More M2 Max benchmarks leak, show better performance

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited December 2022
A second set of purported M2 Max Geekbench results have been seen online, and with a faster processor speed, they've gained significantly on a previous leak.

M2 logo


When the first M2 Max benchmarks were spotted on Geekbench in November, they failed to show much of an improvement over its predecessor, the M1 Max. However, a new Geekbench entry now shows quite a substantial difference.

Those previous M2 Max figures showed a single-core score of 1853, and a multi-core score of 13855. The new figures are single-core 2027, and multi-core 14888.

In both cases, the benchmarks identify the device as Mac14,6. References to that model were first spotted in July 2022, but it's still unclear whether it refers to a new Mac Studio, or a MacBook Pro.

It's also possible that the figures are fabricated, but if they are accurate then they also show what is responsible for difference between November's leak and this one. The previous data said that the Mac had one 12-core processor running at 3.54 GHz, while the new has the same number of cores but is clocked at 3.68 GHz.

Unsurprisingly, if there is to be an M2 version of the Mac Studio, it now isn't expected until 2023. There were persistent rumors that there would be an M2 MacBook Pro in November 2022, but Tim Cook's own comments suggested this, too, will now be next year.


Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    Mentioned before the clocks would increase. It’s the only way after hardware everything is finalized. Apples notebook and desktop systems already have massive unused cooling overhead. Sooner or later, Apple would have to play the clock speed game - minus any die shrink or major architectural shift. 


    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobralkrupp
  • Reply 2 of 15
    The previous “leak” got a lot of traction in the media. It's possible this one is on purpose, to throw doubt in the earlier one, which was likely fake.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 15
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,906member
    Both sets of results seem pretty believable to me — it’s all within the range of plausible clock speed and random error effects.

    we will have to wait for 3nm before we see bigger cpu gains 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 15
    The previous “leak” got a lot of traction in the media. It's possible this one is on purpose, to throw doubt in the earlier one, which was likely fake.
    Frankly, that was my first thought as well.

    The 14,6 numbering frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. MacPro's have "MacPro" in their model ID, iMacs have "iMac," &c. and the Studio's is "mac13,1." I figure it's a smokescreen.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 15
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,494member
    Form factor Mac Pro, or larger screen iMac better GPU performance and a 2023 release date is all that matters.
    9secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 15
    sunman42 said:
    The previous “leak” got a lot of traction in the media. It's possible this one is on purpose, to throw doubt in the earlier one, which was likely fake.
    Frankly, that was my first thought as well.

    The 14,6 numbering frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. MacPro's have "MacPro" in their model ID, iMacs have "iMac," &c. and the Studio's is "mac13,1." I figure it's a smokescreen.
    Mac14,x makes sense for an M2 Mac Studio - the current studio is Mac13,1 for the Max, Mac13,2 for the Ultra

    The 6 is indeed confusing unless you believe Apple will have at least 6 basic M2 based Studio configurations. Danox has an interesting suggestion - might Apple merge the Studio and Pro lines?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 15
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,872moderator
    mknelson said:
    sunman42 said:
    The previous “leak” got a lot of traction in the media. It's possible this one is on purpose, to throw doubt in the earlier one, which was likely fake.
    Frankly, that was my first thought as well.

    The 14,6 numbering frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. MacPro's have "MacPro" in their model ID, iMacs have "iMac," &c. and the Studio's is "mac13,1." I figure it's a smokescreen.
    Danox has an interesting suggestion - might Apple merge the Studio and Pro lines?
    Apple said there's a Mac Pro coming:

    https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/08/apple-silicon-mac-pro-coming/

    The Studio is only 215W:

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213100

    The Mac Pro can quadruple this (80TFLOPs):

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201796

    but if they use 3nm, they can nearly double the current Studio performance so a 2x Ultra would be enough for a Mac Pro around 500W. Two Studios on top of each other make a 7.7" Cube. A ~60-80TFLOPs Cube under $10k would be a nice computer for higher end work.

