Probably to make it a bit more appealing to performance-oriented users. It does make sense that “Max” is faster than other members of the family.
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.
Why Apple does not list the CPU speed of Silicon Macs?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably to make it a bit more appealing to performance-oriented users. It does make sense that “Max” is faster than other members of the family.
buy the most mac you can afford. You are splitting hairs.
Hundreds (if not thousands) of YT videos with drive speed tests. Unless you are hitting the drive all day/night with file transfers, pftt. or in the habit of transferring 500 GBs around on the daily. (FWIW my external Tbolt drive can transfer 500 GB of "stuff" in about 3 minutes) IF thats a big deal for you, just stay away from minimum specs on whatever you get.
We have 4 M1 macs, none of them are owned by "YouTubers" unless you count watching YT videos on it as a "youtuber"
That's kind of a weird statement, especially since both benchmarks and real-world tests put Apple Silicon Macs far ahead of similar Intel-based Macs for virtually all tasks.
Most benchmarks and real-world tests are related to video editing, photo editing, etc. I don't do those things. Even Apple Silicon Macs are 1000000 times faster than Intel-based Macs, it is not my concern because they cannot run Windows and Linux applications natively.
Most folks (almost all?) buy Macs to run macOS. It's weird that you are looking at a Mac to run Windows or Linux.
If you have no interest in Apple Silicon, why spend so much time talking about it? I mean, I would understand if you had some academic interest or wanted to compare technology, but so far it seems that your perspective is fairly utilitarian. What do you expect to achieve from these discussions?
You can solve that with a cheap headless PC and just Remote Desktop into it if Parallels and Windows for ARM isn't sufficient.
Macs will never run Intel-based OSes ever again. So if that's what you need, you'll need to look elsewhere. One day, perhaps, Windows for ARM might be possible in a Bootcamp-type situation.
As others have mentioned, the Ghz race is pointless these days, and this isn't even the first time it's happened. I remember back when I used to build my own gaming rigs, and there was a time when AMD was kind of giving Intel a run for its money too, as they were becoming known among gamers for being able to give you more power per cycle and very tolerant to overclocking on top of that. There have been so many resets on what the Ghz spec even means to performance overall that you just don't see it promoted like you used to.
On top of that, Apple has always tried to keep the "speeds and feeds" talk to a minimum, even though they do seem to indulge themselves a bit when it comes to talking about their homegrown silicon.
On top of that, Apple has always tried to keep the "speeds and feeds" talk to a minimum, even though they do seem to indulge themselves a bit when it comes to talking about their homegrown silicon.
That is a very good suggestion but...
1. I am considering a 16+ inch laptop that has no fan noise, no backlight bleed and no IPS glow. Too bad after waiting for several years, there seems to be no such Windows laptop.
2. In the Intel Mac era, in addition to Windows and Linux, I also developed things under MacOS. Right now those files are scattered across different drives. I don't feel comfortable with that and feel kind of missing something. I would like to consolidate all those files developed in the Intel Mac era in one machine.
3. Recently I fancy the idea of using a Mac with external storage as an ad hoc SMB file server and NAS. Is it better to do it under Mac OS rather than Windows?
Basically the following two posts summarize my dissatisfactions with Apple's direction under TC and Silicon Macs:
5 Things We Hate About Apple Silicon Macs
While the media is quick to praise Apple silicon Macs for their performance and efficiency, there are some things we really hate about them.
Under ‘It’s a closed Hardware platform’ of
Two reasons why I am skipping Apple Silicon Macs
And why you should think twice before buying Apple hardware
I am also unhappy with Apple intentionally slowing down the SSD of base models of M2 MACs.
Since I have been working at home since the pandemic, having a laptop is not essential but I could still work anywhere at home with such flexibility. Moving a Mini, keyboard, mouse and a large screen is a way to do it. I considered to just buy the cheapest Mac instead of a MacBook Pro 16". However, of the three Mini I have purchased, they all have some (BT, WiFi, audio) issues.
Last edited:
I have been doing that but there are some limitations such as some input devices developed for Windows PC not working properly when connected to a PC from Mac using remote desktop.
