Compared: 14-inch MacBook Pro vs. 13-inch M1 MacBook Pro vs. Intel 13-inch MacBook Pro

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited December 7
The early M1 Pro and M1 Max MacBook Pro orders have arrived. Here's how the new 14-inch MacBook Pro compares to the M1 13-inch MacBook Pro, and the last 13-inch Intel version.

It's smaller than the 16-inch MacBook Pro, but the new 14-inch MacBook Pro could be the best buy
It's smaller than the 16-inch MacBook Pro, but the new 14-inch MacBook Pro could be the best buy


Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro was the first of its Pro notebooks to transition to Apple Silicon, and it immediately replaced the previous Intel version. But while that November 2020 update was radical in its speed and performance improvements, it retained everything else about the older model -- including its screen size.






It was applauded for its performance, but also criticized for how it hadn't followed the 15-inch MacBook Pro in gaining a larger screen, chiefly through smaller bezels. It was also criticized for having a low-end collection of ports.

Now the new 14-inch MacBook Pro has addressed those two criticisms, and appears to also blow away the performance of even the 2020 M1 model. Yet Apple has kept that 2020 model in the lineup.

Full specifications compared

14-inch MacBook Pro13-inch M1 MacBook Pro13-inch Intel MacBook Pro (2020), Four Thunderbolt Ports
Display Size (inches)14.213.313.3
Max Resolution3024 x 19642560 x 16602560 x 1660
Pixel Density254227227
Brightness1000 nits500 nits500 nits
Display BacklightingMini LEDLEDLED
Display TechnologyWide Color (P3),
True Tone,
ProMotion
Wide Color (P3),
True Tone
Wide Color (P3),
True Tone
ProcessorsM1 Pro with 8-core CPU
M1 Pro with 10-core CPU
M1 Max with 10-core CPU
Eight-core Apple M110th-generation 2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
10th-generation 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Memory16GB Unified Memory
32GB Unified Memory (M1 Pro, M1 Max)
64GB Unified Memory (M1 Max)
8GB or 16GB Unified Memory16GB or 32GB 3733MHz LPDDR4X
Graphics (integrated)14-core GPU (M1 Pro)
16-core GPU (M1 Pro)
24-core GPU (M1 Max)
32-core GPU (M1 Max)
Eight-core Apple Silicon M1Intel Iris Plus Graphics
External Video2 6K displays at 60Hz (M1 Pro)
3 6K displays and 1 4K at 60Hz (M1 Max)
1 6K display at 60Hz1 6K display at 60Hz,
2 4K displays at 60Hz
Storage512GB, 1TB, 2TB, 4TB, 8TB256GB, 512GB, 1TB, 2TB512GB, 1TB, 2TB, 4TB
Touch BarNoYesYes
BiometricsTouch IDTouch IDTouch ID
TrackpadForce TouchForce TouchForce Touch
KeyboardBacklit with ambient light sensorBacklit with ambient light sensorBacklit with ambient light sensor
Dimensions (inches)0.61 x 12.31 x 8.710.61 x 11.97 x 8.360.61 x 11.97 x 8.36
Weight (pounds)3.53.03.1
Battery Life17 hours17 Hours10 Hours
PortsSDXC card slot, HDMI, MagSafe 3, 3 USB-4/Thunderbolt ports,
Headphone jack
2 USB 4/ Thunderbolt 3 ports,
Headphone jack
4 Thunderbolt 3 ports,
Headphone jack
Webcam1080p FaceTime HD720p FaceTime HD720p FaceTime HD
SpeakersHigh fidelity six-speaker sound with wide stereo, spatial audioStereo speakers with high dynamic rangeStereo speakers with high dynamic range
Microphones3 with directional beamforming3 with directional beamforming3 with directional beamforming
Wi-FiWi-Fi 6Wi-Fi 6802.11ac
Bluetooth5.05.05.0
Charger67W USB-C (M1 Pro with 8-core CPU)
96W USB-C (M1 Pro with 10-core CPU, or M1 Max)
61W USB-C61W USB-C
Color OptionsSilver, Space GraySilver, Space GraySilver, Space Gray
PriceFrom $1,999From $1,299From $1,799

Why Apple still sells the 2020 13-inch MacBook Pro

Price. That's the key reason that there is still an M1 13-inch MacBook Pro available when it seemed as if buyers were even holding off in the hope of a 14-inch edition.

