Why Apple does not list the CPU speed of Silicon Macs?

[hajime]

They always say the new models have such and such number of cores. What about the CPU speed?
I know Apple Tech Support has no information on SSD speed. They probably also do not know about the CPU speed.
Is there a reliable source to obtain such information on M2 Max and M2 Pro on the MacBook Pro and Mini?

 

[NT1440]

Because GHz means nothing today except for synthetic benchmarks that spec chasers adore.

With the ever increasing amount of coprocessors and specific hardware like video engines in the industry, the pure “speed” of a chip is becoming less and less relevant to the actual “how fast does it get this done” metric that actually matters.

Remember, an i9 iMac on paper should be blazing fast, but for specific tasks even an M1 MBA will outrun it. How do you translate that to consumers if the only metric you’re looking at is “speed” (GHz)?

 

[hajime]

For some applications that don't take advantage of multi-core CPU, knowing the speed of the CPU is important for comparison on which one to buy.

 

[DeltaMac]

With the mix of performance cores, and efficiency cores in any M-series Macs, I submit that even if you can compare CPU clock speeds, it is no longer that simple.
I suggest that you might be better placed, if you look for apps that support the AS CPUs natively.

But, you CAN find numbers comparing single-core, and multi-core performance on M-series Macs.
One such source for that is the Mactracker app. Maybe you already have that installed on your Mac?
Maybe that will give you the comparison that you are asking for...

 

[mcnallym]

For some applications that don't take advantage of multi-core CPU, knowing the speed of the CPU is important for comparison on which one to buy.

Your single core result will tell you that. With the AS Single Core scores fairly consistent across models it doesn't appear as though Apple doing much in terms of different clock speeds. An M1 Core across the M1 Mini, Air, etc all consistent at 3.2Ghz

Single Core for M1 variants M1 to M1 Ultra vary between 2325 and and 2393 so not going to be fairly similar so not looking at different clock speeds across the SoC's.

Apple isn't Intel or AMD where have a whole range of CPU's within each family where differ between Cores and Clock Speed where generally Lower Cores = High Speeds and may need to find the balance between Cores and Clock Speeds

For instance the Mac Pro 2019

8 Core 8/16 3.5Gh\ 4.0Ghz Turbo
12 Core 12/24 3.3Ghz\4.4Ghz Turbo
16 Core 16/32 3.2Ghz\4.4Ghz Turbo
24 Core 24/48 2.7Ghz\4.4Ghz Turbo
28 Core 28/56 2.5Gh\4.4Ghz Turbo

That is useful in that can see that an 8 Core may be best if want Single Core Performance and won't use Multiple Cores

However

Apple MBPro 14 8 Core Pro 2357
Apple MBPro 14 10 Core Max 2367

For the difference in result then negligble and same speed across the M1 Pro and M1 Max in terms of Ghz. If the same why bother to publish as is irrelevant.

You also couldn't compare those Intel Xeon Ghz with the Ghz on an AMD Ryzen or Threadripper as different processor family and may achieve the same score with a higher or lower Ghz

 

[NT1440]

For some applications that don't take advantage of multi-core CPU, knowing the speed of the CPU is important for comparison on which one to buy.

Not when it comes to Macs. Across the board single core is more or less the same, so I fail to see how it would matter.

It’s not likely at that point you’re deciding Mac vs PC so why does Apple need to be involved in the GHz race anymore?

Remember half the performance laptops out there get essentially cut down to 3/4 the speed (or more) when unplugged from power, so pure GHz is entirely marketing fluff these days anyway.

I don’t see a consumer benefit at all by advertising clock speeds in todays world, if anything it does a disservice to what your actually getting regardless of OS.

 

[unrigestered]

what do you mean by "CPU speed"?
clock speeds?
these are almost meaningless to begin with, otherwise your microwave oven would be a viable option as a desktop PC replacement.

most companies do still use these to lure the masses by these numbers.
Apple is clocking their CPUs lower than it's competitors, so this would be bad advertisement for non-techies, aka the majority of people.

 

[Zest28]

They always say the new models have such and such number of cores. What about the CPU speed?
I know Apple Tech Support has no information on SSD speed. They probably also do not know about the CPU speed.
Is there a reliable source to obtain such information on M2 Max and M2 Pro on the MacBook Pro and Mini?

Else people would easily figure out that most of the M2 performance comes from overclocking and runs hotter than M1.

 

[xraydoc]

Apple M-series chip clock speeds (scroll down for the table):

Apple M2 Max Processor - Benchmarks and Specs

Benchmarks, information, and specifications for the Apple M2 Max

www.notebookcheck.net

Basically, all M1-based chips are clocked the same (M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, M1 Ultra). M2-based are also clocked the same (M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max) with the M2-series having a very slightly faster clock speed.

