#Imac pro vs imac 2017 benchmark upgrade#
#Imac pro vs imac 2017 benchmark mac#

It's an interesting contrast to Intel's and AMD's approach to single-threaded performance, though both companies tend to nudge the peak single-core clock speeds upward in their high-end processors to help further differentiate them from cheaper models. This makes sense-the M1 Ultra bumps the core count way up, but the cores are still the same.

#Imac pro vs imac 2017 benchmark mac#

Single-core performance isn't much different than it is for devices powered by the standard M1, like the Mac mini.

But that top-line number is impressive nevertheless. The machine's ability to crunch on huge files for long periods of time will be just as important as its ability to run a benchmark app for two minutes. Geekbench gives us only a limited picture of a given device's performance, particularly for a pro-focused desktop like the Studio. A Mac Pro with that processor costs an eye-watering $13,000, compared to $4,000 for the M1 Ultra Studio model. Both its single and multi-core performance scores far exceed those of the 2019 Mac Pro's fastest 28-core Xeon W-3275M processor. If the page is real, it helps to back up Apple's performance claims. 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.

#Imac pro vs imac 2017 benchmark upgrade#

Compare that to the mere $200 it costs to upgrade the M1 Max from a 24-core GPU to a 32-core GPU. The increased manufacturing complexity would explain why it costs so much to get a fully maxed-out M1 Ultra. Stepping up from the M1 Ultra with the 48-core GPU to the one with the 64-core GPU costs an extra $1,000. And Apple is able to do some binning with the M1 Ultra (i.e., selling some chips with defects as lower-end models with the defective parts turned off), since there are versions with both 48 and 64 GPU cores. But TSMC has been making M1-based chips on its 5 nm process for well over a year now, giving it plenty of time to optimize yields. The main risk with creating such a huge chip is that manufacturing yields will be low, as more surface area increases the likelihood that there will be a defect somewhere in the chip. ComputerWorld describes it as one large '840mm squared die.' That turns out not to be strictly true-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. When the M1 Ultra was announced, we speculated based on how Apple was describing it that the processor was using a chiplet-based design, connecting two separate M1 Max processor dies together using a high-speed interconnect like AMD's Infinity Fabric.