First benchmarks for Apple’s M1 Ultra are jaw-dropping

The first benchmarks to hit Geekbench Browser for Apple’s M1 Ultra have appeared and they are jaw-dropping.

Each chip in the M1 family — M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and now M1 Ultra — unleashes amazing capabilities for the Mac.
Each chip in the M1 family — M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and now M1 Ultra — unleashes amazing capabilities for the Mac.

Andrew Cunningham for Ars Technica:

The M1 Ultra will look like one big piece of silicon, just as it appears in Apple’s render shots, two M1 Max chips packaged together with a silicon interposer between the two. ComputerWorld describes it as one large “840mm squared die.”

Predictably, a genuine-looking results page for the Mac Studio and M1 Ultra appeared in the Geekbench online results database shortly after Apple’s event ended. If the page is real, it helps to back up Apple’s performance claims. Both its single and multi-core performance scores far exceed those of the 2019 Mac Pro’s fastest 28-core Xeon W-3275M processor. A Mac Pro with that processor costs an eye-watering $13,000, compared to $4,000 for the M1 Ultra Studio model.

Single-core performance isn’t much different than it is for devices powered by the standard M1, like the Mac mini. This makes sense—the M1 Ultra bumps the core count way up, but the cores are still the same.

MacDailyNews Take: The Geekbench 5 results for the Mac Studio (Mac13,2) housing an Apple M1 Ultra show a 1,793 Single-Core Score and a 24,055 Multi-Core Score.

A Mac Pro with a 28-core Intel Xeon W-3275M @ 2.5 GHz scored 1,152 in Single-Core and 19,951 in Multi-Core.

A 16-inch MacBook Pro with an Intel Core i9-9980HK @ 2.4 GHz (8 cores) scored 1,085 in Single-Core and 6818 in Multi-Core.

For further reference, 16-inch MacBook Pro with an Apple M1 Max scored 1,747 in Single-Core and 12,233 in Multi-Core.

This is why we refer to non-Apple Silicon Macs as “Intel-handicapped.”

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

Shop The Apple Store at Amazon.


    1. For the math impaired: IF the full chip is 231:1 (assuming the M1 Max is rough1.1:1 rectangleare and that the interposer is just 0.1 of the M1 Max length thismbe19.1ves 20 3m x 42 mm. That’s a huge chip, but is nowhere near 84 cm or 0.84 meters in any direction.

  1. Based on previous timing of Apple Silicon Mac releases, the specific Mac model is released when it is undeniably better than the best config of the Intel model it is replacing. Mac Studio was compared in presentation to the best 10-core config of 27-inch iMac, which was discontinued on the same day. It was also compared to a mid-range config of current Mac Pro. For Apple Silicon Mac Pro to be released, it must be several time more powerful than best Intel Mac Pro config. That will make it MUCH faster than the M1 Ultra Mac Studio. That’s incredible… Can’t wait to see it!

  2. Apple M1 Ultra chip is fast for a Mac processor/gpu but in terms of raw performance the M1 design with limited cores is years behind AMD in terms of processing power and render speed. I agree that the M1 ultra is a great design when you consider speed per power usage but when power usage isn’t as important of an issue like in a desktop workstation then the M1 Max and Ultra are kinda of slow compared to the top end AMD processors.

    check out the bench marks below, when you compare the M1 Max to the AMD 3990, the M1’s get smoked by a long shot by a 2 year old processor.

    In a sense, Apple is forcing a mobile design into a workstation category and using a lot of marketing smoke n mirrors with vauge benchmark charts to make claims that mislead the target audience; Most everyone choosing a Workstation would prioritized speed over power draw. Heck even this MDN article says the performance is “jaw dropping” but in reality its jaw dropping for 2017 or jaw dropping for a mobile chip but against the fastest PC CPUs its just far below average.

    M1 max does not show up until the 37 position and even with estimated 2x performance of the M1 Ultra the results are still not in the top ten.

    The GPU scores are the same story.

    The M1 ultra scores about 12,000 on CB while a stock AMD 3990x is banging out 82,000. So we can expect the ultra to bring home a CB around 24,000 which is slow compared to the two year old AMD designs.

    No doubt the M1 series bring a lot to the table for the overall computer industry but in terms of raw performance that don’t deliver. Apple marketing makes it sound like these are the most power computer chips ever used by humans but power users will be disappointed if they are switching from the AMD camp.

    I’m guessing Apple has handicapped its design with the limited core count to keep power and heat down; 16 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores are no match for 64 unrestricted performance cores with 400 watts of power. Yes you need to liquid cool your PC but hey its a professional race machine not a throttled back commuter car.

    Apple marketing is second to none and many will line up to buy a machine thats isn’t “jaw dropping” fast.

    AMD uses the same Chip Fab labs as Apple (TSMC) but AMD designs do not have a self imposed power and heart restriction that Apple does. Maybe its just more profitable for Apple to stitch together 2 M1 Max instead of designing a 64 core workstation chip.

    1. Apple is not claiming that the M1 Ultra is truea workstation chip. You should note that the M1 Ultra is not in a new Mac Pro.

      It is very possible that Apple will come out with an M2 Ultra that has 3 (or even 48)2 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores that supports 256 GB of RAM (or more) placing it into the next Mac Pro.

      Such a beast could rival the workstations based upon AM threadripperD and Intel xeon chips. We won’t know until those machines ship.

      The Studio Mac is for a specific set of customers. They will work very well for them. However, they are not there yet for people like me that run simulations on the best we can g. and they still take 10s of hours to run. I suspect Apple’s next iteration of the Mac Pro will be closeApple won’t build a dream machine, but they will get closer. r. (In my wildest dreams my most complex simulations would complete in the time it takes me to walk down the hall and back for a cup of coffee.)

      1. Seriously, Shadow…who is (generally) the user you speak of?

        “The Studio Mac is for a specific set of customers. They will work very well for them.”

        Which “creative” should wait?

    2. What kind of humdrum moonhead compares the basic M1 with a “top end” AMD or Intel?

      Even then, the M1 is powerful, runs everything on my MBA I ever ran on the Intel MBA Mac I was using, and does it with no fan noise.

      Only humdrunk hundrum fööls bother with sh!tty c86/64 processors.

      The only fans they have are brain dead Android users

    3. Please take into consideration; global warming. Cook and Co is moving towards a carbon neutral World, so a chip with power concerns is only natural and the marketing is consistent with the pursuit.
      Let’s remember, we have 8 yrs remaining (or, is it 7?) and carbon offsets and supporting marketing is good for tech users and the World.

  3. If Apple follows the scheme it’s followed with the M1 series, we should see am M2 by October, or so, just after the iPhone release, as it should be based on the A16, if it comes out that late. But, following that scheme, the high end versions won’t com out until spring 2023, and later, as with the M1 variants.

    If that turns out to be correct, the the Mac Pro can’t be based on the M2 this year. It would need to be based on the M1, and as Hohn ‘turn as stated, the Ultra is the last M1 chip. So possibly Apple has found a way to use two of those, or, who knows, even four.

    Of course, it’s possible that Apple will change up their designs and have a high end version right away. It’s possible now that they have the experience with the Pro, Max and Ultra under their belt.

    Something will possibly be announced during the WDC in June. I can’t wait.

Reader Feedback

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