    I'm expecting the Mac Pro to be a dual Ultra, either in a mini-tower or Cube form factor. It may retain some PCIe connectivity but doesn't need the large GPU slots. RAM soldered up to 256GB-384GB.

    Apple is past its two year transition timeline but given that it's only the Mac Pro left, they could launch that at WWDC 2023. Maybe they'll have a special event earlier in the year. Given that it's a new design, it's not likely they'd just launch it without an event.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 15
    I currently have a 2019 16" Intel MBP which serves me well but I regret not maxing out ram and storage. I'm going to hold out for the 3nm MBP M3 Max likely coming out in spring 2024 and will be maxing out ram and storage as I feel the 3nm will provide a larger bump in power. A hefty cost but then it will last me many years. I'll keep the intel version for boot camp for the odd Windows program I need to run.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 15
    I just got my Mac Studio M1 Ultra w/ 128GB and 2TB. I think this puppy might be the last computer I ever buy - I’m old, and I’m doing less and less 3D & AE on purpose. I have personal film projects I’m about to undertake, so this will be my last hurrah. But I can’t wait to see what the next 20 years brings to all you excellent designers that make the future of design I’ll be in awe.
    williamlondontenthousandthingswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 15
    I don’t care about the CPU performance - that’s pretty good already. I’m waiting for GPU stats :) 

    I hope M2 Pro and Max bring a much needed improvement including hardware raytracing, something that’s increasingly being utilized and Apple already prepared for with Metal.
    keithwbobolicious
  • Reply 11 of 15
    keithwkeithw Posts: 104member
    I don’t care about the CPU performance - that’s pretty good already. I’m waiting for GPU stats :) 

    I hope M2 Pro and Max bring a much needed improvement including hardware raytracing, something that’s increasingly being utilized and Apple already prepared for with Metal.
    Yeah, when Apple can match the GPU performance that I get with my eGPU on my 2017 iMac Pro, then I’ll get that product.

    bobolicious
  • Reply 12 of 15
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,455member
    This is why I just wait for Apple to release the product. Then you have the actual story instead of trying to create a story based off pretesting. 
  • Reply 13 of 15
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,060member
    It's also possible Apple releases these figures to see how the public reacts.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    I don’t care about the CPU performance - that’s pretty good already. I’m waiting for GPU stats :) 

    I hope M2 Pro and Max bring a much needed improvement including hardware raytracing, something that’s increasingly being utilized and Apple already prepared for with Metal.
    Yeah, when Apple can match the GPU performance that I get with my eGPU on my 2017 iMac Pro, then I’ll get that product.

    Indeed...  Some very rough calcs, begging further information...

    Despite Apple's claims, M1 Ultra GPU is not as powerful as RTX 3090
     ~56% faster: RTX 3060 Ti (8GB or 12GB for 4K)
    ~259% faster: RTX 3090
    ~468% faster: RTX 4090 UserBenchmark: Nvidia RTX 3090 vs 4090

    Could this explain the lack of a mac pro release...?  Hopefully not...
    I am reminded of the admission that the 2013 pro gpu design ended up being described as a 'thermal corner'...
    ... and if I recall correctly dual gpu support seemed only for Apple apps such as FCP vs systemic ...
    edited December 2022
  • Reply 15 of 15
    thttht Posts: 4,711member
    cpsro said:
    It's also possible Apple releases these figures to see how the public reacts.
    They are not going to make a change 3 months in advance of a release. The fab is designed so that the chips hit a particular yield per Watt per Hz. This was done about 1 year ago at least. The remaining time has been trying to actually hit that yield per Watt per Hz that they thought they'd get.

    Any increase in Hz now is going to cost them a quadratic to cubic exponential increase in Watts over what they baselined when mass production started, if the chips can actually be clocked higher.
    muthuk_vanalingamCheeseFreeze
Sign In or Register to comment.