The 13-inch model costs from $1,299, and the new 14-inch model is from $1,999. Curiously, the discontinued Intel 13-inch model started in the middle, at $1,799.

Apple is very good at picking price points for its devices, and that's another reason for retaining the 13-inch M1 edition. It now represents the lower-end of the MacBook Pro range, with the 14-inch one -- and then the new 16-inch MacBook Pro -- occupying the higher ends.

You now cannot buy a 16-inch MacBook Pro with an Intel processor, that has been discontinued just as 2020's 13-inch M1 version saw off its equivalent.

More than performance and capability, however, the 13-inch or now 14-inch MacBook Pro has the benefit of being truly portable. It's a much more convenient size than the larger 16-inch model, and with the latest versions, there is now less of a balance to make between size and power.

The 14-inch MacBook Pro supports more Amp Designer plug-ins in Logic Pro
The 14-inch MacBook Pro supports more Amp Designer plug-ins in Logic Pro

Apple Silicon leaves Intel behind

It is still just about possible to get the 13-inch Intel MacBook Pro if you shop around, and of course, many more of it will suddenly be available secondhand now the newer models have been released.

There is just no reason to buy one. Even at secondhand or heavily discounted prices, the specifications mean that the Intel 13-inch MacBook Pro is no longer a good buy.

Its screen is the same 13.3-inch at 2560 x 1660 resolution and 227 PPI as in the M1 13-inch. It's even got some apparent benefits with more RAM in the base model -- 16GB compared to 8GB -- and the Intel version has 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports instead of 2.

But the M1 13-inch model has seven hours more battery life, it supports Wi-Fi 6 instead of 802.11ac, and it's even fractionally lighter. All for a brand-new price of $1,299.

Comparing the 13-inch and 14-inch screens

The new 14-inch MacBook Pro starts at $700 more than the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1. For that money, the most immediately visible difference is in the screen.

Despite the name, the 14-inch model actually has a 14.2-inch display, while the 13-inch model has a 13.3-inch one. The newer model ups the resolution to 3024 x 1964, and the pixel density rises from 227ppi to 254ppi.

The brightness difference between the screens is dramatic. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 has a brightness of 500 nits, while the 14-inch MacBook Pro is 1,000 nits.

It's expected that the new 14-inch model should also have much deeper, richer blacks than before, because its display introduces mini-LED technology, instead of LED.

While not as immediately apparent, the 14-inch model includes ProMotion, the adaptive display technology used in the iPhone 13 Pro and iPad Pro.

Just like in the mobile devices, ProMotion will automatically adjust the refresh rate of the display to match the content being displayed, which can result in much smoother scrolling through webpages and other onscreen animations. It can also help reduce energy usage, by lowering the number of times the screen has to be updated.

This means the 14-inch MacBook Pro has a maximum refresh rate of 120Hz, double the 60Hz of the 13-inch models.

Comparing performance between 13-inch MacBook Pro and 14-inch MacBook Pro

The short version is that the new 14-inch MacBook Pro is either faster than the M1 13-inch model -- or very much faster. It depends on the number of CPU and GPU cores.

That is going to mean choosing a 14-inch MacBook Pro is harder than picking a 13-inch one. The 2020 13-inch model came with an eight-core M1, but the 2021 14-inch edition has different variations of processors.

The precise differences won't be known until all of the models can be subjected to real-world tests. However, Apple summarizes the differences by saying that the new M1 Pro processor means CPU performance is up to 70% faster -- and GPU performance is twice as fast as before.

Then there's the M1 Max processor. Apple says it provides up to four times faster GPU performance than the M1.