Main differences in performance come from the number of efficiency and performance cores, memory bandwidth (base<pro<max) and chip generation.

Since the clock speed of the base M1 and the M1 Ultra are basically identical, it makes little sense to make a big deal about it in marketing materials.

 

[Zest28]

Apple M-series chip clock speeds (scroll down for the table):

Apple M2 Max Processor - Benchmarks and Specs

Benchmarks, information, and specifications for the Apple M2 Max

www.notebookcheck.net

Basically, all M1-based chips are clocked the same (M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, M1 Ultra). M2-based are also clocked the same (M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max) with the M2-series having a very slightly faster clock speed.

Main differences in performance come from the number of efficiency and performance cores, memory bandwidth (base<pro<max) and chip generation.

Since the clock speed of the base M1 and the M1 Ultra are basically identical, it makes little sense to make a big deal about it in marketing materials.

Only slightly higher clock speed?
- 3.50 ghz / 3.2 ghz = 10%

And single core performance difference between M1 and M2 is also 10%.

This “slightly” faster clock speed is quite significant as without it, M2 would be just as fast as M1 in single core performance.

 

[xraydoc]

Only slightly higher clock speed?
- 3.50 ghz / 3.2 ghz = 10%

And single core performance difference between M1 and M2 is also 10%.

This “slightly” faster clock speed is quite significant as without it, M2 would be just as fast as M1 in single core performance.

I suppose that's true, and I can't argue with math, but when the difference is 300Mhz when you're already over 3,000Mhz, it doesn't seem like much.

 

[Shazaam!]

Your thinking just got a lot more complicated.

Making the most of Apple silicon power: 4 Frequency

How can the two E cores in an M1 Pro or Max equal performance of the four in the original M1? Why does running two threads complete in half the time taken to run one?

eclecticlight.co

 

[theorist9]

Not when it comes to Macs. Across the board single core is more or less the same, so I fail to see how it would matter.

M2-based are also clocked the same (M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max)

That's not quite the case. Interestingly, the 16" M2 Max MBP, specifically, has a 5% higher clock and thus 4% higher SC performance, than the other M2's (including the M2 Max in the 14" MBP; it's only the M2 Max in the 16" that has this higher clock).

M2 Max in 16" MBP = 3660 MHz; all other M2 chips = 3490 MHz.

3660/3490 = 1.05

Using GB6 SC scores for the M2 Max and Pro in the 16" MBP as an example:

2736/2638 = 1.04

As to the OP's question, you can get max SC speeds from Geekbench. More detailed info (e.g., speeds on each core when all cores are running) requires more detailed investigation.

And the reason Apple doesn't publish these is that it undersells their product, since Apple's processors outperform those from Intel and AMD with much higher clock speeds. It's only meaningful to compare clock speeds within the same or very similar architectures. If you have two chips with essentially the same architecture, then the performance varies about linearly with clock (as I showed above).

 

[hajime]

That's not quite the case. Interestingly, the 16" M2 Max MBP, specifically, has a 5% higher clock and thus 4% higher SC performance, than the other M2's (including the M2 Max in the 14" MBP; it's only the M2 Max in the 16" that has this higher clock).

M2 Max in 16" MBP = 3660 MHz; all other M2 chips = 3490 MHz.

3660/3490 = 1.05

Using GB6 SC scores for the 16" MBP as an example:

2736/2638 = 1.04

View attachment 2180940 View attachment 2180941


As to the OP's question, you can get max SC speeds from Geekbench. More detailed info (e.g., speeds on each core when all cores are running) requires more detailed investigation.

And the reason Apple doesn't publish these is that it undersells their product, since Apple's processors outperform those from Intel and AMD with much higher clock speeds. It's only meaningful to compare clock speeds within the same or very similar architectures. If you have two chips with essentially the same architecture, then the performance varies about linearly with clock (as I showed above).

As there are only two products with M2 Max, that clears my doubt. With the same number of cores, I wonder if the M2 Pro CPU in MacBook Pro 16" is the same as the one in the Mini.

 

[theorist9]

As there are only two products with M2 Max, that clears my doubt. With the same number of cores, I wonder if the M2 Pro CPU in MacBook Pro 16" is the same as the one in the Mini.

Edit: They're identical for identical core configs. But note you can get both the lower-end (left) and higher-end (right) M2 Pro core configs on the Mini, but only the higher-end config is available on the 16" MBP. To get the lower-end core config in an MBP, you'd need buy a 14"

 

[NT1440]

That's not quite the case. Interestingly, the 16" M2 Max MBP, specifically, has a 5% higher clock and thus 4% higher SC performance, than the other M2's (including the M2 Max in the 14" MBP; it's only the M2 Max in the 16" that has this higher clock).

M2 Max in 16" MBP = 3660 MHz; all other M2 chips = 3490 MHz.

