Yup, that's what I thought. Compared to mobile parts. Now, someone suggested that M1Ultra is two Max parts doubled up. So taking those numbers, doubling them up and comparing to desktop/workstation parts from AMD & Intel, the picture looks decidedly less rosy..
So again, I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have a solid offering here, only that their claim that it's the "World's Most Powerful Chip For a Personal Computer" is a flat-out deliberate lie, and they KNOW it.
So ... you didn't read the entirety of my post, let alone actually look at the source? Come on, man. This is lazy. Bottom of the page:
The Ryzen 9 5950X and Core i9 11900K are decidedly non-mobile parts.
No, there are no workstation CPUs in those charts, but the comparison includes the fastest desktop CPUs at the time, and the M1 beats one outright and ties with the other. For MT performance the story is a bit different as the integer performance is mostly par for the course with 8 core competitors (5800X), but FP performance is in another league entirely, beating even the 5950X.
If this is your argument
Did you actually click the link they provided? Hmm?? Click the link and READ the words, don't just look at the pictures. Context is important.
then ... let's see:
The M1 Max lands as the top performing laptop chip in SPECint2017, just shy of being the best CPU overall which still goes to the 5950X, but is able to take and maintain the crown from the M1 in the FP suite.
In the aggregate scores – there’s two sides. On the SPECint work suite, the M1 Max lies +37% ahead of the best competition, it’s a very clear win here and given the power levels and TDPs, the performance per watt advantages is clear. The M1 Max is also able to outperform desktop chips such as the 11900K, or AMD’s 5800X.
In the SPECfp suite, the M1 Max is in its own category of silicon with no comparison in the market. It completely demolishes any laptop contender, showcasing 2.2x performance of the second-best laptop chip. The M1 Max even manages to outperform the 16-core 5950X – a chip whose package power is at 142W, with rest of system even quite above that. It’s an absolutely absurd comparison and a situation we haven’t seen the likes of.
On the CPU side, doubling up on the performance cores is an evident way to increase performance – the competition also does so with some of their designs. How Apple does it differently, is that it not only scaled the CPU cores, but everything surrounding them. It’s not just 4 additional performance cores, it’s a whole new performance cluster with its own L2. On the memory side, Apple has scaled its memory subsystem to never before seen dimensions, and this allows the M1 Pro & Max to achieve performance figures that simply weren’t even considered possible in a laptop chip. The chips here aren’t only able to outclass any competitor laptop design, but also competes against the best desktop systems out there, you’d have to bring out server-class hardware to get ahead of the M1 Max – it’s just generally absurd.
I don't see how any of this supports this somehow being only compared to mobile chips, or otherwise not competitive in any way. ADL has been launched later, with significant IPC improvements which surpasses both AMD's best and the M1:
Source.
In MT, the M1 Max (8 P-cores) is still competitive in FP with the 16c32t 5950X and the 16c24t 12900K, but falls behind in integer operations.
My claim is based on factual information and has merit. The benchmarks done so far do not and can not support Apples claim.
It really, really isn't. You're taking people posting sources that directly contradict your arguments, claiming they say otherwise, and instead of quoting or linking just keep repeating "you're missing context, I have the facts". This is simply not true.
To be clear: nobody here is claiming that Apple's M1 SoCs are the fastest CPUs out there, bar none, period, in every use case. Nobody is saying that, or anything remotely close to that. What people seem to be arguing, and what I'm saying, is that they are highly competitive in a relatively broad range of applications (at staggering levels of efficiency) and blow the competition out of the water in a certain selection of workloads as well as in power efficiency. There are absolutely situations in which they lose outright - there's no way an 8P+2E CPU can beat, for example, a 32P (64t) competitor with even halfway decent IPC and clocks if the workload scales well in parallel. But what Apple are achieving with their chips is nonetheless highly impressive, and crucially, they aren't even comparing themselves to those chips.
