M5 Pro and Max unveiled

Jimmyjames said:
Yeah I guess I’m put off by the headline that the Max showed little improvement when what they mean is the 14” shows little improvement when compared to the 16” M4 Max
Click to expand...

dada_dave said:
Fair, the one note of concern though is that the 16" Pro has the same CPU but with cut down memory bandwidth as the M5 Max and for some reason it's slower than the 14" M5 Max and is less efficient as well! Every previous time I've gone with the "it's the memory bandwidth" hypothesis to explain odd CB 24 results, I've usually, eventually, come to the conclusion that it wasn't. But here ... again, I don't know how else to explain this even though, as CPU bandwidth goes, the M5 Pro has a ton! (Not sure how much it can access admittedly) I mean, workstation CPU level bandwidth. So I dunno what's going on.

So it can't just be the 14"'s lack of cooling.
Click to expand...

dada_dave said:
From @JRLMustang: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...ook-pro-m5-max-and-its-new-performance-cores/



The M5 6-E-core cluster has 6MB of cache while there are a 2 clusters of 6 "P-"cores each with 8MB of cache and the 6-"S-"core cluster has 16MB.
Click to expand...
This Ars article has the M5 Max CB 2024 result at 2300. Why the M5 Pro with the same CPU only gets ~2050 while drawing >100W (basically matching the M4 Max with much higher power draw) is ... unclear to put it mildly.


Jimmyjames said:
More Cyberpunk benchmarks. The lack of increase in some scores is weird. Again from Hardware Canucks
View attachment 38321

This Warhammer 3: Total War shows a similar lack of improvement.
View attachment 38322
Click to expand...
I dunno ... driver issues?
 
dada_dave said:
This Ars article has the M5 Max CB 2024 result at 2300. Why the M5 Pro with the same CPU only gets ~2050 while drawing >100W (basically matching the M4 Max with much higher power draw) is ... unclear to put it mildly.



I dunno ... driver issues?
Click to expand...
Yeah could be. Or just a lack of optimisation overall?
 
dada_dave said:
The M5 6-E-core cluster has 6MB of cache while there are a 2 clusters of 6 "P-"cores each with 8MB of cache and the 6-"S-"core cluster has 16MB.
Click to expand...
So no 1 MB private L2 like some rumour mongers were saying?

It's interesting how M5 Pro/Max are getting by with relatively less cache compared to the competition.

SoCL2L3Total CPU cache
Apple M5 Max16 MB + 8 MB + 8 MB-32 MB
AMD Strix Halo1 MB x1664 MB80 MB
Qualcom X2 Elite Extreme16 MB + 16 MB + 12 MB44 MB
Intel Core Ultra 388H(3 MB x4) + (4 MB x3)18 MB42 MB
 
From X unfortunately but here is a test Max Weinbach did comparing a mobile 5080 on power vs M5 Max on battery. All settings maximum accept path tracing. 5080M 27 fps, M5 Max 23 fps.
1773109887543.png

With path tracing it’s 17 fps for the 5080 vs 13 fps for the M5 Max
1773110022220.png

1773110037972.png


There is a video on X of this test.
 
MerryCherry said:
So no 1 MB private L2 like some rumour mongers were saying?
Click to expand...
It's possible its a misunderstanding based on what @leman was saying that each core has a slice of L2 that isn't exactly private but is also considered "for that core", just that other cores can also see it ... unless I also misunderstood what he was saying.
MerryCherry said:
It's interesting how M5 Pro/Max are getting by with relatively less cache compared to the competition.

SoCL2L3Total CPU cache
Apple M5 Max16 MB + 8 MB + 8 MB-32 MB
AMD Strix Halo1 MB x1664 MB80 MB
Qualcom X2 Elite Extreme16 MB + 16 MB + 12 MB44 MB
Intel Core Ultra 388H(3 MB x4) + (4 MB x3)18 MB42 MB
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Apple and Qualcomm also have SLCs which function like an L3 - although their L2 also sort of functions like an L3 since it is per cluster rather than per core. Very different cache philosophy - partly because Apple's L1 is so big. Intel also has "L1.5" - which I think really is L1, or maybe I screwed that up, but I remember them adding another layer. .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top