The CPUs have zero competition in terms of speed, memory bandwidth. Still blown away no other company has been able to produce Arm server chips that can compete.
I’d be curious to know if this changes that. It’d take a lot more than doubling cores to take out the very high power AMD parts, but this might squeeze them a bit.
Interestingly, AMD has also been investing heavily in unified RAM. I wonder if they have / plan an SoC that competes 1:1 with this. (Most of the parts I’m referring to are set up for discrete graphics.)
Source: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-AI-Max-395-Analysis-...
Cinebench 2024 results.
Somewhere on the internet there is a tdp wattage vs performance x-y plot. There’s a pareto optimal region where all the apple and amd parts live. Apple owns low tdp, AMD owns high tdp. They duke it out in the middle. Intel is nowhere close to the line.
I’d guess someone has made one that includes datacenter ARM, but I’ve never seen it.
This?
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/power_performance.html#sc...
Workstations (like the Mac Studio) have traditionally been a space where "enthusiast"-grade consumer parts (think Threadripper) and actual server parts competed. The owner of a workstation didn't usually care about their machine's TDP; they just cared that it could chew through their workloads as quickly as possible. But, unlike an actual server, workstations didn't need the super-high core count required for multitenant parallelism; and would go idle for long stretches — thus benefitting (though not requiring) more-efficient power management that could drive down baseline TDP.
Anyway, I don't think it's comparable really. This thing comes with a fat GPU, NPU, and unified memory. Threadripper is just a CPU.
Right.
It is coming up because we're in a thread about using them as server CPUs. (c.f. "colo", "2U" in OP and OP's child), and the person you're replying to is making the same point you are
For years now, people will comment "these are the best chips, I'd replace all chips with them."
Then someone points out perf/watt is not perf.
Then someone else points out some M-series is much faster than a random CPU.
And someone else points out that the random CPU is not a top performing CPU.
And someone else points out M-series are optimized for perf/watt and it'd suck if it wasn't.
I love my MacBook, the M-series has no competitors in the case it's designed for.
I'd just prefer, at this point, that we can skip long threads rehashing it.
It's a great chip. It's not the fastest, and it's better for that. We want perf/watt in our mobile devices. There's fundamental, well-understood, engineering tradeoffs that imply being great at that necessitates the existence of faster processors.
It's a great chip. It's not the fastest,
Both Passmark and Geekbench are aggregates of a variety of tasks. If you dig into the individual tests that constitute this aggregate score, you will find different platforms perform better, or worse, on certain tests than others. I would wager that, for many applications, only a subset of these tasks are relevant to the performance of the application, yet such benchmark suites distil out all nuance into a single value.
Here is a personal anecdote. I have tried running CASTEP (built from source), a density functional theory calculator, on both an M1 Max MacBook Pro [0], and on a Ryzen 7840HS Lenovo laptop [1]. A cursory glance at those Geekbench results linked might make you expect that the performance is roughly equivalent, but the Ryzen outperforms the Mac by about 4x, a huge difference.
What happens if we try and dig into any particular benchmark to explain this? If you click on any particular benchmark in the Geekbench search lists, you will see they test things like "File Compression", "HTML5 Browser", "Clang". Which of these maps most closely to the sorts of instructions used in CASTEP? Your guess is as good as mine.
If anything, I would say Passmark is quite a bit less abstract about this. Looking at the Mac [2] and Ryzen [3] Passmark results, you can see the Ryzen outperforms the Mac by about 2x on "extended instructions", which appear to involve some matrix math, and also about 2x on "integer math". The Mac, meanwhile, appears to be extremely good at finding prime numbers, at over 3x the speed of the Ryzen. Presumably the Ryzen's balance of instruction performance is more useful for DFT calculations than the Mac's, which perhaps is weaker in areas that might matter for this application, but stronger in areas that might matter for others.
Of course, optimization is likely a component of this. How much effort is put into the OpenBLAS, MPI, etc, implementations on aarch64 darwin vs. x86-64 linux? This is a good question. It is, however, mostly irrelevant to the end consumer, who wishes to consume this software for use in their further research, rather than dig into high-performance computing library optimization.
[0] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=7840hs
[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=m1+max
[2] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Apple+M1+Max+10+Cor...
[3] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+PRO+784...