3660/3490 = 1.05

Using GB6 SC scores for the M2 Max and Pro in the 16" MBP as an example:

2736/2638 = 1.04

View attachment 2180940 View attachment 2180941


As to the OP's question, you can get max SC speeds from Geekbench. More detailed info (e.g., speeds on each core when all cores are running) requires more detailed investigation.

And the reason Apple doesn't publish these is that it undersells their product, since Apple's processors outperform those from Intel and AMD with much higher clock speeds. It's only meaningful to compare clock speeds within the same or very similar architectures. If you have two chips with essentially the same architecture, then the performance varies about linearly with clock (as I showed above).

I appreciate the details (very interesting to see how things break out), but I think 4% falls under my “more or less” criteria for the vast, vast majority of use cases here.

It’s such a small difference that I can’t see it being the defining factor in a choice between a Mac or something else (the context I took from the OPs original question), if you’re deciding in this range you’ve already gone with the Mac.

 

[theorist9]

I appreciate the details (very interesting to see how things break out), but I think 4% falls under my “more or less” criteria for the vast, vast majority of use cases here.

It’s such a small difference that I can’t see it being the defining factor in a choice between a Mac or something else (the context I took from the OPs original question), if you’re deciding in this range you’ve already gone with the Mac.

Yeah, 4% is probably mostly of academic interest. I'm curious why Apple decide to apply the small increase to the M2 Max in the 16" MBP specifically. You could argue thermal reasons and battery life for it not appearing in the 14" M2 Max, but that wouldn't explain why it wasn't also featured in the 16" M2 Pro, which could handle a higher clock even better, because there's fewer cores.

 

[NT1440]

Yeah, 4% is probably mostly of academic interest. I'm curious why Apple decide to apply the small increase to the M2 Max in the 16" MBP specifically. You could argue thermal reasons and battery life for it not appearing in the 14" M2 Max, but that wouldn't explain why it wasn't also featured in the 16" M2 Pro, which could handle a higher clock even better, because there's fewer cores.

I think it has more to do with the inner workings of how Apple scales up core speeds dependent on QoS tagging. That’s my takeaway from the article in post #12.

 

[theorist9]

I think it has more to do with the inner workings of how Apple scales up core speeds dependent on QoS tagging. That’s my takeaway from the article in post #12.

Could you explain what you mean by that? I don't see how QoS tagging considerations would cause Apple to increase the max SC clock speed on the 16" M2 Max MBP beyond that of the same chip in the 14" MBP, and beyond that of the M2 Pro chip in the same 16" MBP case.

 

[RokinAmerica]

It’s such a small difference that I can’t see it being the defining factor in a choice between a Mac or something else (the context I took from the OPs original question), if you’re deciding in this range you’ve already gone with the Mac.

If not an Apple ecoperson, The issue is this, I was looking to buy a Mac PC about a year ago. Last one I bought for me was about late 90's. I have bought Mac lappys for my kids if that is what they needed for school, but I would always upgrade them.

Years later (last year) I start becoming interested in Apple pc's again. And find out that I can neither upgrade ram or storage (let alone anything else) but everything is measured in cores, even GPU. And swap. And E cores. And just more and more stuff that says... I will have to stay with what I know, mostly because I am old and stubborn, but more importantly, I love upgrading my computers. I do have a couple of old 21.5 iMacs from 2012 and 2015 I refurbed but that option is now gone.

These are the defining factors for those of us not immersed in the ecosystem. My involvement is in my 2 iPhones, myriad of ipods and my ipad.

 

[satcomer]

Beside most Mac users make video/movies with their Macs so they want how long to crunch a video! how long to shape a picture or make a digital art! That's why we don't rely just speed, with us we look a GPU cores, how natural cores and the color correction of displays! That's why you don't see simple clock rates!

 

[hajime]

Beside most Mac users make video/movies with their Macs so they want how long to crunch a video! how long to shape a picture or make a digital art! That's why we don't rely just speed, with us we look a GPU cores, how natural cores and the color correction of displays! That's why you don't see simple clock rates!

It is like Apple and youtubers are married to each other. I feel like the current Silicon Macs are mainly for youtubers.

 

[senttoschool]

They always say the new models have such and such number of cores. What about the CPU speed?
I know Apple Tech Support has no information on SSD speed. They probably also do not know about the CPU speed.
Is there a reliable source to obtain such information on M2 Max and M2 Pro on the MacBook Pro and Mini?

GHz is not CPU speed.

 

[sunny5]

The clock speed is just an advertisement spec. Are you gonna say Intel 8th gen CPU with 4ghz is identical to 13th gen CPU with 4ghz? There are so many factors to consider and therefore, it's not important to mention CPU clock speed.

 

[Boil]

Rumored M2 Ultra & M2 Extreme options for the forthcoming ASi Mac Pro with the CPU clocked at 4.2GHz...