First benchmarks: Apple’s M1‌ Max absolutely destroys Intel

The first Geekbench benchmarks for Apple’s high-end ‌M1‌ Max chip featuring a 10-core CPU and 32-core GPU have appeared and, as expected, it’s not good news for beleaguered Intel.

M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max form a family of chips that lead the industry in performance, custom technologies, and power efficiency.
M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max form a family of chips that lead the industry in performance, custom technologies, and power efficiency.

Juli Clover for MacRumors:

The chip features a single-core score of 1749 and a multi-core score of 11542, which offers double the multi-core performance of the ‌M1‌ chip that’s in the 13-inch MacBook Pro machine.

Based on these numbers, the ‌M1‌ Max outperforms all Mac chips with the exception of the Mac Pro and iMac models equipped with Intel’s high-end 16 to 24-core Xeon chips. The 11542 multi-core score is on par with the late 2019 ‌Mac Pro‌ that is equipped with a 12-core Intel Xeon W-3235.

We should be seeing additional ‌M1‌ Max and ‌M1‌ Pro Geekbench results in the coming days as the new MacBook Pro models are expected to arrive to customers next Tuesday and media review units will be going out even sooner than that.

MacDailyNews Take: Using Geekbench 5, we just benchmarked a 16-inch MacBook Pro (2.4 GHz 8-Core Intel i9, 32GB 2667MHz DDR4 RAM, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8GB, Turbo Boost Enabled) and, with fans whirring like a 747, got these results:

1114 single-core, 6872 multi-core (afterwards, the Mac’s aluminum case is very warm to the touch with a CPU temp of 196°F, fans running at top speed).

On the road, we have to disable Turbo Boost (using Turbo Boost Switcher Pro) in order to get any reasonable battery life from the machines (even then, the inefficient Intel i9 is a battery vampire). With Turbo Boost disabled, the machines benchmark just 619 single-core, 4565 multi-core.

Beleaguered Intel ought to be embarrassed.

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!

15 Comments

  1. How does it it put a fire under anyone’s a$$? Apple will not be using Intel chips henceforth, and no PC maker will be using Apple chips. Just like the old days. That competition is over, for better or worse. There is no competition. Apple chips are what we will get for the foreseeable future, and though the rest of the industry has pretty much moved on to ARM, the rest will continue to evolve, too. This is different than the days of RISC vs. Intel; what Apple has done is proprietary, and the rest of the industry will not stand still. It actually does remind me more of the Power PC days, when Apple was so divergent that eventually no one would support them, and that is not necessarily a good thing, at least on the computing side. Their mobile business will likely flourish into eternity, but we still have to make things for the mobile experience on a capable machine.

    1. James, there are a few differences between then and now. The PowerPC chips where only used in Apple computers, IBM servers and Microsoft gaming machines (at the end). IBM had pretty much taken over the manufacturing and was looking for speed at any cost while Apple needed power management so they could use the chips in laptops, thus Apple made the switch.

      Today the Apple silicon is used in iPhone and iPad with a multitude of software developers supporting those platforms. Apple is now moving their laptop and desktop computers to their own silicon knowing that there is a massive programmer base already developing for it.

      The switch from Motorola 68040 to PowerPC was a huge undertaking with no preexisting software support for the new platform. Switch from Intel x86 to Apple Silicon is a huge undertaking with massive support from an already existing developer core.

      1. Motorola is dead, IBM is soon to be dead and Intel well if they don’t adapt they will be joining the club. What do they have in common? They said no to better, faster, smaller CPU’s when asked by Steve Jobs….

    2. Think you have answered your own question Arm is a massive and increasing player along with other RISC hips coming on line with much potential. It’s no longer a world of dominant Intel and tingly market share PPC. Equally neither is it a situation of a faster pc chip against a thirsty Server design unable to exploit its full power, indeed that scenario is now in reality reversed except with the new kid on the block having the greater potential to exploit its inherent power and with far better battery life to boot. Intel will need to transform the design of its chips to please its customers but will likely still be plagued by the way it addresses memory to ensure backwards compatibility otherwise more cores and more speed are crippled by increasingly more heat which is presently the only means to produce superficially better performance at the very top end … essentially problematical server chips ironically.

      Now Intel does have its plans to try to reverse some of its inherent design problems in theses present chips but only time will tell if it can effectively turn a pigs ear into something resembling a silk purse. Meanwhile it’s customers will have future options to follow Apples lead and go Arm if MS and developers gets their act together in their support and it will be looking at events closely too. But Apple are not an outlier in the way they were with PPC far from it indeed developers would be terribly short sighted to ignore Arm considering its power in the market place and domination of increasingly important mobile sector.

    3. You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed eh, James? What moron will buy Intel now? You? That would make sense. We should light a fire under your a$$ to see if it will grow you a few more brain cells. Sadly it will only grow too a few more burn cells on your bumme. Sad.

  2. Apple Silicon replaces Intel when the relevant Mac is undeniably better (for most uses) than the Intel Mac being replaced. For example, previous Intel 16-inch Intel MBP. This time next year, M2 Max will be in new Mac Pro (and maybe “pro” config of larger iMac). And that’ll be two-year point of transition.

  3. “Based on these numbers, the ‌M1‌ Max outperforms all Mac chips with the exception of the Mac Pro and iMac models equipped with Intel’s high-end 16 to 24-core Xeon chips.”

    Not so fast. When Apple makes chips twice two four times faster than 16 to 24-core Xeon, only then, will the claim absolutely destroys Intel ring TRUE. Also, when Apple beats PCs in gaming, AGAIN, will the claim absolutely destroys Intel and others ring TRUE…

    1. Desperate or naive take your choice in this comment. Intel needs more than games and effectively server chips to thrive, survive maybe but it needs a wider market to be competitive and profitable or indeed to even finance development though I suspect a desperate Govt will help there in fear of. China. Losing the mobile war was bad enough losing much more would be potentially disastrous position for them thus the statement you disagree with. You can’t afford to lose the mainstream and in so doing in performance and battery life so markedly only the fact that Apple keeps the goodies to itself ensures Intels future in all honesty.

      1. I think the one here that is desperate and naive totally deflected and dodged directly responding to my post.

        I’m talking about Apple chips that blow every Intel and AMD chip out of the water in speed and performance to claim the title.

        What part do you NOT understand?…

  4. In reality Intel needs to pray it can reimagine it’s own chip design/platform and sell that expectation to its customers quickly enough to not find itself in the unenviable position of struggling against Arm fabs outperforming their chips by even 1.5 to 2 times. Apple is showing the potential here to do so and more. It certainly amuses me that you have to perform 3 or 4 times faster at all levels even those you haven’t entered as yet to be deemed destroying them though I accept it’s a bit of exaggerated hyperbole from MDN, the foundation of their claim still rings true. Despite that deep superiority the restrictions of the market place will enable Intel to hang on at least till they release the promised transformation of their chip designs, if that too proves to be hyperbole they will struggle to keep customers committed to the platform should there be impressive alternatives in the Arm portfolio. Microsoft are a big mover here and they will be vital to any decision made over the next 5 years or so I suspect I tel will be desperate to keep them onside but they have their own priorities and some arguments would see Arm as a tempting switch for them and ultimately a serious and far easier potential return to mobile for them.

      1. But somehow others just have decided not to do it. Because they think it’s bad business?

        This reminds me of the times when iPhone was new and some people thought that it’s nothing special, anyone can do it, they will catch Apple in 6 months.

        Didn’t happen then, won’t happen now.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.