Apple M1 Ultra benchmarks put it ahead of Core i9-12900K and Xeon W, close to Threadripper...

midian182

Posts: 8,315   +103
Staff member
What just happened? Apple revealed the monstrous M1 Ultra yesterday, an SoC that buyers of its new Mac Studio can opt for—if they have the money. Cupertino made it clear that the chip made the new machine Apple’s most powerful Mac to date, and now we have benchmarks to prove it.

Benchleaks spotted the Geekbench 5 benchmark for the 20-core M1 Ultra, which is essentially two M1 Max SoCs linked together through Apple’s new UltraFusion technology. The results show it reaching a multi-threaded score of 24,055 points and a single-threaded score of 1,793.

Comparing the M1 Ultra to some of the other top chips illustrates just how powerful Apple’s new SoC really is. The 28-core Intel Xeon W found in the top-spec Mac Pro is 56% slower in single-core performance (1,152) and 21% slower in multi-core (19,951).

The M1 Ultra also beats the Core i9-12900K’s multi-threaded score (17,204) by 40%, though Intel’s chip is the winner when it comes to single-threaded performance (1,997). Even the mighty Threadripper 3990X with its 64 cores can only manage a 4.5% faster multi-threaded score (25,133), and the M1 Ultra is ahead of AMD’s CPU when it comes to single-core (1,213).

These are impressive figures, but it’s always worth remembering that synthetic benchmarks don’t always reflect real-world performance, so we’ll have to wait until the M1 Ultra arrives in the Mac Studio on March 18 to find out more. If you want the top-spec model, be prepared to pay over $10,000.

Apple says the Ultra, manufactured on TSMC’s 5 nm manufacturing process, is the last chip in the M1 family. It features 14 billion transistors, more than three times the number found in an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 GPU and an Intel Core i9-12900K combined. It also packs 16 high-performance cores and four efficiency cores, a 64-core GPU, 800GB/s of memory bandwidth, and a 32-core Neural Engine in a package that’s around eight times the size of the M1.

On top of all that power, Apple says the M1 Ultra has a power consumption of just 60 watts, making it hugely efficient compared to its powerful chip rivals.

h/t: Tom's Hardware

Permalink to story.

 

Mister_K

Posts: 2,185   +873
I am pretty sure it's "ahead" under what like 60TDP? Last I checked desktop GPUs and CPUs go way beyond that.

Pretty sure someone can do a car analogy here.
 

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 847   +1,362
I am pretty sure it's "ahead" under what like 60TDP? Last I checked desktop GPUs and CPUs go way beyond that.

Pretty sure someone can do a car analogy here.
I think the idea is it’s ahead in both:
2-A6-FD25-E-FCE7-4-E39-B7-D6-8863-CDDC42-F1.jpg

I think that’s the comparison to an i5, but there’s more graphs including one comparing the M1 Ultra to an i9 and the M1 Ultra edges ahead of team blue. This probably has the best information right now:
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,674   +2,654
"It features 14 billion transistors, more than three times the number found in an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 GPU and an Intel Core i9-12900K combined."

114B?
 
Last edited:

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,982
This margin will only increase with time as Apple has far more resources to pour into R&D, production, etc than any other company. The fact that they are ahead or at the worst, slightly behind now, bodes well for them in the near future.

5 years from now, will there be any desktops that can rival them? Now.... if only they ran Windows natively :)
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,733   +2,576
Seems most of the sites all have similar titles.....

Threadripper 3990X is much faster and that should be 3970X which is 32 cores and is abit faster.

And this is based on Zen 2 so a TR Pro based on Zen 3 will be even faster.

The only site to have an accurate title was wccftech which is a low bar to pass..

 

rrwards

Posts: 256   +483
Seems most of the sites all have similar titles.....

Threadripper 3990X is much faster and that should be 3970X which is 32 cores and is abit faster.

And this is based on Zen 2 so a TR Pro based on Zen 3 will be even faster.

The only site to have an accurate title was wccftech which is a low bar to pass..


Wow you're right, so many outlets (including Techspot) reporting this incorrectly.
 

Carmaine

Posts: 82   +100
I'm running a hackintosh paired with a 3950X cause my 2010 MacBook ain't cutting it anymore. Using xcode for one of my apps, it takes around 11 to 14 minutes to build and compile after a clean each time. And the app is small in comparison with a little over 40K lines of code.

I'm curious how the M1 Max and Ultra would fare in this scenario. I wouldn't mind paying this much money, knowing how long my 2010 MacBook has lasted.
 

dangh

Posts: 785   +1,325
I'm running a hackintosh paired with a 3950X cause my 2010 MacBook ain't cutting it anymore. Using xcode for one of my apps, it takes around 11 to 14 minutes to build and compile after a clean each time. And the app is small in comparison with a little over 40K lines of code.

