Apple's M2 Ultra Seemingly Can't Beat AMD and Intel Rivals
Not enough clocks, not enough cores.
Apple's M2 Ultra is a mighty processor with 24 general-purpose cores and up to 76 integrated GPU cores. It is also probably faster than Intel's 28-core Xeon W found in the 2019 Mac Pro, so new Mac Pro workstation owners will feel a significant performance uplift. But according to a purported benchmark, this CPU cannot beat competitors from AMD and Intel in Geekbench 5 (via @VadimYuryev) as they boast very high clocks or feature a formidable core count.
Heavy-duty workstation-grade processors are different from desktop and server CPUs in that they should deliver both very responsive performance (like all client processors) and consistently high performance under heavy workloads. This means that they must feature high instruction-per-clock performance, high clocks, high core count, support for loads of memory, and feature loads of PCIe lanes. AMD's Ryzen Threadripper Pro W5995X and Intel's Xeon W9-3495X comply with these requirements with their 64 and 56 cores, respectively. In a nutshell, they use server silicon configured to offer extremely high clocks when needed.
When it comes to Apple's M2 Ultra, it consists of two M2 Max system-on-chips that were designed primarily for MacBook Pro and Mac Studio machines. Those workstations have moderate power consumption and do not support expandability. M2 Max was not exactly architected for high clocks or for expandability, as you can only install so much memory and so much storage in a compact PC. Instead of boosting clocks to extremes when a computationally heavy workload emerges, M2 uses built-in special-purpose accelerators. It was also not designed for an extreme core count because of power and cooling limitations. While two M2 Maxes look formidable on paper, they cannot boast clocks of Intel's Core i9-13900K or the core count of AMD's Ryzen Threadripper Pro W5995WX.
Header Cell - Column 0 | M2 Ultra | Xeon W9-3495X | Ryzen Threadripper Pro 5995WX | Core i9-13900K |
---|---|---|---|---|
General specifications | 24C/24T, up to 3.68 GHz | 56C/112T, 1.90 GHz - 4.60 GHz, 105MB L3 | 64C/128T, 2.70 GHz - 4.50 GHz, 256MB L3 | 8P+16E/32T, 3.0 GHz - 5.80 GHz, 68MB L2+L3 cache |
Single-Core | Integer | 1793 | 1522 | 1316 | 2016 |
Single-Core | Float | 2149 | 1815 | 1719 | 2464 |
Single-Core | Crypto | 2912 | 3926 | 3832 | 5860 |
Single-Core | Score | 1956 | 1730 | 1563 | 2343 |
Row 5 - Cell 0 | Row 5 - Cell 1 | Row 5 - Cell 2 | Row 5 - Cell 3 | Row 5 - Cell 4 |
Multi-Core | Integer | 24532 | 59183 | 46049 | 28379 |
Multi-Core | Float | 32195 | 55393 | 49414 | 31320 |
Multi-Core | Crypto | 46817 | 36466 | 44987 | 22280 |
Multi-Core | Score | 27945 | 56910 | 47005 | 28956 |
Link | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/21305974 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/211458582 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/19923348 | https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20655426 |
This is why the benchmark result shows Apple's M2 Ultra cannot beat Intel's Core i9-13900K in single-thread workloads and even fall behind in multi-core workloads in Geekbench 5. Intel's desktop offering supports simultaneous multi-threading and can process up to 32 threads instantly. Compared to its actual rivals — AMD's Ryzen Threadripper Pro W5995X and Intel's Xeon W9-3495X — it easily beats them in single-thread workloads but is dramatically slower when more cores are needed.
Some may argue that Geekbench 5 is a synthetic benchmark that does not reflect performance in real-world applications, which is a fair argument. But it gives a sense of what to expect from CPUs regarding their compute capabilities without any special-purpose accelerators. And this brings us to the fact that Apple's M2 SoCs have plenty of accelerators inside. Therefore, it may not need to have high clocks or extreme core count to offer great performance in many workstation-grade workloads.
