Apple M3 Ultra thrashes Ryzen 9 9950X and Core Ultra 9 285K in Cinebench 2024 CPU test by as much 30%

[Redaktion]

The M3 Ultra is an extremely powerful SoC that boasts a massive 32-core CPU. Despite being launched only recently, multiple benchmarks have surfaced on the internet, with Cinebench 2024 suggesting a susbtantial 25% to 30% lead over highest-end x86 systems from AMD and Intel.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-M3-Ultra-thrashes-Ryzen-9-9950X-and-Core-Ultra-9-285K-in-Cinebench-2024-CPU-test-by-as-much-30.977039.0.html

[cyberwizrd]

I'm not denying that these new offerings aren't powerful, and for local AI they are monsters. That being said, +30% multi-core performance for a processor with twice the core count as the comparison, with a minimum system entry cost of $5,500 (lowest price for 32 core M3 Ultra) is not the flex you think it is when your competition is a single component that goes for $540

[Geek Therapy Radio]

Another, more honest way of looking at it: You have to pay thousands more for a 30% performance increase. Thousands. Not a few hundred. Multiple thousands of dollars.

I say that as someone with a 59050X/RTX 3090 and a Macbook Pro 16 (and Air, and iPad Pro).

[BrendaEM]

For the same reason my the M3 Ultra comparison to an Dual Epyc would also not be fair.

Blender with Blender-data is now my de-facto benchmark.

[Anny on mus]

What about single core performance? And the major problem is having to use apple software which is absolute garbage.

Also some products look like s***. I want a machine not some baby toy.

[RobertJasiek]

for local AI they are monsters

Not in general for local AI. The main criteria are: How much VRAM / assigned unified memory does the software need? Is the software written for Apple M or Nvidia dGPU? Depending on the software, it might or might not work on both systems, and speeds might differ by a factor of several dozens.

[MonkeySpanx]

At that price you should be comparing it to threadripper systems, with way more cores.

[Jason Rogers]

At that price you should be comparing it to threadripper systems, with way more cores.

That would be suicidal 🙂

[umbrella]

everyone keeps mentioning core count but that's somewhat irrelevant here, AMD still uses hyper threading meaning 32 threads. Intel ditched hyper threading and has 24 cores. Either way though there's no cheap way to obtain an m3 ultra, it's apple, so maybe it is fair to compare it to server parts.

[Ayush]

Imagine comparing an ARM CPU with absolute garbage software support to full fledged x86 cpus and that too after paying 10x higher price

[Tecnical]

What is this !? Comparing a $15000 mac with a $2500 pc ! LoL!
This isn't a fair comparison. You should compare it with a Threadripper system.

[Shaun]

The comments section is why most PC gamers are degens.

Happy to compare a £€2500 PC to a £€600 or less console...then they cry that people compare a super high end Mac that's probably £€10k+

(Gamed on both for most of my life)

[Sasquach]

everyone keeps mentioning core count but that's somewhat irrelevant here, AMD still uses hyper threading meaning 32 threads. Intel ditched hyper threading and has 24 cores. Either way though there's no cheap way to obtain an m3 ultra, it's apple, so maybe it is fair to compare it to server parts.

At 14k price point I can have dell workstation sporting 2TB ram and thread ripper 7995wx with 96 cores.
That thing will run circles around M3 ultra. Especially with an option for 4 GPUs....

[davidm]

everyone keeps mentioning core count but that's somewhat irrelevant here, AMD still uses hyper threading meaning 32 threads. Intel ditched hyper threading and has 24 cores. Either way though there's no cheap way to obtain an m3 ultra, it's apple, so maybe it is fair to compare it to server parts.

At 14k price point I can have dell workstation sporting 2TB ram and thread ripper 7995wx with 96 cores.
That thing will run circles around M3 ultra. Especially with an option for 4 GPUs....

I don't know what kind of deals you get, but a Dell Precision 7875 with 7995wx & 2TB would be more than seven times the price of the top end Mac Ultra in my country, not including GPUs. And its RAM speed is still around half the M3 Ultra's.

Whether it runs circles depends on the task, for many tasks a $600 entry M4 would be faster. To run an LLM larger than 70b, you're going to need multiple professional GPU$$$ (about $60k worth), and you don't want that sitting on your desk. Though, M3 Ultra's startup time is pretty slow for larger LLMs, and is ultimately limited, but we're talking about something that sits on the corner of a desk in a quiet office.

As for software, a lot of Windows & Linux software looks like crap. When I have to use a Mac, I just turn all the colours and widgets off, and I'm left with a terminal (though I'd still 100% prefer to be using Linux). It's whether it runs the right software quickly.

As I said in the AMD thread, I'd like to see nbc run head to head tests of the m3 ultra against the top end x86 chips, not because I prefer Apple, but because moments of humiliation is the only way x86 is going to pull ahead.

Obviously, each system will have its own advantages, unless you're coming from a bizarre ungrounded "twice the cores but 25% improvement" perspective, Apple's lines of chip are an incredible advancement.
 

[Oum]

Twice the cores but 25% improvement only ? Sorry I think Apple lost here