank and can do whateva they want when it comes to R&D, marketing OR transitions....
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,324
If the software you need is available on MacOS and Windows (and for most users it is), people who value overall system performance actually don't have a choice - they have to go Apple if they can afford it. Nothing in the PC laptop world even remotely comes close in a similar form factor to what a maxed out 14in MBP with the M1 Max will do.
There are plenty of AMD based laptops that outperform the M1's. The M1 isn't about best performance but best battery life vs x86 offerings.
I have a 14in laptop with a M1 Max that is faster than my 9900k in my desktop, 64GB of ram, 8TB SSD that writes at 7300mb/s, a mini-led screen, multiple Thunderbolt 4 ports, that weighs 3.5lbs and that the fan never spins on and I get 10hrs of battery life on. It's in a class of its own when it comes to performance.
Then why do you have a 9900K? Obviously the M1 can't do certain things the 9900K machine can do, including 8TB SSD. I highly doubt the M1 would outperform the 9900K but I can't find any benchmarks since the M1's are always compared to other laptops, for good reason.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,259
Then why do you have a 9900K? Obviously the M1 can't do certain things the 9900K machine can do, including 8TB SSD. I highly doubt the M1 would outperform the 9900K but I can't find any benchmarks since the M1's are always compared to other laptops, for good reason.
Here you go:

M1 Mac vs a $15,000 Mac Pro containing a 12-Core Xeon, Vega II, 192GB of RAM, and an afterburner card.

Despite all of that the M1 Max trades blows. And comes out ahead of basically anything that requires encode or decode including things like 8k RED RAW.

Even with ProRes decoding which the Afterburner FPGA should accelerate handily, the M1 Max still comes out ahead.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,024
There are plenty of AMD based laptops that outperform the M1's. The M1 isn't about best performance but best battery life vs x86 offerings.

Then why do you have a 9900K? Obviously the M1 can't do certain things the 9900K machine can do, including 8TB SSD. I highly doubt the M1 would outperform the 9900K but I can't find any benchmarks since the M1's are always compared to other laptops, for good reason.
Plenty is a bit of a stretch the M1 basically trades blows with the AMD 5980HX when similarly configured, but of course, the 5980HX can be configured with significantly more ram, HDD space, and is often paired with a 3070 or better so once you start adding those things the AMD is going to pull ahead by a long shot but then you are comparing a 14w device to a 54-105w system depending on how you configure that AMD.

But if you start comparing the M1's to any mid to high end recently new Desktop CPU's with any decent discrete GPU it is going to get clobbered, hard the M1 is a fantastic mobile APU, and its a solid contender against anything in the <45w category, but once you start moving beyond 45w things don't look great for the Apple outside of specific tasks and once you go beyond 65W its basically game over. But the fact it holds its own so well while sipping on the electrical juice is impressive on its own.
 

bonehead123

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,435
Then why do you have a 9900K? Obviously the M1 can't do certain things the 9900K machine can do, including 8TB SSD. I highly doubt the M1 would outperform the 9900K....
Well I've had both of these, and it was my experience that for native windows apps/usage, my 9900k ran circles around the M1-14" for the tasks I needed a computer for....

I'm not saying the M1 is a slouch by any means, it is great for what it is, but the 9900k is a serious multi-tasking beast of a cpu, especially when oc'd to 5GHZ and paired with a mid-tier GPU, sufficient cooling, and 32GB or more of ram like mine was.....

I hope that in the near future, Apple can make a beastly desktop chip with industry-leading performance like the M series did for the <45w segment (at a reasonable price, of course)... if this eva happens, I would most likely take a serious look at it :D
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,259
There are plenty of AMD based laptops that outperform the M1's. The M1 isn't about best performance but best battery life vs x86

Here is an AMD 5900HX with an nvidia RTX 3800 vs an M1 Max. “Outperform” is not the word I’d use for the AMD system.

 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,024
Here you go:

M1 Mac vs a $15,000 Mac Pro containing a 12-Core Xeon, Vega II, 192GB of RAM, and an afterburner card.

Despite all of that the M1 Max trades blows. And comes out ahead of basically anything that requires encode or decode including things like 8k RED RAW.

Even with ProRes decoding which the Afterburner FPGA should accelerate handily, the M1 Max still comes out ahead.

Yeah, Apple did a good job at tailoring the chips to the current use cases for the bulk of their user base, they have lots of optimizations in there for these things which some people say is cheating but is it... I don't know.
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
308
Cheating is skipping security on branch predictions.

Having accelerators for the most common tasks it optimization.

I am super keen to see Apple's workstation processor, I just really don't think its going to be independent SoC's glued together with an interlink as per the Articles suggestions.
 

paradoxical

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
201
There are plenty of AMD based laptops that outperform the M1's. The M1 isn't about best performance but best battery life vs x86 offerings.

Then why do you have a 9900K? Obviously the M1 can't do certain things the 9900K machine can do, including 8TB SSD. I highly doubt the M1 would outperform the 9900K but I can't find any benchmarks since the M1's are always compared to other laptops, for good reason.

I have a 9900K because I used to use that for video editing because my Intel Macbook Pro 13 wasn't powerful enough. Now I loaded it up with 5700XTs and just use it for etherium mining since the M1 Max has made it completely irrelevant for my workloads.
 
Top