M2 Ultra - 3.48 GHz instead of 3.66 GHz

[Nightingale_cz]

Hello everyone,

I installed my new Mac Studio yesterday, with an M2 Ultra, 60 core GPU and 64 Gb memory. Today I tried a benchmark, specifically Geekbench 6, and I was surprised by the value of the processor frequency and benchmark result.

Instead of the expected 3.66 GHz, it shows only 3.48 GHz and also the resulting benchmark value is below average. Of course, I run the benchmark with all applications turned off. Also, my iStat Menus shows that before starting the benchmark, the mac is not working on anything.

Should I be worried that something is wrong with my M2 Ultra?

Thank you!

 

[Homy]

Very interesting! I find different CPU speeds on GB for different M2 Ultras and on other sites. Could it be a difference between the one with 60 GPU cores and the other with 76 cores? Haven't heard anything about it. Best to contact Apple.

 

[majus]

Should I be worried that something is wrong with my M2 Ultra?

No. Those CPU speed numbers are mostly coming from third-party testing, definitely not from Apple. I have seen numbers for the M2 Ultra from 3.48 all the way to 3.68, not a deal breaker. The number of cores and memory you have is going to contribute more to how fast things happen in your particular workflow than that "missing" two-tenths of a GHz, just as they will with mine.

 

[Feek]

Have Apple actually posted the CPU speeds?

 

[Nightingale_cz]

Apple does not officially specify the frequency, only the 3.66 GHz is listed here in Geekbench.

I was going through a lot of benchmark results today. And I found frequencies from as low as 3.24GHz all the way up to 3.67GHz.

So I pulled out about a hundred Mac Studio with M2 Ultra results and the averages come out like this:

64 Gb memory, average is 3,47 GHz, Single-Core Score 2659 and Multi-Core Score 20961
128 Gb memory, average is 3,56 GHz, Single-Core Score 2711 and Multi-Core Score 21156
192 Gb memory, average is 3,53 GHz, Single-Core Score 2691 and Multi-Core Score 21137

Unfortunately, it is not possible to assign 60 and 72 core GPU variants in this results.

But the result for me is that my Mac Studio is fine... and it depends on luck (maybe a little on the size of the RAM), what frequency your M2 Ultra have

Anyway, I am very surprised and confused, I expected the same frequency for all M2 Ultra.

I understand that benchmarks have different results, but that frequency number is strange.

 

[Nightingale_cz]

I take it back, I just figured it out!

@Homy was right!

I just analysed all Metal bechmark results from Geekbench 6 (but they cannot be linked to CPU results).

If you have 60 core GPU frequency of your M2 Ultra is around 3,48 GHz
If you have 72 core GPU frequency of your M2 Ultra is around 3,67 GHz

This means that along with a more powerful GPU, you also have a more powerful CPU, which is totally new to me! And I didn't experience that with the M1 Ultra.

Here is also the result of my analysis:

64 Gb memory / 60 core GPU - average Metal score: 202279
64 Gb memory / 72 core GPU - average Metal score: 222694
128 Gb memory / 60 core GPU - average Metal score: 203753
128 Gb memory / 72 core GPU - average Metal score: 223462
192 Gb memory / 60 core GPU - average Metal score: 204178
192 Gb memory / 72 core GPU - average Metal score: 221529

 

[Homy]

I take it back, I just figured it out!

@Homy was right!

I just analysed all Metal bechmark results from Geekbench 6 (but they cannot be linked to CPU results).

If you have 60 core GPU frequency of your M2 Ultra is around 3,48 GHz
If you have 72 core GPU frequency of your M2 Ultra is around 3,67 GHz

This means that along with a more powerful GPU, you also have a more powerful CPU, which is totally new to me! And I didn't experience that with the M1 Ultra.

Here is also the result of my analysis:

64 Gb memory / 60 core GPU - average Metal score: 202279
64 Gb memory / 72 core GPU - average Metal score: 222694
128 Gb memory / 60 core GPU - average Metal score: 203753
128 Gb memory / 72 core GPU - average Metal score: 223462
192 Gb memory / 60 core GPU - average Metal score: 204178
192 Gb memory / 72 core GPU - average Metal score: 221529

View attachment 2311643

Weird but perhaps they didn't want to scrap CPUs with lower speed and decided 180-190 MHz won't matter much or they decided to differentiate the top model from the cheaper one with 0.2 GHz. 🤔

 

[Nightingale_cz]

Weird but perhaps they didn't want to scrap CPUs with lower speed and decided 180-190 MHz won't matter much or they decided to differentiate the top model from the cheaper one with 0.2 GHz. 🤔

I don't know if it's true, but I read somewhere that Apple produces all Ultra, Max, Pro processors in the highest versions, and depending on how many functional and non-functional cores are on the final chips... Apple then manually determine how many cores the final chip has.

Well, maybe that's why only the processor that is in the "best condition" has the highest possible frequency. But that's just my guess