To make that more comprehensible, Apple has also given what it says are performance comparisons when using the machines for specific tasks that they are commonly required to do.

Using the 10-core CPU and either M1 Pro or M1 Max, Apple says users get:
  • Up to 3.7 times faster Xcode project builds
  • Up to 3 times more Amp Designer plug-ins in Logic Pro
Then using the 16-core GPU in the M1 Pro, Apple says that 14-inch MacBook Pro delivers:
  • Up to 9.2 times faster 4K render in Final Cut Pro
  • Up to 5.6 times faster combined vector and raster GPU performance in Affinity Photo
  • Up to 3.6 times faster raster effect render in DaVinci Resolve
Those same tasks using the 32-core GPU in the M1 Max are reportedly even better:
  • Up to 13.4 times faster 4K render in Final Cut Pro
  • Up to 8.5 times faster combined vector and raster GPU performance in Affinity Photo
  • Up to 5 times faster raster effect render in DaVinci Resolve
The 14-inch MacBook Pro running Redshift
The 14-inch MacBook Pro running Redshift

Comparing the portability of the 13-inch MacBook Pro, 14-inch MacBook Pro

Most of the increased screen size of the 14-inch MacBook Pro has come from Apple managing to reduce the size of the bezels between the display and the edge of the screen. However, there is still a difference in the physical dimensions of the machines.

The 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 has identical dimensions to the 13-inch Intel one. That's a thickness of 0.61 inches, a width of 11.97 inches, and a depth from front to back of 8.36 inches.

In comparison, the new 14-inch MacBook Pro has the same thickness, but the depth is 0.35 inches greater at 8.71 inches. And the width is similarly 0.34 inches greater, at 12.31 inches.

Plus the new 14-inch model is a whole 0.5 pounds heavier than the 13-inch M1, and 0.6 pounds heavier than the 13-inch Intel model.

However, the new 14-inch edition is still an inch shorter in depth compared to the 16-inch model. It's 1.7 inches narrower, too, and also comes in at 0.05 inches thinner. And it's 1.2 pounds lighter.

So there is a hit to the portability of the new model, but it's not significant.

Choosing the right 13-inch MacBook Pro, or 14-inch MacBook Pro

Disregard the Intel 13-inch MacBook Pro, even if you can get it for a good price. The real debate is between the M1 13-inch MacBook Pro, and the new M1 Pro or M1 Max 14-inch MacBook Pro.

The 14-inch MacBook Pro is better than the M1 13-inch model in every measurable way apart from the small difference in portability -- and the quite large difference in price.

It's also much more complex to decide on which configuration is right. The 14-inch MacBook Pro comes with two different choices of processor in the M1 Pro, and M1 Max, plus then variations in the number of CPU and GPU cores available in each.

The M1 Max costs more than the M1 Pro, and every step up in the number of cores for either processor adds to the price.

Ultimately, it's likely to be price and budget that determine which model you go for. With the 2020 13-inch MacBook Pro, you could just get it and know that you were buying a far faster machine than the previous Intel one.

There was the question of whether you needed the performance of the Intel 16-inch model. It was quite possible to find you had to put up with the much larger model in order to get the performance you need.

That issue, at least, seems to be eased now, as the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models are far more comparable.

Read on AppleInsider
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    I was thinking about getting the 13 inch but by the time I bumped it to 16 GB and 512 GB I was at 1699. That makes the difference (in my case) only 300 for the base model which has 16/512. 300 for a bigger, better screen, a faster chip and more ports. Looks like I'm getting the 14".
    edited October 18 williamlondoncarthusiamike1spock1234seanjwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 44
    From the article: "[M1 Pro] GPU performance is twice as fast as before. Then there's the M1 Max processor. Apple says it provides up to four times faster GPU performance than the M1."

    That's not even close to correct. Apple is making a MUCH STRONGER claim. They claimed 2x and 3.5x faster... but faster than what?

