M4 Mac Announcements

You'll have to explain that one to me. Cortex M-33's? Or would that be how many photos of Messier M33 you can process per hour? [You did mention getting into astrophotography....]

Messier 33, yes. It was this month's challenge for beginners over on Cloudy Nights, and I got a whopping 3 hours of time on it all month. But it takes about 23 minutes for my M1 Max to do a batch calibration + stack from the ~32GB data set that 3 hours produced. The work is CPU bound most of the time, and sometimes I/O bound, so I should get a rather noticeable jump.

If I had 10 hours of data, it easily would be longer than an hour to do the calibration + stack. I've got a guess on how much I can save here, but I'll wait until I have the numbers to share the guess and how off I am.
 
Last edited:
Question : have we established if Apple has caught up in the fish fingers and hungry hungry hippos benchmarks? - asking for “truth hurts” over at the other place!

it’s quite amazing to see folks arguing over how close the new M4 Max is the 4090 over at the other place.

Perhaps the big thing to consider…. What are the big incremental improvements that Apple has made, year on year…. At what power and performance…. In what form factors…

When I look at that, simply there is nothing close on the WinTel side.

I was talking with a server admin in our place today - he commented that the perf of the Mac mini Pro with 10G Ethernet makes it a very interesting for a compute dense rack option….
 
Question : have we established if Apple has caught up in the fish fingers and hungry hungry hippos benchmarks? - asking for “truth hurts” over at the other place!

it’s quite amazing to see folks arguing over how close the new M4 Max is the 4090 over at the other place.

Perhaps the big thing to consider…. What are the big incremental improvements that Apple has made, year on year…. At what power and performance…. In what form factors…

When I look at that, simply there is nothing close on the WinTel side.

I was talking with a server admin in our place today - he commented that the perf of the Mac mini Pro with 10G Ethernet makes it a very interesting for a compute dense rack option….
I don’t think there are any benchmarks out there other than the Russian ones from a couple of weeks ago (Geekbench ~3800 single core, 15000 multi-core). We should start getting them soon. If “truth hurts” is mic7hy, then it won’t matter in any case as they will just obfuscate and lie. As they did with @leman when they compared cycles render within Blender on macOS to the eevee one on Lunar Lake.

I’m almost reluctant to check it out in order to protect my mental health!
 
Speaking of which…first GB scores for M4 Pro.
1730410917242.jpeg
 
Speaking of which…first GB scores for M4 Pro.
View attachment 32396
There are eight leaked base M4 Mac scores on GB, and they all say this:

1730413298721.png

...which is the same clock as on the M4 iPad:
1730413393700.png



While the one you linked says this which, if real, means there's a 100 MHz clock bump on the Pro:

1730413325307.png


I'm imagining the marking guys begging the engineers to let the Max run even faster so they can break that 4000 point barrier on GB....

Also: Does the 16,7 model identifer mean Mini, 14" MBP, or 16" MBP?
 
Last edited:
There are eight leaked base M4 MBP scores on GB, and they all say this:

View attachment 32398
...which is the same clock as on the M4 iPad:
View attachment 32400


While the one you link says this which, if real, means there's a 100 MHz clock bump on the Pro:

View attachment 32399
Those are old ones from the Russian leakers. There are a few from the recents list that just showed up. The one I posted is the fastest. I suspect it may be the Mini?
 
Those are old ones from the Russian leakers. There are a few from the recents list that just showed up. The one I posted is the fastest. I suspect it may be the Mini?
My eight included both the older Russian base M4 scores and the most recent base M4 on Oct 30, and they all showed the same 4.41 GHz clock.
 
Sounds like you're saying all those may be been the same machines tested earlier. Or even just multiple tests of a single machine. So our sample size of base M4's for assessing clock has n=1. That's certainly possible!
Yes that’s it. To be clear. it’s a total guess!
 
Geekbench AI GPU scores see a nice FP32/16 increase of around 30/35% which matches what were seeing generally in the gpu.
1730415511832.png

GB AI CPU also has nice increases. +30-35% for FP32/16 approx.
1730415589161.png
 
Nice M4 Pro Metal score +35% roughly?
View attachment 32401
I'm calculating a 50% increase over the Metal Score listed on Primate's website for the M3 Pro: 111,119/73,810 = 1.505
1730417032000.png

And the same for the Open CL score: 69,867/46,656 = 1.497
1730417080375.png

I don't know how well that will scale to the M4 Max, but if we use the 1.84 x scaling of Open CL scores between the M3 Max and M3 Pro, that would give ≈130k, which would put it about half-way between a 4070 laptop GPU (107k) and a 4080 laptop GPU (161k). That would be much better comparative GPU peformance than that of the M3 Max which, at 86k, had about the same Open CL score as a 3060 laptop GPU (84k).

If we scale by 1.84^2 to project an M4 Ultra's Open CL score, that's 237k, about the same as the 238k score of the 4080 desktop. Though by the M4 Ultra's release date, the 5000 series should be out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top