Question Incredible Apple M4 benchmarks...

[poke01]

No, what annoys us is Apple's walled garden. If they would let us run Windows and our current games library with proper DX12/Vulkan drivers, why would we be angry?

I mean for gaming, an X3D chip is better suited and as for the walled garden. the bootloader is unlocked
on Macs and Linux takes full advantage of Apple’s CPUs.

 

[KompuKare]

AVX, which is already used in Geekbench 6. So this is just ARM chips catching up with x86 in SIMD acceleration through CPU instructions.

Previously, Apple used CoreML for these tasks which could use either the AMX, NPU, or GPU. GB6 did not use CoreML for CPU tests. Now, the AMX has been moved to SME CPU instruction sets, making it far easier for programs to utilize it through the CPU.

So in my opinion, this is just Apple/ARM catching up to AVX where previously, they had a disadvantage. The scores between x86 and ARM in GB6.3 are still valid.

If people think M4's scores are only/too high because of SME, what do people think about Geekbench already having optimizations for for AVX but not Apple's AMX processor previously?



Even so, regardless of what people here think about SME, the M4 beats the 14900KS in 14/16 ST tests. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6059033?baseline=6050769

And for those who somehow want to discredit M4 based on low IPC improvement over M3, who cares if perf/watt is drastically better? A design can optimize for more IPC or higher clock speeds. In this case, M4's design seems to emphasize higher clocks. Now if power also went up drastically, then we have some issues. But that's unlikely given how thin the iPad Pro is.

This is a 10-15w max SoC vs a 500w max CPU. For some perspective, the entire M4 iPad Pro is thinner than Intel's 14900KS package.

Thanks for the detailed response but the last bit about the new M4 iPad Pro being so thin?

To me that is one of the many cons of Apple which unfortunately has been copied by far too many other vendors. Why would I want a laptop or phone etc. which is 1 or 2 mm thinner and loses out on any or all of these:

1. Batteries which cannot be replaced.
2. Memory which is soldered.
3. SSD which are soldered.

All of which are anti consumer developments and all of which were pioneered by Apple.

 

[poke01]

Thanks for the detailed response but the last bit about the new M4 iPad Pro being so thin?

To me that is one of the many cons of Apple which unfortunately has been copied by far too many other vendors. Why would I want a laptop or phone etc. which is 1 or 2 mm thinner and loses out on any or all of these:

1. Batteries which cannot be replaced.
2. Memory which is soldered.
3. SSD which are soldered.

All of which are anti consumer developments and all of which were pioneered by Apple.

The last thin tablets were actually the Tab s8/s9 series. They held the record this whole time primarily because iPads were still using LCD displays. The primary cause for the thinness this time was the use of a tandem OLED, it’s makes displays much thinner and the overall case.

Apple has been making their phones and laptops thicker recently and this made the battery removals much easier than the 2016 era MacBooks. I completely agree that the SSD should not be soldered.

Also Apple isn’t the sole pioneer, Dells XPS removed the headphone jacks in laptops while Apple kept it on their laptops.

Anyhow, this is going off topic. If you want to discuss Apples anti-consumer moves on their devices we should move it to the Apple Silicon thread.

Best to let this thread remain for M4 and Intel comparison discussion.

 

[igor_kavinski]

But they would have to develop, maintain and support Windows drivers for MX SoCs, including GPUs and all... all that for a low percentage of users who would still be unhappy with the performance due to translation of X86 code.

Oh, that's such a gargantuan task for a 2.8+ trillion dollar company that I regret even thinking about it...

 

[SarahKerrigan]

No, what annoys us is Apple's walled garden. If they would let us run Windows and our current games library with proper DX12/Vulkan drivers, why would we be angry?

Is Apple preventing you from running Windows? How, exactly?

I don't use Apple's stuff, and I'm not the target market for it - but Apple has done absolutely nothing to stop Microsoft from supporting their hardware, as far as I'm aware. Also, the Win/ARM virtualization story on ARM MacOS is, from my understanding, excellent, and that covers many (but not all) of the potential Windows use cases for that hardware.

 

[gdansk]

Windows (on ARM) actually specifically targets/supports the Apple Mx CPUs. But the problem is no drivers for the rest of the SoC.

In any case, it's not like the Boot camp days (which I miss).

 

[igor_kavinski]

Is Apple preventing you from running Windows? How, exactly?

They are preventing everyone from running Windows on their hardware. Virtualization is not the answer. All they need to do is support Windows on ARM in bootcamp mode with decent drivers and this bit of criticism goes poof!

 

[jeanlain]

Oh, that's such a gargantuan task for a 2.8+ trillion dollar company that I regret even thinking about it...

They are worth trillions precisely because they take good decisions.
What's in for Apple? Would increased sales cover the costs? That's far from certain.

 

[gdansk]

All they need to do is support Windows on ARM in bootcamp mode with decent drivers

Nope, that is Microsoft's job. If a company doesn't release drivers for their operating system that's their choice.
It isn't like Qualcomm where Qualcomm wants their chips to run Microsoft software. Apple doesn't care about being Windows compatible (anymore).

 

[gdansk]

They are worth trillions precisely because they take good decisions.

What an ugly (and very American) implication. That "profitable" = "good" but... I digress.

 

[jeanlain]

What an ugly (and very American) implication. That "profitable" = "good" but... I digress.

Good for them of course. I'm not exactly American nor am I in the "greed is good" camp.

 

[igor_kavinski]

What's in for Apple? Would increased sales cover the costs? That's far from certain.

They are afraid. If they supported Windows on their machines, their MacOS marketshare would drop. The only way they could be interested is if they put WoA apps on their store. But Microsoft would probably not take kindly to a competing store being available for WoA apps. Apple doesn't care about the hardware revenue. They make more from their app store.

 

[Nothingness]

They are afraid. If they supported Windows on their machines, their MacOS marketshare would drop. The only way they could be interested is if they put WoA apps on their store. But Microsoft would probably not take kindly to a competing store being available for WoA apps. Apple doesn't care about the hardware revenue. They make more from their app store.

Isn't app revenue mostly coming from iOS devices?

 

[Eug]

I posted it already in the other thread (with a table comparing against M3), but there is now an M4 9-core bench available.

As for Boot Camp, Apple created Boot Camp because they needed it to gain traction. Remember, Boot Camp was introduced way back in 2007. However, with Apple Silicon and the plethora of well-supported macOS applications, Apple no longer needs Boot Camp.

Back in 2007 the Mac market share of PCs worldwide was around 3%, near historical lows. Now it's around 10%. This is actually bigger than Apple's global PC market share in its heyday in the 80s and 90s.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Apple no longer needs Boot Camp.

It actually does to grow its marketshare beyond 10%. To say it doesn't need Boot Camp, it just means the person making that statement has no need for software existing on Windows. In other words, they are a limited user of software or they prefer to remain oblivious to what else is out there, no matter how popular.

 

[roger_k]

Thanks for the detailed response but the last bit about the new M4 iPad Pro being so thin?

To me that is one of the many cons of Apple which unfortunately has been copied by far too many other vendors. Why would I want a laptop or phone etc. which is 1 or 2 mm thinner and loses out on any or all of these:

1. Batteries which cannot be replaced.
2. Memory which is soldered.
3. SSD which are soldered.

All of which are anti consumer developments and all of which were pioneered by Apple.

Plenty of users prefer the everyday benefit of a more portable and ergonomic device to a hypothetical advantage of replaceable components. To dismiss this as a “con” is frankly insulting.

There are different people out there that prefer different things. And that’s great. Because it gives us the plurality of options. I am happy that something like the Framework laptop exists even if I have zero interest or use for the concept. At the same time I do not find it acceptable that people would dismiss my personal preferences.

 

[Eug]

It actually does to grow its marketshare beyond 10%. To say it doesn't need Boot Camp, it just means the person making that statement has no need for software existing on Windows. In other words, they are a limited user of software or they prefer to remain oblivious to what else is out there, no matter how popular.

Apple really doesn't need, nor want, Boot Camp anymore in 2024.

Back in 2007 the Mac market was in shambles, and Apple didn't have the iPhone revenue to rely upon. (The iPhone was also introduced in 2007.) People didn't buy Macs because the performance sucked, and software was almost non-existent. In fact, a lot of the people that were buying Macs were just because of inertia. They needed to run legacy Mac software in existing Mac workflows. Boot Camp offered Apple a way to prop up the Mac market for other people who never would have considered Macs in the first place, because even though the Mac software ecosystem sucked at that time, people could fall back to Windows. Furthermore, the hardware was reliant upon Intel chips, so they offered no performance advantage and little longevity advantage over other well designed PCs. The only selling points were the aesthetic design and build quality, along with the slickness of OS X.

In 2024, the situation is completely different. The Mac software ecosystem is robust, the hardware outperforms x86 platforms in many performance metrics, and the machines outlast everything else out there in terms of battery life.

