Wow does much better than Geekbench's prior top processor (https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks) the Intel Core i9-11900K (https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-11900...).
10,997 for Intel i9
vs
12,693 for M1 Max
10,997 for Intel i9
vs
12,693 for M1 Max
For example, the Ryzen 9 5950X has single/multi core scores of 1,688/16,645 - which is higher in multi core score than the M1 Max, but lower in the single core.
Looking at a 1783/12693 on an 8-core CPU shows about a 10% scaling penalty from 1 to 8 cores - suppose a 32-core M1 came out for the Mac Pro that could scale only at 50% per core, that would still score over 28000, compared to the real-world top scorer, the 64-core 3990X scoring 25271.
At that point, their E-cores will have something like 80% the performance of a Zen 1 core. Zen 1 might not be the new hotness, but lots of people are perfectly fine with their Threadripper 1950X which Apple could almost match with 16 E-cores and only around 8 watts of peak power.
I suspect we'll see Apple joining ARM in three-tiered CPUs shortly. Adding a couple in-order cores just for tiny system processes that wake periodically, but don't actually do much just makes a ton of sense.
>On an adjacent note, with a score of 7.28 in the integer suite, Apple’s A15 P-core is on equal footing with AMD’s Zen3-based Ryzen 5950X with a score of 7.29, and ahead of M1 with a score of 6.66.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo...
On floating point, it's slightly ahead. 10.15 for the A15 vs. 9.79 for the 5950X.
Which means, at least for Geekbench, Apple M1 Max has a power comparable to a very powerful desktop workstation. But if you need the absolute best of the best on multicore you can get double the performance with AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X at 280W TDP!
Can you imagine if Apple released some beast with similar TDP? 300W Apple M1 Unleashed, the trashcan design re-imagined, with 10X power of M1 Max if can preserve similar performance per watt. That would be 5X over the best of the best.
If Apple made an iMac Pro with similar TDP to the Intel one, and keeps the performance per watt, that would mean multicore score of about 60K, which is twice of the best processor there is in the X86 World.
I suspect, these scores don't tell the full story since the Apple SoC has specialised units for processing certain kind of data and they have direct access to the data in the memory and as a result it could be unmatched by anything but at the same time it can be comically slow for some other type of processes where X86 shines.
We’re in for some fun times.
Is this a yield trick, that one is the "chopped" part of another? So they'll bin failed M1Max ones as M1Pro, if possible?
>Codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die, a redesigned Mac Pro is planned to come in 20 or 40 computing core variations, made up of 16 high-performance or 32 high-performance cores and four or eight high-efficiency cores. The chips would also include either 64 core or 128 core options for graphics.
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/18/bloomberg-mac-pro-32-hi...
So right in line with the notion of the Mac Pro getting an SOC that has the resources of either 2 or 4 M1 Pros glued together.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor...
11800H = Core i7-11800H -> family=i7 generation=11 sku=800 H=optimized for mobile
11950H = Core i9-11950H -> family=i9 generation=11 sku=950 H=optimized for mobile
I didn't look up the AMD names.
So, now that I know the names, why not use Core i9-11980HK?
family=i7 generation=11 sku=800 HK=high performance optimized for mobile
It seems like it exists https://www.techspot.com/review/2289-intel-core-i9-11980hk/
P.S. General rant: WTF Intel. I'm really glad there is a decoder ring but does it really have to be that hard? Is there really a need for 14 suffixes? For example, option T, power-optimized lifestyle. Is it really different from option U, mobile power efficient?
The ultra-high-clocked IBM cpus are probably significantly faster at DB loads, and less than the best at more general benchmarks like Geekbench.
Edit: for relative comparison between CPUs, per core metric is the most interesting unless you also account for heat, price and many other factors. Comparing a 56-core CPU with 10-core M1 is a meaningless comparison.
For example, make -j 10, or mvn -T 10.
The speed record for building my software is held by a system with over 1k cores (a couple of seconds, compared to multiple minutes on a mid-size Threadripper).
add(1, 1) = 2
add(1, 2) = 3
add(1, 3) = 4
add(1, 4) = 5
...Or run heavy renders of complex ray-traced scenes.
Or do heavy 3D reconstruction from 2D images.
Or run Monte-Carlo simulations to compute complex likelihoods on parametric trading models.
Or train ML models.
The list of things you can do with a computer with many, many cores is long, and some of these (or parts thereof) are sometimes rather annoying to map to a GPU.
‘Rather annoying’ certainly doesn’t have to be a problem. Apple can afford to pay engineers lots of money to write libraries that do that for you.
The only problem I see is that Apple might (and likely will) disagree with some of their potential customers about what functionality is essential.
While working in rust I am most limited by single core performance. Incremental builds at the moment are like, 300ms compiling and 2 seconds linking. In release mode linking takes 10+ seconds with LTO turned on. The linker is entirely single threaded.
Fast cold compiles are nice, but I do that far more rarely than incremental debug builds. And there’s faster linkers (like mold[1] or lld) but lld doesn’t support macos properly and mold doesn’t support macos at all.
I’m pretty sure tsc and most javascript bundlers are also single threaded.
I wish software people cared anywhere near as much about performance as hardware engineers do. Until then, single core performance numbers will continue to matter for me.
The same machine does nychthemeral builds that include macOS compiles on a QEMU VM, but given that I'm asleep when that happens, I only care that the night's work is done before I get up.
And forget about fast charging—you can charge this battery up from 0% to 100% in less than a minute just by pouring some gasoline in the thing!
It's the very pinnacle of portability!