    Apple's comparison was not against an M1, but rather against the top-upgrade 5600m from the previous intel 16". That GPU is generally a LOT faster than the M1's- ranging from 40% to over 150% faster. Metal scores are, IIRC, about 100% faster. If you go with a (very!) conservative 50% faster, then you get the M1 Pro being 3x faster than the M1, not 2x. And you get the M1 Max being 5.25x faster than the M1.

    This is interesting, because among other things it tells us that the cores in the M1Pro/Max are almost certainly NOT the same cores as in the M1, since performance vs. M1 is scaling better than linearly with core count. They are, as expected, the cores from the A15. In other words, the M1 Pro/Max is really what we were all thinking of as an M2.

    The performance can't be coming just from higher clock speed, given the power envelope. It's conceivable it could be coming from slightly higher clocks plus better non-core logic but that seems... extremely far-fetched. Even taking into account the SLC, which would be in this context function equivalently to AMD's "Infinity cache".

    We'll have somewhat better answers when the first units are benched. And much better answers when Andrei F. publishes his analysis, though that will likely be a month from now.
    williamlondonspock1234seanjwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 44
    thttht Posts: 4,131member
    Apple really needs to have a Macbook Air 14 or 15 fill in those price tiers than that the M1 MBP13 is currently occupying.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 44
    Sorry, earlier I wrote "They claimed 2x and 3.5x faster". That was an error, their actual claim was 2.5x and 4x. But, as someone pointed out in another article, that is directly in conflict with other claims they made, which do comport with the numbers in this article.

    So... waiting for benchmarks.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 44
    Does it come with the new PCIe 4 or is it using the old one..?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 44
    From the article: "[M1 Pro] GPU performance is twice as fast as before. Then there's the M1 Max processor. Apple says it provides up to four times faster GPU performance than the M1."

    That's not even close to correct. Apple is making a MUCH STRONGER claim. They claimed 2x and 3.5x faster... but faster than what?

    The article quote is correct.  Go watch the presentation again, or look at the other thread, where a poster shows screenshots of the slides.  

    There are two slides that explicitly state this:  M1 - 8 GPU cores, M1 Pro - 16 GPU cores is twice as fast as M1 & M1 Max - 32 GPU cores is four times as fast as M1.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 44
    Does it come with the new PCIe 4 or is it using the old one..?
    Other than curiosity, why does it matter?  Then only place you're going to connect to the PCIe lanes is TB.  TB 4 is still 40Gb whether it is PCIe 3 or PCIe4.  

    Performance is what matters, not specs.
    edited October 19 williamlondonspock1234seanjwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 44
    At the starting gun after the presentation, I ordered the 14" MacBook Pro M1 Max with 64GB of ram and a 4TB SSD. It will be here on the 26th of October. It is far more portable than my 2019 16" MacBook Pro for airline and travel use. 

    The new  14"/16" laptop models are so many light years ahead in terms of performance of my 1990 IIfx system (the best Apple machine with a Motorola 68040 processor) that cost over $10,000 at the time. I was truly surprised that a fully loaded 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max was actually $600 less expensive than my fully loaded 2019 16" MacBook Pro.
    williamlondonspock1234watto_cobradewme
  • Reply 9 of 44
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,341member
    It's a shame that the switch to Apple silicone has resulted on a free for all price gouge by Apple. Bye bye dreams of Apple silicon meaning better pricing.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 44
    saarek said:
    It's a shame that the switch to Apple silicone has resulted on a free for all price gouge by Apple. Bye bye dreams of Apple silicon meaning better pricing.
    You know this how?  Source?  No one has any idea what it costs to produce the M1 Pro & M1 Max.
    williamlondonspock1234mwhiteseanjwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 44
    nicholfd said:
    From the article: "[M1 Pro] GPU performance is twice as fast as before. Then there's the M1 Max processor. Apple says it provides up to four times faster GPU performance than the M1."

    That's not even close to correct. Apple is making a MUCH STRONGER claim. They claimed 2x and 3.5x faster... but faster than what?

    The article quote is correct.  Go watch the presentation again, or look at the other thread, where a poster shows screenshots of the slides.  

