blastdoor

Effectively two M4 Max chips with an interconnect and therefore double the cores, the score should also be about twice as high as the M4 Max.

When you look at the subscores there are many where the M2 Ultra leads. Part of the issue is that not all components of the GB suite scale perfectly with more cores. That’s fine because that’s reality — some things scale well with more cores and some don’t. 

Ten performance cores is way beyond what I was expecting. That’s huge. The m4 pro should be more than twice as fast as the m4 on multithreaded workloads. At least for CPU, this could be close to an M2 Ultra 

rodwslc said:

I see that Apple said that the M4 is 1.7 times faster than the M1, how about telling us how much faster the M4 is compared to the M2 & the M3.

Could it be that it’s not very much faster than the M3?

From a GeekBench perspective it's definitely faster than the M3, but the numbers are tricky to interpret. When you drill down to the sub-scores, there's tremendous variation in the performance change between m3 and m4. The m4 is anywhere from 10% faster to more than twice as fast as the M3. The really big gains are likely due to Apple adopting ARM v9 SME instructions. That's tricky to interpret because M1-M3 had something that did a similar job -- called AMX. But AMX was only indirectly accessible through Apple's CoreML, which meant that Geekbench didn't take advantage of AMX.

So... another way to look at these numbers is that M1-M3 were actually faster for software that used CoreML than what Geekbench indicated.  Yet expanding the range of software that can be accelerated is definitely an advantage for M4. 

hammeroftruth said:

blastdoor said:

delreyjones said:

DAalseth said:

I think it could be mostly true. CEOs are kind of like dictators so dealing with real dictators is often more comfortable for them than dealing with democratic governments, even if they might not like the dictator personally or agree with all of their policies. 

Sure, you can speculate anyway you like.  But since Trump is such a confirmed liar, there's no credible evidence that it happened.

It’s implausible to me that Trump would have known about the issues if he hadn’t talked to Cook. I also find it very believable that the CEO of a major company like Apple would talk to both party’s nominees.

i like Apple and Cook, but I think you guys are kidding yourselves. 

If that is true, then how did Appleinsider uncover it when it happened? Maybe because it was news, big news. We found out thanks to this site how the EU acquiesced to Epic and Spotify’s claim of abuse and decided to fine Apple. Maybe DJT just found out about it and spun this old man’s whopper tale that a CEO would call a FORMER president or if he was still president when it happened, then why didn't he do anything or say anything about it then?
Pure 🐎💩. 

I think Donald Trump only goes looking for news that mentions Donald Trump. Everything else he learns comes from ‘trusted’ sources putting stuff in front of him. The people closest to him are focused on crazy stories about immigrants eating pets. So to learn about a story like this, I think it makes sense that it would take Cook to tell him.