I think PassMark is more honest as well, because it just gives scores for calculation throughput instead of specific tasks. It more closely matches what experience you will get if you have a varied load.
But since it's Apple we are talking about, their users just want to think they have the best and that's all that matters.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html
Right from the top it's amateurish stuff: their idea of an integer benchmark to measure "raw" CPU throughput (whatever that means) is to make a bunch of random ints and add/subtract/multiply/divide them.
Very few programs do a high volume of either integer multiply or divide. And when they do, they generally aren't doing it on random numbers. This is the kind of thing which gives synthetic benchmarks their highly deserved bad rep. It might be even worse than Dhrystone MIPs, and believe me, in benchmark nerd circles, that is a fucking diss.
If you look up Geekbench's docs, you'll find that it's all about real-world compute tasks. For example, one of the int tests in their suite is to compile a reference program with the Clang compiler. Compilers are a reasonably good litmus test of integer performance; they heavily stress the CPU features most responsible for high integer performance in this day and age. (Branch prediction, memory prefetching, out-of-order execution, speculation, that kind of thing.)
You claimed that PassMark reflects "complex" software, and Geekbench doesn't. However, I would be willing to bet that Clang alone is far more complex than all of PassMark's CPU benchmarks put together, whether you measure by SLOC or program structure.
Note that none of this has anything to do with Mac vs PC. Passmark is simply a bad benchmark that should not be used, period. That said, there are a bunch of warning signs that PassMark's ports to everything outside its native x86 Windows are probably quite sloppy, so it's even less useful for crossplatform comparisons.
https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...
Passmark is an outdated benchmark that isn't updated to use ARM instructions.
There are nice things that Apple has, but as you can see there is significant reality warping going on.
Why does it persist?
The M4 Max had great, I would argue the best at time of release, single core results on Geekbench.
That is a different claim from M4 line has the top single thread performance in the world.
I'm curious:
You're signalling both that you understand the fundamental tradeoff ("Apple doesn't make server-grade CPUs") and that you are talking about something else (follow-up with M4 family has top single-thread performance)
What drives that? What's the other thing you're hoping to communicate?
If you are worried that if you leave it at "Apple doesn't make server-grade CPUs", that people will think M4s aren't as great as they are, this is a technical-enough audience, I think we'll understand :) It doesn't come across as denigrating the M-series, but as understanding a fundamental, physically-based, tradeoff.
At least judging by the mounts, they want them to be used that way, even though the CPU might not fit with the de facto industry label for "server-grade".
The only use case I can think of is for audio workstations, where people have lots of rack mount equipment, so you can have everything including the computer in the rack. But even for that use case it's quite big.
Anyway the Apple config in the article costs about 5x more than a comparable low end AMD server with 512GB of ram, but adds an NPU. AMD has NPUs in lower end stuff; not sure about this TDP range.
I'm not sure how those benchmarks translate to common real world use cases.
It reminds me of the 1990s when my old school was using Sun machines based on the 68k series and later SPARC and we were blown away with the toaster-sized HP PA RISC machine that was used for student work for all the CS classes.
Then Linux came out and it was clear the 386 trashed them all in terms of value and as we got the 486 and 586 and further generations, the Intel architecture trashed them in every respect.
The story then was that Intel was making more parts than anybody else so nobody else could afford to keep up the investment.
The same is happening with parts for phones and TSMC's manufacturing dominance -- and today with chiplets you can build up things like the M3 Ultra out of smaller parts.
Then, one day, we built a 5 machine amd athlon xp linux cluster for $2000 ($400/machine) that beat all the unix and windows server hardware by at least 10x on $/perf.
It’s nice that we have more than one viable cpu vendor these days, though it seems like there’s only one viable fab company.
I think it goes something like:
- 2106x/EV4: 34-bit physical, 43-bit virtual
- 21164/EV5: 40-bit physical, 43-bit virtual
- 21264/EV6: 44-bit physical, 48-bit virtual
The 21364/EV7 likely has the same characteristics as EV6, but the hardware reference manual seems to have been lost to time...
Digital struggled with the microprocessor transition because they didn't want to kill their cash cow minicomputers with microcomputer-based replacements. They went with the 64-bit Alpha because they wanted to rule the high end in the CMOS age. And they did, for a little while. But the mass market caught up.
VMS is the only OS (that I know of) that uses all 4 processor privilege modes.