Then again, with so much compute horsepower under the hood, AMD's and Intel's workstation processors are designed to handle even the most demanding workloads. That said, it remains to be seen whether Apple's Mac Pro can actually beat workstations based on AMD's and Intel's CPUs in workstation applications.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
bit_user This is what I've been saying. The new Mac Pro isn't a proper replacement, for lack of cores and memory capacity.Reply
These cores & SoCs were designed primarily for phones and laptops, respectively. Therefore, Apple optimized them for perf/W, rather than outright performance & scalability.
I've heard rumors that Apple is working on a server CPU. If true, it should feature in the next Mac Pro. If not, they could always source ARM CPUs from someone like Ampere, but I doubt they'll do it because those won't have the same ISA extensions and accelerators as their other products, and I doubt they'd do anything to hurt portability between their various machines.
Some may argue that Geekbench 5 is a synthetic benchmark that does not reflect performance in real-world applications
So, run SPECbench 2017. That's comprised of 22 real-world, multi-threaded apps. It's designed to answer exactly these sorts of questions. -
JamesJones44
100% agree. Apple simply put does not have a desktop class, let alone workstation class CPU. Their solution of using laptop class CPUs for desktop is hopefully just filler, but if they sell to well Apple may just stick to the strategy.bit_user said:This is what I've been saying. The new Mac Pro isn't a proper replacement, for lack of cores and memory capacity.
These cores & SoCs were designed primarily for phones and laptops, respectively. Therefore, Apple optimized them for perf/W, rather than outright performance & scalability.
I've heard rumors that Apple is working on a server CPU. If true, it should feature in the next Mac Pro. If not, they could always source ARM CPUs from someone like Ampere, but I doubt they'll do it because those won't have the same ISA extensions and accelerators as their other products.
So, run SPECbench 2017. That's comprised of 22 real-world, multi-threaded apps. It's designed to answer exactly these sorts of questions. -
bit_user
Hey, I didn't say that. I think the M2 Ultra is a very respectable desktop CPU. Just not a proper workstation powerhouse.JamesJones44 said:Apple simply put does not have a desktop class, let alone workstation class CPU.
You actually can't buy the Ultra-tier chips in a laptop. The strongest laptop CPU they offer is the Max, which is exactly half of an Ultra.JamesJones44 said:Their solution of using laptop class CPUs for desktop is hopefully just filler
If you scroll the table over, you can see how it compares vs. i9-13900K. Granted, Intel pulls a decisive win, but generally not by much. The lone exception is multi-threaded float, where the M2 Ultra actually beats it!
Intel's performance margin also seems less impressive, when you consider the machines' relative power budgets. I don't know if there's yet power data available on the M2 Ultra, but the M1 Ultra-powered Mac Studio consumed 215 W, measured at the wall.
https://support.apple.com/en-am/HT213100
That's PSU-limited, meaning it should cover a full CPU + GPU load.
"Max" is defined as the maximum possible power draw based on the computer's power supply rating.
It would be interesting to know what a CPU-only load consumes. -
JamesJones44 bit_user said:You actually can't buy the Ultra-tier chips in a laptop. The strongest laptop CPU they offer is the Max, which is exactly half of an Ultra.
True. However, the Ultra is largely just two stitched together Max chips which is a laptop class part (largely) which is why I don't consider them desktop/workstation class. It may give respectable desktop performance, but I would still classify it as a laptop targeted component. -
bit_user
That makes it sound as if they weren't designed to be connected, which they very much were. They have a 2.5 TB/s cache-coherent interconnect, which is/was the fastest ever chip-to-chip link by a wide margin.JamesJones44 said:the Ultra is largely just two stitched together Max chips
It wasn't a mere afterthought, but very much designed-in from the outset.