So once again, if Apple were to have claimed that they have the most powerful SOC in the world, that claim, worded in that way, would have merit and be believable. However, their statement, as worded, is baseless and patently false. It is a deliberate and laughable lie.
It's marketing. The caveats are always there - from their perspective, it is true, as for them their benchmarks and use cases are what matters. That doesn't mean it's
universally true, and it should never be treated as such, but you're going
way too far in the negative here, presenting the actual, real-world performance of these chips as worse than it actually is.
Make no mistake, I revere Steve Jobs, the man was a brilliant visionary. However, Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs and current Apple is a shadow of the greatness of Mr Jobs.
That ... I guess explains a lot? Jobs might have had strokes of brilliance, but he mainly was a megalomaniacal proto-fascist who routinely abused his employees and made
tons of mistakes. A lot if not most of his success rests on the cult of personality he accrued through his career, as that helped hype up the successes and minimize the failures. The most "great" thing about Jobs was luck, timing and circumstance: having a few good ideas at a time and place where he could (and with the material means to) realize them; coming back to Apple as they were about to go under and doing an okay job; seeing and seizing a few specific (but hardly unique) opportunities in the early 2000s. Few of his ideas were unique, he was first to few of his ideas, but he had the force of personality and lack of care for the people surrounding him to force his will through at the right moments. If that's "greatness" to you, then I would really suggest you reconsider some of your values. Abusers do not deserve reverence, no matter what they nominally achieve on the backs of their victims. You're buying into the absolutely worst aspect of Apple PR with this view.
There is a difference between marketing and false advertising. They also have a habit of exaggerating, and in this instance, blatantly lying.
The problem is: they aren't. They're being extremely selective with their wording, contextualizing everything and making sure that everythign has several variables - performance at X power; relative performance at X power, etc. Most statements include a relatively specific workload. They list extensive comparison notes, including comparison CPUs,
at the bottom of the Mac Studio page. They do mix and match things, at times comparing to the 12900K, at times comparing to previous Intel Mac SKUs (Mac Pro, iMac Pro), etc. Of course they're selective too: they compare only to a 16-core Mac Pro, despite it going to 28 cores. They're also milking architectural differences to make themselves look good - their 10c comparison in their launch video is against a 6P+4E 12600K ("similar MT performance at 65% less power"). But their statements are
very carefully couched to make them defensible. They say things like "M1 Ultra Provides industry leading desktop-class performance and power efficiency". Not HEDT; not workstation; not performance alone: desktop-class, and performance
and efficiency. That is a defensible statement; but it borders close on not being one, and is easily misread as saying more than it does. You can absolutely critique them for their benchmarks being selective, their comparisons being selective, etc. And I mostly agree. But they aren't
wrong.
Here's the issue: you're taking your knowledge of actual reality and applying it to Apple's statements
while ignoring the caveats included in them. That undermines your critique, and makes your claims of them "blatantly lying" false: you're skipping over every reservation and caveat made. If someone tells you their Fiat Panda is the fastest car on their block, and nobody else on their block even owns a car, critiquing them for not comparing it to a Ferrari or for not pointing that out is missing the point. In a way, you're not wrong:
you're reading what they want you to read - that this is the most powerful computer ever. But you're not reading
what they're actually saying, which isn't that. Hence you're actually
falling for their PR spin while being critical of it, which not only renders your critique a poor fit but ultimately helps them. What would be accurate would be to acknowledge that what they are achieving in those specific comparisons is impressive (which it is), but that the comparisons are selective and not representative of the whole truth. Instead, you're making nonsense claims like they're saying this is the most powerful CPU ever (they never do) and that they're outright lying (again, not true).
Thus you're rendering your critique ineffectual and making yourself come off as ideologically biased against Apple, entrenching dumb tech tribalism and hampering any useful discussion. This
helps Apple, by painting PC users as reactionary naysayers refusing to acknowledge the qualities of their products; it helps build a perception of progressiveness and superiority on their part. Don't be a marketing tool for Apple, please.