    There are two slides that explicitly state this:  M1 - 8 GPU cores, M1 Pro - 16 GPU cores is twice as fast as M1 & M1 Max - 32 GPU cores is four times as fast as M1.  
    As I wrote (before you even posted):
    Sorry, earlier I wrote "They claimed 2x and 3.5x faster". That was an error, their actual claim was 2.5x and 4x. But, as someone pointed out in another article, that is directly in conflict with other claims they made, which do comport with the numbers in this article.

    So... waiting for benchmarks.
    You also cut off part of my text, where I explained that the comparison is stronger because the 2.5x and 4x claims are against a 5600M. That's an incredibly strong claim, and, after consideration, I think Apple screwed up on that (or else cherrypicked VERY carefully what they tested, probably for something bandwidth-bound?), and the 2x/4x M1 numbers are likely to be correct. But we still won't know until we get to benchmark.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    Play with the list prices of the 2019 16" MacBook Pro Intel to get it fully loaded. Then do the same for the 2021 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max. The 2021 model is $600 cheaper.

    So there is a lower price for the newer gear when comparing same models.

    My wife's 13" MacBook Pro Intel was $3,599 with 2.3Ghz Core i7, 32 GB ram and 4TB SSD. The closest 14" MacBook Pro is the M1 Pro with base processor, 32GB of unified memory and a 4TB SSD lists for $3,899. The $300 "premium" is off set with a much better screen and much faster processor and the SDXC slot, HDMI port and MagSafe power cord.

    I ordered the 14" MacBook Pro M1 Max with 32 Core GPU,  64GB of unified memory and a 4TB SSD and it listed for $4,699.00
    edited October 19 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 44
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,817member
    There is just no reason to buy one. Even at secondhand or heavily discounted prices, the specifications mean that the Intel 13-inch MacBook Pro is no longer a good buy.
    They may be few, but there s still a market for the Intel MBP. If you want to run a Mac rather than Windows, but there is software that requires Intel architecture, then it’s what you need. Also if you want to run a Mac, but also Bootcamp, it’s what you need. There is a small, and rapidly shrinking market for these things, which is good because I expect a flood of them on the second hand market. But there are a few edge cases that would need one.

    watto_cobradewme
  • Reply 14 of 44
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,341member
    nicholfd said:
    saarek said:
    It's a shame that the switch to Apple silicone has resulted on a free for all price gouge by Apple. Bye bye dreams of Apple silicon meaning better pricing.
    You know this how?  Source?  No one has any idea what it costs to produce the M1 Pro & M1 Max.

    You're right of course, I don't know what the actual cost (R&D and manufacturing) is for the new Apple Silicon. What I do know is that they added $300 to the 2016 MacBook Pro line when they added the Touch Bar, a Touch Bar that is not on these new machines. They also don't have to pay a hefty fee to Intel and yet raised the cost of these MacBooks by what, $200?

    If the Touch Bar costs $300 and the new price is $200 more we are paying $500 more for the MacBook Pro than the one that shipped back in 2015.

    So yeah, rightly or wrongly I think Apple know they have a good thing going with Apple Silicon and they are asking us all to get lubed up and prerpare for penetration with their pricing.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 44
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,341member
    ApplePoor said:
    Play with the list prices of the 2019 16" MacBook Pro Intel to get it fully loaded. Then do the same for the 2021 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max. The 2021 model is $600 cheaper.

    So there is a lower price for the newer gear when comparing same models.

    My wife's 13" MacBook Pro Intel was $3,599 with 2.3Ghz Core i7, 32 GB ram and 4TB SSD. The closest 14" MacBook Pro is the M1 Pro with base processor, 32GB of unified memory and a 4TB SSD lists for $3,899. The $300 "premium" is off set with a much better screen and much faster processor and the SDXC slot, HDMI port and MagSafe power cord.

