As impressive as this is, (no flames here- I'm an exclusive Mac user) you have to get to Page 388 on the Geekbench 5 CPU results to get to this result of 24055. The Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 3800 MHz (24 cores) from October 2020 already beat the Ultra. The single core results are outstanding, and this much horsepower in this form factor with so little power draw is very impressive. The ASi "Mac Pro" will have a pretty high hurdle to climb with the AMD EPYC (128 cores) coming in at 75539 GB5 multi-core.
There are, of course, other factors to consider such as the unified memory, built in encoders/decoders, neural engine, etc. All in all, a lot of bang for the buck. All that said, my AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT eGPU (attached to my 5 year old iMac Pro) got a Metal GB5 score of 160166. So they have another hill to climb in their ASi "Mac Pro" when it comes to graphics performance.
Primate Labs has a "processor benchmark" page which takes a bunch of scores for a particular CPU, averages them, and lists the average:
The 3960X scores a 19900, ranked 4th in the list. When looking at individual scores, you have to be careful about overclocked results. Looking at the above page of aggregate scores, looks like Threadripper is running out of memory/cache bandwidth as there isn't much gain from 24 to 32 to 64 cores. Or perhaps, GB5's tasks aren't scaling to that many cores. It's basically two sides of the same coin there.
Yes, still a ways to go for GPU. The M1 Ultra will probably score 120k in Metal. It's 21 TFLOPS, and will lose out on certain GPU tasks to the high end GPUs today. There will be some tasks where it will do well. The bigger issue is there really aren't enough apps optimized for Metal. That's going to take a while.
You can add external storage quite easily and I bet most specialized cards out there come in external Thunderbolt 4 configs too - this seems like a complete niche to me.
I just don’t see the need if they keep updating this machine to M2, M3 Max/Ultra equivalents. I can imagine a SoC isn’t ideal because if one thing breaks, the entire machine breaks, but if you break up the components into modular parts you’d lose the benefits of Apple Silicon.
Seems like there's almost zero need for an x86-based Mac Pro.
But maybe Apple can create a Mac Pro that takes things to a whole new level.
Well, it looks good on number in the presentation. But let’s not forget the Ultra is comparing with a 2 year old Xeon. 2 years is a lot in computer technology. Not to mention, arguably AMD’s Epyc is the fastest CPU in the PC world.
Let’s hope the future Mac Pro will be even faster with 4/8 sets of CPU. But it might cost $8000 on the entry model.
Why can’t you and others accept the fact that Apple has produced something amazing here?
I wanted to ask those guys just the same question. What they are trying to say actually?
Why they don’t simply shut up for a minute, try to think for a minute (if possible), and admit that Apple made again a giant step forward with the new M1 Ultra chip.
As impressive as this is, (no flames here- I'm an exclusive Mac user) you have to get to Page 388 on the Geekbench 5 CPU results to get to this result of 24055. The Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 3800 MHz (24 cores) from October 2020 already beat the Ultra. The single core results are outstanding, and this much horsepower in this form factor with so little power draw is very impressive. The ASi "Mac Pro" will have a pretty high hurdle to climb with the AMD EPYC (128 cores) coming in at 75539 GB5 multi-core.
There are, of course, other factors to consider such as the unified memory, built in encoders/decoders, neural engine, etc. All in all, a lot of bang for the buck. All that said, my AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT eGPU (attached to my 5 year old iMac Pro) got a Metal GB5 score of 160166. So they have another hill to climb in their ASi "Mac Pro" when it comes to graphics performance.
A mistake that some people are making with the scores is that Apple isn’t making a chip that (yet) challenges the massive multi core chips we see in some places. And remember that most of those scores are from people testing the same chips in their computers. It’s not as though there are dozens upon dozens of these higher performing chips out there. There are a few chips in a lot of machines that people are testing over and over.
You can add external storage quite easily and I bet most specialized cards out there come in external Thunderbolt 4 configs too - this seems like a complete niche to me.
I just don’t see the need if they keep updating this machine to M2, M3 Max/Ultra equivalents. I can imagine a SoC isn’t ideal because if one thing breaks, the entire machine breaks, but if you break up the components into modular parts you’d lose the benefits of Apple Silicon.
