I have fetched the updated scores including M3 Pro full & binned. Different RAM config should have an impact in total GPU ability but it is difficult to sort them out in the GB website so I just lumped them in one.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
First Geekbench for base M3
- Thread starter APCX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have fetched the updated scores including M3 Pro full & binned. Different RAM config should have an impact in total GPU ability but it is difficult to sort them out in the GB website so I just lumped them in one.
Single-core performance is neck and neck with the newest Intel i9 14900K at 1/10th the power (7 Watt versus 71 Watt).
In Cinebench 2024, Apple has the highest single core and since this benchmark is longer and is actually a real life workload (Redshift) it's shows that Apples chips are great and industry leading.
Attachments
It is industry leading performance in a laptop.
The funny thing is that both Intel and AMD have introduced a new power bracket for laptops (65-120 watt “enthusiast” class) which is populated by down locked desktop CPUs. This new bracket was introduced solely because they could not compete with M1 family. But now M3 Max confidently beats the HX class at a fraction of power consumption. I wonder what will be next. HXX with 150 watts in a “laptop”?
Amazing. Beats the pants off an M2 Ultra. This is exactly what I was talking about last week when I said to wait for multicore tests before making any big pronouncements about M3 performance. Apple has clearly done a ton of work on their uncore to improve multicore perf.
Of course, with a granularity of minutes, that chart is not very good. But it's good enough to see this.
What, you are specialising in overclocked and fake GB entries now? Do the computers you have linked come with a barrel of liquid nitrogen you'd need to operate them? In case you are curious, this is what the computers you mention look like:
Who would have thought the core i3s were the fastest CPUs out there?
I was sure that intel's atoms had the crown.
It looks like you can overclock Intel and AMD to ~3550 single thread and ~27k GB6 multithread. Even against these overclocked monsters, the M3 Max in a laptop is decent.
I got this from one of the links you posted.
Never knew there was android x86 Samsung S10+ phone running an AMD Ryzen chip that has higher ST than AMDs desktop CPUs. Wow
Most are fake and few used ungodly amounts of nitrogen and power
Attachments
There is nothing normal about a computer using 300watts of power and nitrogen cooling.
That would not work in laptop. We established that M3 has the fastest SC in cinebench
Nice, but does it come in Space Black?What, you are specialising in overclocked and fake GB entries now? Do the computers you have linked come with a barrel of liquid nitrogen you'd need to operate them? In case you are curious, this is what the computers you mention look like:
Those M3 Pro Metal compute numbers are rough... given how the Max went up 10,000 points in score the Pro regressed by 3,000 points.
Hanlon's razor says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Your posts don't bear any obvious hallmarks of stupidity, however, which leads me to think you're an exception.
Even assuming you're correct about it being RX580 speed (and I don't because you're grossly untrustworthy), that would make it comparable to the mid/high-end 2019 iMac. The cheapest model I could find that supported the 580x was the core i5 3.7ghz, for $2299. (source) The low-end iMac used a 555x with a grand total of *2*GB VRAM. The difference is so blatant it's not even worth looking up scores.
Yes. But it looks like you didn't learn your lesson at all.
Aaaaand... Fail.
There were no intel iMacs directly comparable to Mx iMacs, as they were either smaller or bigger, and that affected pricing. However, all the 21.5" iMacs on sale in 2020 (which were released in 2019) were drastically worse than a 580 - the best CTO option was the Vega 20, a big step down from the 580, which cost an extra $350, bringing the price of the iMac to $1849! (How much is the M3 iMac again?)
The 2020 27" iMacs (released that year) had the following graphics options:
low end (core i5), $1799-$1999: Radeon Pro 5300
high end (core i7), $2299: Radeon Pro 5500 XT; upgrade to 5700 ($300) or 5700XT ($500)
The 5300 is abysmal compared to the 580. The 5500XT is almost exactly even with the 580, maybe 1% weaker. The 5700 and 5700XT - ONLY available as CTO options - finally pull ahead of the 580 - 55-65% better, it looks like.
So, in fact, no Intel iMacs were ever offered stock with graphics better than a 580, only the high-end final 2020 model reached that level of performance, and only the last CTO model ever sold exceeded it. (No, wait, the Vega 48 sold CTO in 2019 also beats the 580, but by 10% or less.)
And how much did that 2020 CTO model cost? $2599, though if you were spending that much on the graphics you'd surely want to spend another $200 for the 5700XT, and you'd probably want the i9 processor as well, at another $400, taking you to $3199. Think that's a good compare with the M3 iMac?
You're now zero for three. Altaic thought you were trolling, and at this point, it doesn't really matter if you're a troll or just clueless. I won't be reading or responding to anything else you have to say.
compared to what? what other stand alone SoC has the same gpu power with an high end all in one dGpu from 3-4 years ago?! If you like for people to make fun of you, then go ahead with these non-sense, otherwise listen what others have to say
M3 to be on par with an dGpu like 580 after just 4 years...its an impressive advancement, and lets not forget that 580 alone draw 120w to reach M3 performance