Yes, the Max was designed to be used (standalone) in laptops, and therefore features all the compromises you tend to find in laptop SoCs. That much is fair, and it's where I started in this thread.JamesJones44 said:It may give respectable desktop performance, but I would still classify it as a laptop targeted component. -
JamesJones44
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wasn't intended or wasn't designed to work like that or that it was somehow a simple engineering feat. However, at its core it's scaling two of the same parts into a single part. Similar to dual socket compatible CPUs, which typically have design considerations for woking in that configuration as well.bit_user said:That makes it sound as if they weren't designed to be connected, which they very much were. They have a 2.5 TB/s cache-coherent interconnect, which is/was the fastest ever chip-to-chip link by a wide margin.
It wasn't a mere afterthought, but very much designed-in from the outset. -
Yes, they are working on it, but since last few years there has been complete silence.bit_user said:I've heard rumors that Apple is working on a server CPU.
Kind of OT discussion:
Speaking of Apple's role play in the server space, instead of making server solutions themselves, I think it is far more realistic that Apple cooperate with Amazon, Ampere, Google and others to establish ARM as a strong alternative to x86. They all have an interest in this.
With ARM all the big players can build their own custom solutions tailored to their needs in a way they never could with x86.
But there are two parts to this puzzle. You need the server hardware but you also need popular desktop and laptop computers running ARM. If these are not prevalent, then developers will not develop sufficient experience with ARM. Linus Torvalds has been quite clear that your home computer needs to run the same hardware as your server.
But can Apple really capture the server "market space" on their own ?
Actually, technically speaking., Apple servers already existed. Apart from iCloud hosting and Apple's own data centers, Apple offered MacOS servers since at least 1996, when it sold complete server racks. But yet today, these are little more than repurposed Mac workstations.
Apple has an advantage here, in that they control the whole widget, but that only applies if BOTH their hardware and software is used. So if we want to get the full advantage of heterogeneous computing power from Apple, we actually need to run macOS in the cloud, not Linux, not FreeBSD and certainly not Windows.
If not, Apple would have to wait for industry standards supported by Linux, BSD, Windows and others to emerge and then tailor their hardware to those standards. This is unlikely to be something Apple agrees with.
Also I am skeptical that Apple would want to sell solutions not running their software.
This puts potential users in a bind. It helps that macOS is a Unix operating system. That means a lot of Linux and BSD software will run fine on it with minimal change. Yet macOS is not really optimized for server use.
Linux kernel developers are very focused on this and that drives their development efforts. macOS e.g. is highly tuned towards things like low latency to deal with things such as real time audio and video. These are use cases which matter to professionals working on video and audio. That is a deep part of the Apple DNA and heritage.
Sure we can run Linux on macOS through virtualization, but then you have also lost access to Apple specific frameworks such as Core Audio, Core ML etc which utilize custom Apple co-processors. -
hotaru.hino What I want to know is the power consumption during these tests. That's what Apple tends to tout with their silicon.Reply
On an individual scale, sure it's not as exciting. But if you start bying these up and/or stick them in an enclosed space, that starts to add up. Like sure, a i9-12900K can maybe match or come a little ahead of an M1 Ultra in a Handbrake run, but it'll consume at least 50% more power getting there. -
JamesJones44 Metal Messiah. said:Speaking of Apple's role play in the server space, instead of making server solutions themselves, I think it is far more realistic that Apple cooperate with Amazon, Ampere, Google and others to establish ARM as a strong alternative to x86. They all have an interest in this.
This actually isn't that big of a leap in theory. Amazon already offers their Graviton based EC2 instances which use ARM processors. They cost less to use than their Intel and AMD counterparts and have decent performance (though not quite as good as the latest Intel/AMD performance, but match one gen back). AWS already allows allocating ARM based Macs, though these are currently largely targeted at Mobile development.
I've not tried Google's ARM class instances yet, but ARM is starting to get a foothold in cloud based deployments because they cost less and have decent enough performance for the average application. -
jkflipflop98 Raptor Lake is a beast. It runs over everything on a per-core basis. In multithreading it has 50%+ performance with only 25% of the threads.Reply