There is a need. It may not be for the average pro. But for studios, yes. For rendering farms, yes. For scientific computing, yes. I doubt Apple expects to sell as many as they do of their lower performance machines. It’s like any high performance, expensive product. They don’t sell as many iPhone ProMax units loaded with storage, as they do the Pro. That doesn’t mean there’s no need for it.
the beauty of an SoC is that it’s much more reliable than separate components. That serious amount of extra complexity means more failures.
Well, I was hoping to be able to test this myself soon, but apparently, even though I ordered a couple of minutes after the store went live, I’ll be waiting sometime into April for the monitor and until late April and possibly early May for the computer.
i’m using the 16” Macbook Pro with 32 graphics cores and 64GB RAM now, so I’m really interested to find out how close to a doubling in performances I’ll see with this. Double the rendering engines as well. That should prove interesting.
I'm a bit disappointed in the monitor though. I was hoping for a model that was somewhat more expensive, with miniLED, and possibly even 6K, as I’m hoping the new higher end monitor expected to come out will also use MiniLED, an advance over what it has now, and possibly go to 8K, though now I’m reading something about 7k, which is an odd resolution. But I bought this new one anyway. From what I’m reading, it should be somewhat better than the present iMac versions.
MORE expensive? $1,600 starting price isn't highway robbery enough for you?
No idea why you bought one of these then. Apple's got you covered, they can rape your wallet very effectively with their other stupidly high priced monitor. Might as well option it up, with the stand and the VESA mount (why not have both, since you're so filthy rich) it's only $7,197.00
For the rest of us, $500 is a very high end price for a really good 27" monitor. My eyes can be perfectly happy with $300 one.
For the rest of us, $500 is a very high end price for a really good 27" monitor. My eyes can be perfectly happy with $300 one.
If all you do is read email and buy stuff on Amazon then yes. If you do real graphics work or watch 4K movies then hell no. The 24” iMac is your cup of tea.
What's so fascinating about M1 is that they scale so well while x86 requires significant retooling of their chips (Pentium vs Xeon). With M1, it just scales with specialized interconnect. As a result, it's a lot more cost effective and less waste is generated with defective chips.
Well, I was hoping to be able to test this myself soon, but apparently, even though I ordered a couple of minutes after the store went live, I’ll be waiting sometime into April for the monitor and until late April and possibly early May for the computer.
i’m using the 16” Macbook Pro with 32 graphics cores and 64GB RAM now, so I’m really interested to find out how close to a doubling in performances I’ll see with this. Double the rendering engines as well. That should prove interesting.
I'm a bit disappointed in the monitor though. I was hoping for a model that was somewhat more expensive, with miniLED, and possibly even 6K, as I’m hoping the new higher end monitor expected to come out will also use MiniLED, an advance over what it has now, and possibly go to 8K, though now I’m reading something about 7k, which is an odd resolution. But I bought this new one anyway. From what I’m reading, it should be somewhat better than the present iMac versions.
MORE expensive? $1,600 starting price isn't highway robbery enough for you?
No idea why you bought one of these then. Apple's got you covered, they can rape your wallet very effectively with their other stupidly high priced monitor. Might as well option it up, with the stand and the VESA mount (why not have both, since you're so filthy rich) it's only $7,197.00
For the rest of us, $500 is a very high end price for a really good 27" monitor. My eyes can be perfectly happy with $300 one.
Well, it looks good on number in the presentation. But let’s not forget the Ultra is comparing with a 2 year old Xeon. 2 years is a lot in computer technology. Not to mention, arguably AMD’s Epyc is the fastest CPU in the PC world.
Let’s hope the future Mac Pro will be even faster with 4/8 sets of CPU. But it might cost $8000 on the entry model.
Typical FUD comment.
There is NOTHING in the WORLD today or that I have even heard about that is at this level of performance, power utilization and price.
Let's not forget it took Apple to think differently and develop a way to integrate SoCs together w/o using the motherboard and the latency involved.
Apple is passing everyone like they are standing still and rev'in at such incredible speed it boggles the mind. And this is not a Moore's law thing. Instead, we can see Apple is executing to a plan that must have been mapped out years and years ago.
Well, I was hoping to be able to test this myself soon, but apparently, even though I ordered a couple of minutes after the store went live, I’ll be waiting sometime into April for the monitor and until late April and possibly early May for the computer.
i’m using the 16” Macbook Pro with 32 graphics cores and 64GB RAM now, so I’m really interested to find out how close to a doubling in performances I’ll see with this. Double the rendering engines as well. That should prove interesting.
I'm a bit disappointed in the monitor though. I was hoping for a model that was somewhat more expensive, with miniLED, and possibly even 6K, as I’m hoping the new higher end monitor expected to come out will also use MiniLED, an advance over what it has now, and possibly go to 8K, though now I’m reading something about 7k, which is an odd resolution. But I bought this new one anyway. From what I’m reading, it should be somewhat better than the present iMac versions.
MORE expensive? $1,600 starting price isn't highway robbery enough for you?
No idea why you bought one of these then. Apple's got you covered, they can rape your wallet very effectively with their other stupidly high priced monitor. Might as well option it up, with the stand and the VESA mount (why not have both, since you're so filthy rich) it's only $7,197.00
For the rest of us, $500 is a very high end price for a really good 27" monitor. My eyes can be perfectly happy with $300 one.
$500 is an ENTRY level monitor. $300 is work level and for I only do MS Word and MS Excel on my computer monitor.
That said if you're not a graphics professional, game developer etc. Then yes, no reason to buy these monitors. If people are not in those professions and have the means then the monitors still do provide value in brightness and resolution which translates to clear images, text and less eye strain. Is that work $1K more? Only you can decide but that doesn't mean that Apple is raping customer wallets. It only means you are not the target audience.
Well, I was hoping to be able to test this myself soon, but apparently, even though I ordered a couple of minutes after the store went live, I’ll be waiting sometime into April for the monitor and until late April and possibly early May for the computer.
i’m using the 16” Macbook Pro with 32 graphics cores and 64GB RAM now, so I’m really interested to find out how close to a doubling in performances I’ll see with this. Double the rendering engines as well. That should prove interesting.
I'm a bit disappointed in the monitor though. I was hoping for a model that was somewhat more expensive, with miniLED, and possibly even 6K, as I’m hoping the new higher end monitor expected to come out will also use MiniLED, an advance over what it has now, and possibly go to 8K, though now I’m reading something about 7k, which is an odd resolution. But I bought this new one anyway. From what I’m reading, it should be somewhat better than the present iMac versions.
MORE expensive? $1,600 starting price isn't highway robbery enough for you?
No idea why you bought one of these then. Apple's got you covered, they can rape your wallet very effectively with their other stupidly high priced monitor. Might as well option it up, with the stand and the VESA mount (why not have both, since you're so filthy rich) it's only $7,197.00
For the rest of us, $500 is a very high end price for a really good 27" monitor. My eyes can be perfectly happy with $300 one.
Incorrect. $500 is not a high-end monitor. If all you’re looking for is a low-DPI office monitor, go for it. This isn’t for you then.
Well, it looks good on number in the presentation. But let’s not forget the Ultra is comparing with a 2 year old Xeon. 2 years is a lot in computer technology. Not to mention, arguably AMD’s Epyc is the fastest CPU in the PC world.
Let’s hope the future Mac Pro will be even faster with 4/8 sets of CPU. But it might cost $8000 on the entry model.
Typical FUD comment.
There is NOTHING in the WORLD today or that I have even heard about that is at this level of performance, power utilization and price.
Let's not forget it took Apple to think differently and develop a way to integrate SoCs together w/o using the motherboard and the latency involved.
Apple is passing everyone like they are standing still and rev'in at such incredible speed it boggles the mind. And this is not a Moore's law thing. Instead, we can see Apple is executing to a plan that must have been mapped out years and years ago.
And REAL WORLD performance hasn’t even began!! This is where Apple shines the most!