I'm curious how the M1 Max and Ultra would fare in this scenario. I wouldn't mind paying this much money, knowing how long my 2010 MacBook has lasted.
will be probably better and cheaper to get threadripper 5000 when it is out - performance and valuewise hackintosh is a better solution. Unless they drop x86 support.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 394   +263
Geekbench doesn't represent performance for any specific software. Good Geekbench scores doesn't mean a computer will run a specific program better than a computer with a lower Geekbench score. Also calling their GPU more powerful than any other GPU with this vague of an explanation "Performance measured using select industry‑standard benchmarks." is pretty meaningless. If it is as powerful as they want us to believe they shouldn't hide behind jargon and vague performance "data" it makes it look like they have something to hide or they are being misleading.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 394   +263
I think the idea is it’s ahead in both:
2-A6-FD25-E-FCE7-4-E39-B7-D6-8863-CDDC42-F1.jpg

I think that’s the comparison to an i5, but there’s more graphs including one comparing the M1 Ultra to an i9 and the M1 Ultra edges ahead of team blue. This probably has the best information right now:
The maximum power the Mac Studio consumes is 370watts according to Apple's website so they are being missleading with that terrible graph.
 

Carmaine

Posts: 82   +100
will be probably better and cheaper to get threadripper 5000 when it is out - performance and valuewise hackintosh is a better solution. Unless they drop x86 support.

Not sure that is best for my use case tbh. If going the Threadripper route, I'd paying for a new CPU, mobo and memory. Those will push near or more than 2K USD. Also, since I create Android apps as well, a hackintosh won't work because MacOS doesn't offer virtualization support for AMD CPUs with Android Studio, which means, I can't run emulators.

So it may be efficiently better to get the Mac studio. At least the M1 Max option. Not the ultra.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
I’m thoroughly enjoying watching the first high performance ARM based silicon making a mockery of the ageing X86 players. This is just the beginning, the first go around. And also this is just one attempt from one company who literally never made CPUs before. MS and Google are also working on ARM based solutions, who’s to say they won’t be even faster than what Apple are making.

Personally I fully embrace then ARM revolution. Hopefully it will mean that chunky desktops with massive coolers and PSUs for personal computing will be relegated to the past.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,982
I’m thoroughly enjoying watching the first high performance ARM based silicon making a mockery of the ageing X86 players. This is just the beginning, the first go around. And also this is just one attempt from one company who literally never made CPUs before. MS and Google are also working on ARM based solutions, who’s to say they won’t be even faster than what Apple are making.

Personally I fully embrace then ARM revolution. Hopefully it will mean that chunky desktops with massive coolers and PSUs for personal computing will be relegated to the past.
Only the beginning is right... and the BIG players are coming to fight... Intel might be a "big" company... but AMD certainly isn't... Compared to MS, Google and Apple - they are both minnows....

Yes they have a head start - but look how little time it took for Apple to catch up... only a matter of time until both Intel and AMD are swept away.... I wonder if one of them (or both) end up being bought up by one of the "titans"...
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
The maximum power the Mac Studio consumes is 370watts according to Apple's website so they are being missleading with that terrible graph.
The 370 watts quoted on Apples website is total power consumption of the system and not just the CPU.

Also good luck getting anywhere near close to that with a 12900K system. Or any X86 based system.
 

umbala

Posts: 778   +1,518
Personally I fully embrace then ARM revolution. Hopefully it will mean that chunky desktops with massive coolers and PSUs for personal computing will be relegated to the past.
LOL! Don't hold your breath for that to happen! Apple can release whatever overpriced monstrosity they want, but they will never capture more than a niche market willing to pay the exorbitant Apple tax.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
LOL! Don't hold your breath for that to happen! Apple can release whatever overpriced monstrosity they want, but they will never capture more than a niche market willing to pay the exorbitant Apple tax.
Lmao it’s 100% definitely happening, Windows and Chrome are moving towards ARM. Everyone is moving to ARM.

Only the beginning is right... and the BIG players are coming to fight... Intel might be a "big" company... but AMD certainly isn't... Compared to MS, Google and Apple - they are both minnows....

Yes they have a head start - but look how little time it took for Apple to catch up... only a matter of time until both Intel and AMD are swept away.... I wonder if one of them (or both) end up being bought up by one of the "titans"...
I believe AMD are developing an ARM based CPU with MS for Windows. And as for Intel, they still make up the vast majority of server and data Center systems, they won’t be going anywhere for a long time. Also I believe they probably have something ARM based in the works, it wouldn’t surprise me.