    I ordered the 14" MacBook Pro M1 Max with 32 Core GPU,  64GB of unified memory and a 4TB SSD and it listed for $4,699.00

    Yes, but that's because they have jacked up the price of the base models which sell the most. They will make $200 more for the majority of the sales, so they can afford to be a tiny bit nicer to those maxing out.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 16 of 44
    From the article: "[M1 Pro] GPU performance is twice as fast as before. Then there's the M1 Max processor. Apple says it provides up to four times faster GPU performance than the M1."

    That's not even close to correct. Apple is making a MUCH STRONGER claim. They claimed 2x and 3.5x faster... but faster than what?

    Apple's comparison was not against an M1, but rather against the top-upgrade 5600m from the previous intel 16". That GPU is generally a LOT faster than the M1's- ranging from 40% to over 150% faster. Metal scores are, IIRC, about 100% faster. If you go with a (very!) conservative 50% faster, then you get the M1 Pro being 3x faster than the M1, not 2x. And you get the M1 Max being 5.25x faster than the M1.

    This is interesting, because among other things it tells us that the cores in the M1Pro/Max are almost certainly NOT the same cores as in the M1, since performance vs. M1 is scaling better than linearly with core count. They are, as expected, the cores from the A15. In other words, the M1 Pro/Max is really what we were all thinking of as an M2.

    The performance can't be coming just from higher clock speed, given the power envelope. It's conceivable it could be coming from slightly higher clocks plus better non-core logic but that seems... extremely far-fetched. Even taking into account the SLC, which would be in this context function equivalently to AMD's "Infinity cache".
    You're correct. Apple compared the M1 Max against the 5600M GPU. I'm certain there has been some improvements to the GPU core, but nothing that explains 4x performance over the 5600M.

    The general assumption is that the 32-core would be 4x as fast as the the M1 but that would only be 2x as fast as the 5600M using the GeekBench Metal score. If the 32-core GPU is 4x times the 5600 that would give it a GeekBench Metal sore of 170,000. That equals the top GPU Metal score for a desecrate GPU in the MacPro (AMD Radeon Pro W6900X). I serious doubt the performance of each core was doubled to accomplish that or that the M1 Max GPU could match that dGPU, that just doesn't sound plausible, when the M1 Max is only rate at 10 TeraFLOPS, half the 20+ TeraFLOPS of the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X.

    So if the 4x claim is true, what is a plausible explanation? 

    My guess is the 4x claim is not peak but SUSTAINED performance compared to the 16" MBP with a 5600M; they say it right on the chart. The biggest difference between the two is the thermal envelope and the extreme difference in the available memory, bandwidth, memory bandwidth and cache sizes. I'm guessing the M1 Max can go fully throttle through a task that would throttle a 5600M. There are also some other difference too, if you take the dedicated encoding engines into account too.

    We'll just have to wait for the tests to see how this shakes out.

    "The packaging for the M1 Max changes slightly in that it’s bigger – the most obvious change is the increase of DRAM chips from 2 to 4, which also corresponds to the increase in memory interface width from 256-bit to 512-bit. Apple is advertising a massive 400GB/s of bandwidth, which if it’s LPDDR5-6400, would possibly be more exact at 409.6GB/s. This kind of bandwidth is unheard of in an SoC, but quite the norm in very high-end GPUs...

    The additional two 128-bit LPDDR5 blocks are evident, and again it’s interesting to see here that they’re also increasing the number of SLC blocks along with them. If indeed at 16MB per block, this would represent 64MB of on-chip generic cache for the whole SoC to make use of. Beyond the obvious GPU uses, I do wonder what the CPUs are able to achieve with such gigantic memory bandwidth resources." - Anandtech

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/17019/apple-announced-m1-pro-m1-max-giant-new-socs-with-allout-performance


    edited October 20 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 44
    XedXed Posts: 1,111member
    I read this article after reading the one comparing the 16” MBPs. It was jarring to read because AI swapped the order of the lists. In one the latest is on the top, and the other had the newer on bottom.

    They also didn’t keep the size values in the same order and oddly referred to 802.11ac and WiFi 6, without also mentioning WiFi 5 or 80211.ac.