Apple no longer needs the expensive crutch - and embarrassment - of having to actively support a competitor's operating system in order to survive. And it has more than just survived: Apple is now the most profitable tech company in the world, and the second largest tech company in the world by market cap.

Just because some geeks out there want the ability to dual boot Apple Silicon doesn't mean Apple will care or should care about that. It really wouldn't benefit them at all. Boot Camp was an interesting anecdote in Mac history, but that time has passed.

 

[roger_k]

It actually does to grow its marketshare beyond 10%. To say it doesn't need Boot Camp, it just means the person making that statement has no need for software existing on Windows. In other words, they are a limited user of software or they prefer to remain oblivious to what else is out there, no matter how popular.

Virtual machines cover pretty much all the relevant user cases. Gamers are loud but they won’t get a Mac anyway, and it’s not like a hypothetical Windows on Mac will offer good gaming experience. The biggest use cases for MS software is Office, which is available either as a native macOS app or as cloud solution.

I still need some legacy Windows software and Wine covers all that need just fine for me.

 

[SarahKerrigan]

They are preventing everyone from running Windows on their hardware. Virtualization is not the answer. All they need to do is support Windows on ARM in bootcamp mode with decent drivers and this bit of criticism goes poof!

Oh. So they aren't preventing anyone from running Windows - they simply aren't taking it upon themselves to do the port themselves. It isn't their operating system, so it's not their problem.

Likewise, Qualcomm is not preventing anyone from running MacOS on their hardware.

 

[SpudLobby]

This is the highest GB5 score I found so far.

SC: 2641.

iPad16,4 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for an iPad16,4 with an ARM processor.

browser.geekbench.com

M4 is probably the fastest CPU for now. I know the Core i9s will the e cores disabled will score in the 3000s in GB5 but I consider stock scores considering the M4 you know doesn’t guzzle power.


It’s massive feat considering Intels nor AMD CPUs can’t manage that single core in laptops or tablets.
You need a desktop i9 to get to M4 levels.

Regarding SME, since Apple using an industry standard ARM extension and the world is an AI craze right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if ARM vendors also start supporting SME soon.

Edit: there’s still so much we don’t know about about M4. It’s PPW and it’s area.

I bet power went up slightly, and I also bet it still blows everything else out.

They are afraid. If they supported Windows on their machines, their MacOS marketshare would drop.

???

It has nothing to do with that, that’s marginal at best.

The only way they could be interested is if they put WoA apps on their store. But Microsoft would probably not take kindly to a competing store being available for WoA apps. Apple doesn't care about the hardware revenue. They make more from their app store.

Apple does not make more from the app store than hardware, what in the world are you talking about dude.

It actually does to grow its marketshare beyond 10%. To say it doesn't need Boot Camp, it just means the person making that statement has no need for software existing on Windows. In other words, they are a limited user of software or they prefer to remain oblivious to what else is out there, no matter how popular.

They don’t want to build drivers for it and ultimately the ($$$) Mac user base is developers and creatives first, with Apple ecosystem loyals as well.

 

[SarahKerrigan]

It actually does to grow its marketshare beyond 10%. To say it doesn't need Boot Camp, it just means the person making that statement has no need for software existing on Windows. In other words, they are a limited user of software or they prefer to remain oblivious to what else is out there, no matter how popular.

Virtualization is a thing.

 

[poke01]

My other question is, why is Apple scoring real high in the Object Detection subsection when compared to Intel if Intel also has matrix operations?

Is Apples implementation of matrix ops better?

Going back on topic, anyone can chime in on this?

 

[Hitman928]

Going back on topic, anyone can chime in on this?

As @Nothingness said, SME is more like Intel's AMX which, as far as I know, isn't supported on client CPUs nor GB 6.3. AVX in its various form is more akin to SVE. They do support matrix math, but SME adds additional instructions/operations that let it accelerate certain matrix math much more when supported in the software. If you want to compare general IPC (or PPC), I would leave the SME enabled tests out of it.

 

[SpudLobby]

Going back on topic, anyone can chime in on this?

Intel has AMX on servers, not client parts. Different class of extension. And GB I doubt supports it.

 

[SpudLobby]

As @Nothingness said, SME is more like Intel's AMX which, as far as I know, isn't supported on client CPUs nor GB 6.3. AVX in its various form is more akin to SVE. They do support matrix math, but SME adds additional instructions/operations that let it accelerate certain matrix math much more when supported in the software. If you want to compare general IPC (or PPC), I would leave the SME enabled tests out of it.

Beat me to it by a few seconds