AMD aren’t exactly “minnows” they make billions in profit, they have enough money to hire anyone. Long gone are the days of AMD having a limited R&D budget. And both AMD and Intel have never been shy of using dirty corporate tactics to further their endeavours, they aren’t going anywhere.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,982
AMD aren’t exactly “minnows” they make billions in profit, they have enough money to hire anyone. Long gone are the days of AMD having a limited R&D budget. And both AMD and Intel have never been shy of using dirty corporate tactics to further their endeavours, they aren’t going anywhere.
They are minnows compared to Google, MS and Apple... as is Intel...
Approximate market caps:
AMD = 110 billion
Intel = 200 billion
Google = 1.7 TRILLION
MS = 2.1 TRILLION
Apple = 2.6 TRILLION

Yes, Intel and AMD are big companies... but we are talking orders of magnitude larger for Google, MS and Apple...
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
They are minnows compared to Google, MS and Apple... as is Intel...
Approximate market caps:
AMD = 110 billion
Intel = 200 billion
Google = 1.7 TRILLION
MS = 2.1 TRILLION
Apple = 2.6 TRILLION

Yes, Intel and AMD are big companies... but we are talking orders of magnitude larger for Google, MS and Apple...
Well they are working with MS to make MS an ARM chip. Together they represent a force on the same size as the other largest companies in the world.

Of course the chip will probably be owned by MS so it’s unlikely going to be good for Linux. Il enjoy watching the nerds melt down when that day comes.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,982
Well they are working with MS to make MS an ARM chip. Together they represent a force on the same size as the other largest companies in the world.

Of course the chip will probably be owned by MS so it’s unlikely going to be good for Linux. Il enjoy watching the nerds melt down when that day comes.
What I wonder about is if MS eventually buys AMD outright... and then Google (or Apple) buys Intel... and we have CPU wars on a far grander scale...

I wonder how our resident AMD fanboys would react to being fans of MS...
 

Lounds

Posts: 1,211   +1,119
Doesn't the M1 ultra use TSMC 5nm so it's of course going to be more efficient than most CPU's and GPUs built on older processing nodes.
 
LOL! Don't hold your breath for that to happen! Apple can release whatever overpriced monstrosity they want, but they will never capture more than a niche market willing to pay the exorbitant Apple tax.

Do people still do this? Im forever mystified by people taking sides with one corporation or the other. I’ve been using Macs since forever but 100% realise that they’re not for everybody and a PC is clearly better for certain work and games especially. It’s just computers dude.

They don’t need to be more than a niche, they’re one of the highest values companies in the world, domination of the computer market is not their goal. PC’s are popular because they work perfectly for most people and there’s plenty of excellent machines out there.

As for Macs being overpriced, as a freelancer I pay a lot to lease an M1Max MacBook Pro but it’s worth every penny. Work that would have brought my old MBP to its knees, fans going like a jet engine, it sails through. I’ve had it for a month and am yet to hear the fan or feel it get hot, and the battery life is insane.

Most will likely be buying the studio for work too, so in that context it’s not expensive if it gives you a return on investment.

The hype for Apple Silicon is justified, I’m used to incremental improvements in new machines but this genuinely feels like a game changer this time. God knows what the Mac Pro will be capable of. 👍
 

Mister_K

Posts: 2,185   +873
I think the idea is it’s ahead in both:
2-A6-FD25-E-FCE7-4-E39-B7-D6-8863-CDDC42-F1.jpg

I think that’s the comparison to an i5, but there’s more graphs including one comparing the M1 Ultra to an i9 and the M1 Ultra edges ahead of team blue. This probably has the best information right now:

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_multi_core-16

  • AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X: 74,422
  • AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: 28,641
  • Intel Core i9-12900K: 27,472
  • Apple M1 Ultra (48-GPU)23,566
    • Apple M1 Ultra (64-GPU) 23,566
    • AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 21,878

I mean the graph is what it says, faster at the stated TDP, the graph just wears off after that. The claim vs the 3090 is absurd :joy:

Now Cinebench or Geekbench are not end all be all.

Impressive? Of course, it's efficiency and ability to produce such performance is very impressive but who cares for efficiency in professional environment? Looking forward to Puget tests and actual real work scenarios in Adobe Suite, Davinci Resolve etc.

Edit:
Now I am quite interested with the shared VRAM, being able to access 64GB/128GB of VRAM (if fast) will be amazing in Resolve.
 
Last edited: