Discussion in 'Apple and Mac OS X' started by JKERP, Oct 19, 2021.
A respectable choice for quick grocery runs
Macbook would probably have 0 relation to the m4800, sounds more like the mobile precision 5540/5550/5560 etc
Sounds like the 16 inch M1 Max will be better for sustained power loads. Makes sense given that its physically larger, costs $200 more than a similar spec 14 inch M1 Max, and has a larger power brick. I think Apple should call the 14 inch version a M1 Max MQ.
I just hope M1 Pro in 16" can sustain high power work loads as well.
You can't compare older with the newest.
Intel Alder Lake Mobility CPU Benchmarks Leaked: Faster Than The Apple M1 Max, Smokes AMD 5980HX, 11980HK
As much as I dont like Apple its still pretty impressive for them to be neck and neck with Intel latest cpu. I mean the second release of Apples new silicone against 35 years of Intel tech.
How reliable is this Geekbench really for cross-architectural comparisons? The article seems to cast a doubt on this, although TBH I am not clear on the rationale given:
"Geekbench has historically been a benchmark where Apple has reigned supreme (because it relies heavily on algorithmic optimizations)"
What algorithmic optimisations are they referring to, and why would those give Apple an advantage historically, particularly given that Apple used Intel CPUs not long ago.
I expect its easier for them because the HW is tuned thiglty together with own OS. And they have also loads of experience with the custom HW in the Iphone and iPad. And 5nm help as well.
Most likly the way the OS is tuned. Remember Apple also use less ram in their phones vs Android but still come on par or above. Its about proper tuning on OS level.
Here is a link to their whitepaper about the individual scores. I am not sure if they are biased to a specific platform. I would guess that they are not and its simply an example of the strengths of the ARM RISC architecture vs. Intel CISC architecture, and TSMC 5nm vs Intel 10nm processes.
Honestly the writing was on the wall for Apple switching to ARM given what they value as a business. Heck, the original slide deck from MacWorld 2006 where they announced the Core Duo MacBook Pro you could tell they cared more about performance per watt than anything else. Its funny too, because that day they also introduced the original MagSafe and built in FaceTime camera.
What advantages of ARM RISC architecture are you referring to? Pretty much all RISC architectures, including PowerPC, were killed off by x86. There must have been some good reasons other than price / economy of scale. Apple wouldn't have ditched PowerPC if it was the superior processor. x86 architecture originally suffered from a very small number of registers compared to RISC - this was addressed in the x86_64 architecture extension.
The difference between 5 nm and 10nm is a chasm and surely must explain why ARM caught up on performance and has a significant energy efficiency advantage. Where do you go from 5nm I'm not sure, but clearly Intel can further improve massively as they play catch-up.
As for Geekbench, the article below sheds some lights on why a broad composite benchmark such as this can get biased:
Dropping a memory benchmark is quite strange. .
Ideally we would look at other benchmark results before drawing conclusions either way.
Separate names with a comma.