    I expect a lack of consistency from AndroidInsider, but not here.
    edited October 20 watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 44
    thttht Posts: 4,131member
    So if the 4x claim is true, what is a plausible explanation? 
    It’s on the website:

    Prerelease Cinema 4D S25 real-time 3D performance tested using a 1.98GB scene. 

    Prerelease Cinema 4D S25 and prerelease Redshift v3.0.54 tested using a 1.32GB scene.

    Tested with prerelease Affinity Photo 1.10.2.263 using the built-in benchmark version 11021. 

    These all are 4x (M1 Max) and 2x (M1 Pro) over the 5600M.
    commentzillawatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 44
    tht said:
    So if the 4x claim is true, what is a plausible explanation? 
    It’s on the website:

    Prerelease Cinema 4D S25 real-time 3D performance tested using a 1.98GB scene. 

    Prerelease Cinema 4D S25 and prerelease Redshift v3.0.54 tested using a 1.32GB scene.

    Tested with prerelease Affinity Photo 1.10.2.263 using the built-in benchmark version 11021. 

    These all are 4x (M1 Max) and 2x (M1 Pro) over the 5600M.
    Right, it's 4x faster than the 5600M but what I'm trying to say is that we cannot use the GeekBench numbers as a guide, which would match the M1 Max up to a 20+ TeraFLOPS AMD Radeon Pro W6900X. But the M1 Max clear match the top AMD or NVIDA mobile chips, using 40% less power.

    One more chip to go! The M1 Max Extreme or whatever they call it. If it's a 64-core GPU it will match the top card but to match the dual cards it will have to be 128-cores. That's going to be one big wafer. If the power saving scale up, it's going to be a game changer.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 44
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,624moderator
    tht said:
    So if the 4x claim is true, what is a plausible explanation? 
    It’s on the website:

    Prerelease Cinema 4D S25 real-time 3D performance tested using a 1.98GB scene. 

    Prerelease Cinema 4D S25 and prerelease Redshift v3.0.54 tested using a 1.32GB scene.

    Tested with prerelease Affinity Photo 1.10.2.263 using the built-in benchmark version 11021. 

    These all are 4x (M1 Max) and 2x (M1 Pro) over the 5600M.
    Right, it's 4x faster than the 5600M but what I'm trying to say is that we cannot use the GeekBench numbers as a guide, which would match the M1 Max up to a 20+ TeraFLOPS AMD Radeon Pro W6900X. But the M1 Max clear match the top AMD or NVIDA mobile chips, using 40% less power.

    One more chip to go! The M1 Max Extreme or whatever they call it. If it's a 64-core GPU it will match the top card but to match the dual cards it will have to be 128-cores. That's going to be one big wafer. If the power saving scale up, it's going to be a game changer.
    Some tests will be affected by the memory setup. The 5600M has 8GB of video memory. If they load up a 3D scene with 4K/8K textures, it can run out of memory and then it has to keep swapping textures with system memory (similar to a system paging when it runs out of system memory). The M1 Max chip has up to 64GB of unified memory so it can keep everything in memory.

    There was an image posted about the chip designs where the higher end chips will be multiples of the M1 Max, at least 2x and 4x. Maybe they will have a 3x too but that wouldn't be needed. They could call them Extreme and Ultimate or they could even use Duo like they do for the Radeon Pro Duo. M1 Max Duo, M1 Max Quad.

    The largest would be 16x the size of the M1 chip, much like the Threadripper chips:



    The M1 Max has 57 billion transistors, the 3990x Threadripper has around 40 billion (just for CPU, no GPU). 4x the M1 Max will have 228 billion if they just take multiples of the chips. If they multiply the cores separately then it will be a bit less.

    It will be a very powerful chip and even crazier to think it would be able to fit into the 2013 Mac Pro cylinder enclosure. If Intel/AMD had kept up, it could have been with their chips but they didn't and Apple had to revert back to an old form factor to accommodate their inefficient hardware.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.