Side note: The 21064 has such bizarre IPR mappings, the read values have lots of bits scrambled around compared to their write counterparts. This is likely a hardware design decision affecting the programmer's model, if I had to guess.
One thing I remember about Alpha though was how bad the output from gcc was. Then DEC released a version of their own compilers that was command line compatible with gcc. That changed everything for open source stuff.
For what we needed, five 32 bit address spaces was enough DRAM. The individual CPU parts were way more than 20% as fast, and the 100Mbit switch was good enough.
(The data basically fit in ram, so network transport time to load a machine was bounded by 4GiB / 8MiB / sec = 500 seconds. Also, the hard disks weren’t much faster than network back then.)
Maybe not at the same power consumption, but I'm sure mid-range Xeons and EPYCs mop the floor with the M3 Ultra in CPU performance. What the M3 Ultra has that nobody else comes close is a decent GPU near a pool of half a terabyte of RAM.
Having things consistently work is much cheaper than down days caused by your ancient equipment. Apple’s SSDs will make it to 5 years no problem - and more likely, 10-15 years.
Fast forward 2 years: The $50-$250K machines have a 100% drive failure rate, and some poor bastard has to fly from data center to data center to swap the $60 drive for a $120 one, then re-rack and re-image each machine.
Anyway, soldering a decent SSD to the motherboard board would actually improve reliability at all those places.
If they were soldered onto those systems you talk about, all those would have had to be replaced instead of just having the drive swapped out and re-imaged.
On the other hand, you can do without display support if you’re only using it as a server. And I think USB Ethernet dongles might work for the time being?
My understanding is there are dozens of people working on it.
Apple’s whole m.o. is to take FOSS software, repackage it and sell it. They don’t want people using it directly.
FYI Apple runs Linux in their DC, so no Apple hardware in their own servers.
This is silly. Given the performance per watt, the M series would be great in a data center. As you all know, electricity for running the servers and cooling for the servers are the two biggest ongoing costs for a data center; the M series requires less power and runs more efficiently than the average Intel or AMD-based server.
> FYI Apple runs Linux in their DC, so no Apple hardware in their own servers.
That's certainly no longer the case. Apple announced their Private Cloud Compute [1] initiative—Apple designed servers running Apple Silicon to support Apple Intelligence functions that can't run on-device.
BTW, Apple just announced a $500 billion investment [2] in US-based manufacturing, including a 250,000 square foot facility to make servers. Yes, these will obviously be for their Private Cloud Compute servers… but it doesn't have to be only for that purpose.
From the press release:
As part of its new U.S. investments, Apple will work with manufacturing partners to begin production of servers in Houston later this year. A 250,000-square-foot server manufacturing facility, slated to open in 2026, will create thousands of jobs.
Previously manufactured outside the U.S., the servers that will soon be assembled in Houston play a key role in powering Apple Intelligence, and are the foundation of Private Cloud Compute, which combines powerful AI processing with the most advanced security architecture ever deployed at scale for AI cloud computing. The servers bring together years of R&D by Apple engineers, and deliver the industry-leading security and performance of Apple silicon to the data center.
Teams at Apple designed the servers to be incredibly energy efficient, reducing the energy demands of Apple data centers — which already run on 100 percent renewable energy. As Apple brings Apple Intelligence to customers across the U.S., it also plans to continue expanding data center capacity in North Carolina, Iowa, Oregon, Arizona, and Nevada.
[1]: https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/
[2]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/apple-will-spend-more...
Our business "only" sees about 1,000-25,000 req/min, our message brokers transmit MAX 25k msg/s. Easily handled by a rack of 10 servers for redundancy.
We are not Google and we don't pretend to be, so we don't care about power, as the difference is a few dollars a month.
Security practitioners and academics: https://github.com/enovella/TEE-reversing/ https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10859-trustzone-m_eh_breaking_ar... https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-15/materials/us-15-Shen-Att... https://i.blackhat.com/USA-19/Thursday/us-19-Peterlin-Breaki...
Sorry you could not cite an attack demonstrated on x86 and not on ARM or vice versa. Well, maybe TikTag (https://github.com/compsec-snu/tiktag) was demonstrated against ARM MTE, since you mention, and Pacman (https://pacmanattack.com/) against PAC. I was hoping for an actual response, no offense.