Apple M4 Max chip outperforms Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X in Geekbench 6

[LuckyMenace]

It’s pretty funny to read all those comments actually, because 10 years ago I would probably nerd raged with all of you about how the Mac is overpriced garbage, blah blah blah. I built several gaming rigs and helped others build theirs. But, at the end of the day, the facts are there. Macs are just more reliable, more energy efficient, more secure, and better built. I use my MacBook Pro about 4:1 to my double the price, water cooled Ryzen/Nvidia PC that runs perfectly. It was a fun hobby during the pandemic but I just don’t have hours playing games or troubleshoot Windows anymore.

Life is the most important benchmark of them all.

 

[KingAlistair]

Because Apple has the money and influence to leverage the best node processing from TSMC whereas other companies can't...

Apple, at least for the foreseeable future, will always have a huge advantage due to having the best node.

I just wish they cared about gamers...

Except Intel got 3 node improvements and made zero improvement in their CPUs.... guess the Node isn't everything

 

[Squid Surprise]

Except Intel got 3 node improvements and made zero improvement in their CPUs.... guess the Node isn't everything

Except that's a lie... they DID improve their CPUs... just not as much as everyone else did...
Even Arrow Lake, which seems to be a disaster, will probably be an improvement in the longterm as Intel will hopefully iron out the gaming issues...

Intel's nodes have been inferior to AMD and Apple for years mostly due to their own incompetence as their fabs failed disastrously after 14nm...

While the node isn't everything, it certainly gives a big advantage - and since Apple ALSO has the most money and resources, giving them the best node as well makes them a tough company to beat.

Against selected CPUs. How about Threadripper? Apple loses by wide margin. Then Apple fanboys would cry because comparison is "unfair". But it already is, Apple SOC vs AMD/Intel CPU.

OK... so we should start comparing 9950 to 200+ core Intel servers?

We tend to compare CPUs based on class/price... I can take a $5000 Threadripper and wipe the floor with all of the sub-$1000 CPUs... what does this prove?

 

[HardReset]

OK... so we should start comparing 9950 to 200+ core Intel servers?

We tend to compare CPUs based on class/price... I can take a $5000 Threadripper and wipe the floor with all of the sub-$1000 CPUs... what does this prove?

Why not? Ryzen would be faster on many cases.

Same class? Apple M4 Max:

- Has different ISA
- Is physically max bigger
- Is more expensive
- Has different memory interface
- Has much more transistors
- Has much worse backwards compatibility support

vs 9950 or 285K. Same class, yeah

 

[Squid Surprise]

Why not? Ryzen would be faster on many cases.

Same class? Apple M4 Max:

- Has different ISA
- Is physically max bigger
- Is more expensive
- Has different memory interface
- Has much more transistors
- Has much worse backwards compatibility support

vs 9950 or 285K. Same class, yeah

Goes in laptops and desktops geared towards the same people who use 285k and 9950x... hence the comparisons... and the finished products using those CPUs cost about the same (depending on build - but if they match Apple specs, price is very similar).

Can I compare productivity benchmarks between the latest Xeon to the AMD 3600x and be disappointed when the Xeon wins?

 

[HardReset]

Goes in laptops and desktops geared towards the same people who use 285k and 9950x... hence the comparisons... and the finished products using those CPUs cost about the same (depending on build - but if they match Apple specs, price is very similar).

Can I compare productivity benchmarks between the latest Xeon to the AMD 3600x and be disappointed when the Xeon wins?

Probably not same people because software support is very different. Again, CPU comparisons should be based on actual facts (like transistor count, die size, price etc etc) and not mystical "same people that use different CPUs".

Of course you can, you can then conclude Xeon is much better but also costs a lot more.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Probably not same people because software support is very different. Again, CPU comparisons should be based on actual facts (like transistor count, die size, price etc etc) and not mystical "same people that use different CPUs".

Of course you can, you can then conclude Xeon is much better but also costs a lot more.

Software support does not dictate the type of people who use something... and stop moving goalposts... the POINT is that the M4 is a really good CPU - and not just because Geekbench says it is...

If you can find a CONSUMER CPU that outperforms it, I'm all ears...

 

[HardReset]

Software support does not dictate the type of people who use something... and stop moving goalposts... the POINT is that the M4 is a really good CPU - and not just because Geekbench says it is...

If you can find a CONSUMER CPU that outperforms it, I'm all ears...

Software support matters when it comes to CPU speed. Backwards compatibility matters. RAM expandability matters. Everything matters. Therefore M4 is NOT good CPU.

Again, it's actually easy to design CPU that performs better than anything AMD, Intel or Apple has. But then comes question about issues I already mentioned. There are reasons why x86 has been around so long despite many times there has been CPUs that outperform every x86 CPU.

In other words, who cares if Apple CPU is "faster" because it's actually worse. Yeah, nobody cares.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Software support matters when it comes to CPU speed. Backwards compatibility matters. RAM expandability matters. Everything matters. Therefore M4 is NOT good CPU.

Again, it's actually easy to design CPU that performs better than anything AMD, Intel or Apple has. But then comes question about issues I already mentioned. There are reasons why x86 has been around so long despite many times there has been CPUs that outperform every x86 CPU.

In other words, who cares if Apple CPU is "faster" because it's actually worse. Yeah, nobody cares.

Goalposts moved… again… I didn’t say it didn’t matter - I said software support doesn’t dictate the types of people who use something.

Apple sells millions of devices with their M series inside… they don’t suck and despite your inane comments, lots of people care… in fact, this thread is full of people posting (including you). Why would they be doing that if they didn’t care?

 

[HardReset]

Goalposts moved… again… I didn’t say it didn’t matter - I said software support doesn’t dictate the types of people who use something.

Apple sells millions of devices with their M series inside… they don’t suck and despite your inane comments, lots of people care… in fact, this thread is full of people posting (including you). Why would they be doing that if they didn’t care?

Goalposts stay in place. Like told many times, it's not that hard to make Fast CPU, but other things do matter more. As history has told many times. Transmeta, Alpha, Itanium, Cell etc. all were fast CPUs, and still failed miserably.

M4 Max probably won't sell very well because it's so expensive. Also M series chips do suck because they have poor backwards compatibility. Apple users also rarely care about performance since they rarely care about backwards compatibility too.