I really miss Intel-based Macs, 17" MacBook Pro, and the Apple under Steve.
Last edited:
Apple under Steve ended 12 years ago. Time to move on.
Yes, 10% is a small difference. I doubt you would notice it unless you measured it with some kind of benchmark. Also a 10% faster CPU clock does not means the computer is 10% faster. What matters more is the number of cores, the mamory bandwidth and the GPU cores and the SSD. This is easy to see, the new base model M2 mini is slower than the M1 based Mac Studio, even with the M2's faster clock speed.
A new CPU can perform better with single core apps than the previous model even though it runs at a slower speed. It just depends on other changes in the CPU's architecture.
Plus, since Apple controls both the OS and the hardware, the software is written to take advantage of changes in CPU design.
At one time raw CPU speed was a worthwhile measure of performance when comparing new chips to old, but, in most cases, that time has passed.
-kp
Basically the following two posts summarize my dissatisfactions with Apple's direction under TC and Silicon Macs:
5 Things We Hate About Apple Silicon Macs
While the media is quick to praise Apple silicon Macs for their performance and efficiency, there are some things we really hate about them.www.makeuseof.com
Under ‘It’s a closed Hardware platform’ of
Two reasons why I am skipping Apple Silicon Macs
And why you should think twice before buying Apple hardwaremedium.com
I usually don't respond but I have to mention... those two posts are petty reasons and many of the points just come down to: they don't want to pay the premium Apple is asking and they want to be able to install third-party RAM and SSD to reduce costs.
Complaining about lack of x86 support is a petty thing because the other way around is true: you can't easily run ARM version of many things under x86 either. Can I natively boot ARM-based OSes like Linux or MacOS on an x86 device? No. Can I even run Windows 11 ARM in a VM on an x86 laptop? Actually, also no.
It's one thing to say your x86 app doesn't have an alternative for ARM or has not been ported yet, but it's another to suggest somehow that everything else needs to be compatible with x86. That's not an issue for Mac users.
Similarly, RAM is now no longer upgradeable because it's embedded in the SoC. In fact, except for gaming laptops and workstation laptops, typical Ultrabooks now also have their RAM soldered as well so you can't upgrade those either. The only saving grace is that you can still upgrade SSD in most Windows laptops. But all the same, it's not an issue for Mac users.
Thing is... if you know you're already paying a lot for these devices, why are you nitpicking $100 or $200 out of... $3000? Or $4000? Mac has never really been "affordable", especially at the higher end of things, so I don't really see a point to these complaints about costs.
Also fundamentally, this is why Apple no longer lists CPU "speed" or whatever. It's kind of pointless. We're comparing bananas and oranges. Mac computers are now fundamentally different from Windows and so you can't just compare them based on numbers anymore. If I need a Windows device for anything, I'd buy an x86 laptop. Otherwise, I'd just buy a MacBook for everything else.
That would make sense if performance-oriented users actually knew about it, but in general they don't. Apple doesn't advertise it, nor does it appear that they include that info. in whatever informational package accompanies review samples—it's not mentioned in most reviews. And the ≈5% difference may be too small to be noticeable.
Last edited:
They don’t tell you because they learned from the PPC GHz wars. They also spent big $$ telling you how superior they are and the real numbers would have the average consumer thinking they are not that fast. It’s a marketing choice. Don’t have to defend what you don’t say.
It’s largely irrelevant now. Both a 4 cylinder and 8 cylinder engine run at the same rpm but have vastly different real world performance. They also have vastly different energy consumption. Add in a hybrid 4 cylinder, one that burns ethanol, turbos, and electric, and that’s the state of the cpu universe today. it’s a multivariate problem and a simple measure like rpm grossly oversimplifies the calculation of fitness for purpose.
thats a decent analogy. My SUV has a 4-cyl engine. Also has a turbo charger, and a super charger and a battery = 400+ HP combined.
Your articles are too specific, underlying what the "writer" is missing. First article: No SSD and Ram configuring? Simple, purchase with enough of both to future proof. No BootCamp? I dont want to run windows. Ever. Never. Its why I bought a mac. Virtulization? See last statement. Its costs $$? Duh. Thanks for the heads up Captian Obvious. Been that way for 30 years. GPU? If you are a gamer, get a PC or a console.