Well, I was hoping to be able to test this myself soon, but apparently, even though I ordered a couple of minutes after the store went live, I’ll be waiting sometime into April for the monitor and until late April and possibly early May for the computer.
i’m using the 16” Macbook Pro with 32 graphics cores and 64GB RAM now, so I’m really interested to find out how close to a doubling in performances I’ll see with this. Double the rendering engines as well. That should prove interesting.
I'm a bit disappointed in the monitor though. I was hoping for a model that was somewhat more expensive, with miniLED, and possibly even 6K, as I’m hoping the new higher end monitor expected to come out will also use MiniLED, an advance over what it has now, and possibly go to 8K, though now I’m reading something about 7k, which is an odd resolution. But I bought this new one anyway. From what I’m reading, it should be somewhat better than the present iMac versions.
MORE expensive? $1,600 starting price isn't highway robbery enough for you?
No idea why you bought one of these then. Apple's got you covered, they can rape your wallet very effectively with their other stupidly high priced monitor. Might as well option it up, with the stand and the VESA mount (why not have both, since you're so filthy rich) it's only $7,197.00
For the rest of us, $500 is a very high end price for a really good 27" monitor. My eyes can be perfectly happy with $300 one.
I just looked on newegg.com - they have two 27”, 5k monitors. One is $1350 and the other is $2100. $1600 falls squarely in the middle and hardly counts as highway robbery. Good, high resolution monitors are not cheap. If you need one it’s worth it to you. If not, go low res and save some money. There are plenty of 2k monitors in your price range that will work just fine.
Yes the M1 Ultra CPU is just plain fabulous. The GPU on the other hand, not so much unless you limit your tests to memory intensive operations such as video compression. It's easy to blow away the GPU with a mid range gaming laptop. Most "pro" computer tasks are now done on the GPU not the CPU. Having a fast CPU is great no doubt about it but you need a powerful GPU to go along with it. While Apple is ahead of the pack on CPU performance it is lagging NVIDIA, AMD and now Intel by a wide margin. Rather than doubling the entire processor, I would rather see dedicated CPU and GPU chips integrated into a single package. That's something we may see in the Mac Pro but at a price few can afford. There is a huge market in $2000-$4000 computers and laptops that Apple can't touch with their Studio or Pro computers.
Well, it looks good on number in the presentation. But let’s not forget the Ultra is comparing with a 2 year old Xeon. 2 years is a lot in computer technology. Not to mention, arguably AMD’s Epyc is the fastest CPU in the PC world.
Let’s hope the future Mac Pro will be even faster with 4/8 sets of CPU. But it might cost $8000 on the entry model.
Can you point us to a newer Intel offering that is in production and faster?
If not, this sentiment is irrelevant. There is also something faster in development.
I think you should also mention that the EPYC 7763 you're referencing is $5000 ON ITS OWN. As a part/SKU, I mean. Motherboard and the rest of the box, GPU, RAM, SSD, power supply, case, ginormous and multiple fans, not included.
Can’t touch, are quite obviously not targeting? Not much point if the gaming software isn’t made for the machine. Meanwhile it’s ability to process video and images is superior to those machines.
Well, it looks good on number in the presentation. But let’s not forget the Ultra is comparing with a 2 year old Xeon. 2 years is a lot in computer technology. Not to mention, arguably AMD’s Epyc is the fastest CPU in the PC world.
Let’s hope the future Mac Pro will be even faster with 4/8 sets of CPU. But it might cost $8000 on the entry model.
Intel's offerings until just recently have remained stagnant on the Xeon side. It's only right to compare it with Apple's current Mac Pro offerings, even though it's 2 years old. It's still incredible how Apple has pushed the performance envelope in those two years where Intel was nowhere to be seen.
While AMD's offerings is also impressive, when compared in terms of performance-per-watt, ASi outperforms them both.
Honestly, I don’t understand why Apple is so emphasis on performance/watt. Sure save energy is good and less noise from fan. But no one really care if their $100000 sports car use much less gas than the next car. People care about how fast it can go and how it handle the corner, not gas/miles.
Sorry these are not penile extensions. Consumers are more concerned about energy usage due to costs going up and understand that more energy used = more heat and more heat = shorter lifespan. Throw away PCs are not the droids we are looking for.
I've never come across a PC/Mac that has had it's life "reduced" by heat. I'm not subscribing to this theory.
I think better efficiency equates to a much quieter system. The fan noise of this Studio max at full wattage will be whisper-quiet compared to the multi-fan, water-cooled vacuum cleaners that are WinTel/AMD systems. It's embarrassing when they compare their systems to Macs and conveniently not address all the power consumption and noise those systems make. Seriously, I love that my Macs are quiet. Noise matters.
Apple did it even better by not only making them very quiet, but also having better performance of any machine even remotely in its price range(s).
People were upset with the M1 and tried to downplay its significance by saying it was good for laptops but not scalable to desktops.
They were even more upset when the M1 Max came out and substantially increased performance for the MBP, but still complained it couldn’t match higher end AMD or Intel parts.
Now they’re furious about the M1 Ultra and are looking to once again move the goalposts to somehow diminish this technical achievement by Apple.
I think the M1 might have passed the iPhone for inducing rage among the haters.
Though AI is not reporting this, other sites have shown that the M1 Ultra is ever so slightly behind Alder Lake in single core performance, but faster in multicore.
The M1 Ultra is also faster than AMD Threadripper in single core, but slightly behind in multicore, due to the aforementioned having 12 more CPU cores.
The M1 Ultra is basically the best of all worlds here.
It not only beasts the Intel chips of yesteryear used in Macs, but it also beats the latest and greatest.
And this is just benchmarks. Wait until the IRL comparisons come out. As it is, the M1 Max was beating Alder Lake in practical usage. The M1 Ultra is doing damage.
Comments
https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
The 3960X scores a 19900, ranked 4th in the list. When looking at individual scores, you have to be careful about overclocked results. Looking at the above page of aggregate scores, looks like Threadripper is running out of memory/cache bandwidth as there isn't much gain from 24 to 32 to 64 cores. Or perhaps, GB5's tasks aren't scaling to that many cores. It's basically two sides of the same coin there.
Yes, still a ways to go for GPU. The M1 Ultra will probably score 120k in Metal. It's 21 TFLOPS, and will lose out on certain GPU tasks to the high end GPUs today. There will be some tasks where it will do well. The bigger issue is there really aren't enough apps optimized for Metal. That's going to take a while.
But maybe Apple can create a Mac Pro that takes things to a whole new level.
the beauty of an SoC is that it’s much more reliable than separate components. That serious amount of extra complexity means more failures.
There is NOTHING in the WORLD today or that I have even heard about that is at this level of performance, power utilization and price.
Let's not forget it took Apple to think differently and develop a way to integrate SoCs together w/o using the motherboard and the latency involved.
Apple is passing everyone like they are standing still and rev'in at such incredible speed it boggles the mind. And this is not a Moore's law thing. Instead, we can see Apple is executing to a plan that must have been mapped out years and years ago.
That said if you're not a graphics professional, game developer etc. Then yes, no reason to buy these monitors. If people are not in those professions and have the means then the monitors still do provide value in brightness and resolution which translates to clear images, text and less eye strain. Is that work $1K more? Only you can decide but that doesn't mean that Apple is raping customer wallets. It only means you are not the target audience.
I think you should also mention that the EPYC 7763 you're referencing is $5000 ON ITS OWN. As a part/SKU, I mean. Motherboard and the rest of the box, GPU, RAM, SSD, power supply, case, ginormous and multiple fans, not included.
They were even more upset when the M1 Max came out and substantially increased performance for the MBP, but still complained it couldn’t match higher end AMD or Intel parts.
Now they’re furious about the M1 Ultra and are looking to once again move the goalposts to somehow diminish this technical achievement by Apple.
I think the M1 might have passed the iPhone for inducing rage among the haters.
The M1 Ultra is also faster than AMD Threadripper in single core, but slightly behind in multicore, due to the aforementioned having 12 more CPU cores.
The M1 Ultra is basically the best of all worlds here.
It not only beasts the Intel chips of yesteryear used in Macs, but it also beats the latest and greatest.
And this is just benchmarks. Wait until the IRL comparisons come out. As it is, the M1 Max was beating Alder Lake in practical usage. The M1 Ultra is doing damage.
And this is just generation 1. Wow.