IMHO, if you cant escape windows/linux/whatever, then just forget about a mac.
SSD downgrading is a moot point, A "power" user would never buy a base model Mac.
Your articles are too specific, underlying what the "writer" is missing. First article: No SSD and Ram configuring? Simple, purchase with enough of both to future proof. No BootCamp? I dont want to run windows. Ever. Never. Its why I bought a mac. Virtulization? See last statement. Its costs $$? Duh. Thanks for the heads up Captian Obvious. Been that way for 30 years. GPU? If you are a gamer, get a PC or a console.
IMHO, if you cant escape windows/linux/whatever, then just forget about a mac.
SSD downgrading is a moot point, A "power" user would never buy a base model Mac.
Last edited:
Apple Silicon systems seem to have basically arrived at practical performance saturation, at least as far as the CPU goes. The really heavy work is handled by the GPU and other specialized hardware. There is just not much need for moar capability from the processor (except perhaps to serve you more ads more efficiently).
And anyway, the different SoC units run at different clock speeds. The E-cores run at something like 2.5GHz, the P-cores around 3.2~3.7, the GPU cores somewhere around 1.5. Apple runs the whole thing at the most practical speed – run the clock up too much and you end up starving the cores for data, which ends up being a waste of energy. There is a sweet spot, and for AS, it is not much faster than they are already running it at.
And anyway, the different SoC units run at different clock speeds. The E-cores run at something like 2.5GHz, the P-cores around 3.2~3.7, the GPU cores somewhere around 1.5. Apple runs the whole thing at the most practical speed – run the clock up too much and you end up starving the cores for data, which ends up being a waste of energy. There is a sweet spot, and for AS, it is not much faster than they are already running it at.
For everyday tasks, absolutely. For professional workloads, depends. For example, developers and scientists can always use more COU oomph.
Not to mention that the marketing on M-series is fairly transparent as is. There is a very clear intrinsic performance ordering between various models both between and within families (with higher numbered models being faster and M < Pro ~< Max in general). x86 CPUs advertise clocks a) for historical reasons and b) to help differentiate many dozens of SKUs with vastly different performance characteristics. Apple doesn't have that need as their chips are more streamlined.
Because it is no longer an indicator of anything. A higher of lower clock speed don’t mean much when there are other factors like type of cores and other accelerators that help with performance.
SSD speed, however, imo is important, as it’s can be a direct factor into how fast a system write/read big files. And Apple won’t disclose it since it’s one thing that they cut corners of, even on their “Pro” machines.
That’s not all macs are good for. This is like saying all windows is good for is playing video games but that’s not true either.
It really isn't. Just more streamlined and more balanced compared to other systems. PC industry has long been about mixing and matching components and specs. Apple instead can adopt a more holistic approach to system design (and being able to throw more money at the problem doesn't hurt either).
When one looks at it carefully, Apple Silicon is driven by two main design principles: specialise processing, unify storage. They replicate similar functionality across vastly different hardware units, each optimised for a specific niche, all of which are integrated into the same memory hierarchy. This is what gives them their unmatched energy efficiency across various workloads and makes their designs forward-looking. Of course, all this comes at the expense of considerable software and hardware complexity (as of M2 they have at least four separate parallel data processors), but they can manage this as they control the software layer. It's all very neat, really.
And this kind of design is very difficult to pull off on the PC, simply because it won't work with the mix and match approach. It's not really feasible to design a single memory hierarchy in such a system, and specialisation is hard as well, because you will run into massive software support issues. Nvidia is actually a good example of well executed specialisation — they achieved tremendous success in growing markets by incorporating dedicated matrix processing units into their GPUs. This is specialised hardware that operates using its own set of rules, but by integrating these capabilities into CUDA, Nvidia was able to deliver a controlled ecosystem which makes it easy and profitable to develop software that uses this units. Note how similar this strategy is to what Apple is doing. On the other hand Intels AVX512 is an example of specialisation gone wrong.
Last edited: