Does Linus ever look at the benchmarks of the M1?

[Rlmva]

In all of the LTT videos, I’ve seen Linus hating on the M1 and how it’s underpowered, but I haven’t seen him look at benchmarks. The new MacBook Pro performs just under the i9 MacBook Pro. Maybe I missed it, but does he ever look at benchmarks?

[WereCatf]

4 minutes ago, Rlmva said:

In all of the LTT videos, I’ve seen Linus hating on the M1 and how it’s underpowered

Do point a specific video and time where he has done that.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

23 minutes ago, Rlmva said:

but I haven’t seen him look at benchmarks.

Why look at benchmarks when you have the ability to do your own testing though? And I'm with WereCaft, I don't recall him ever saying it was going to be underpowered. Considering he already knew how capable iPad Pros stacked up with current x86 chips. 

[whm1974]

Which Benchmarks has Apple used to test their M1 SoC design? 

[WereCatf]

4 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Why look at benchmarks when you have the ability to do your own testing though? And I'm with WereCaft, I don't recall him ever saying it was going to be underpowered. Considering he already knew how capable iPad Pros stacked up with current x86 chips. 

When Linus compared the M1 to the iPad Pro, he was actually complimenting it; he has said how impressed he was with the iPad Pro and how it was as powerful as a proper laptop. They apparently even went and edited a full video on it. So, OP saying Linus is hating on the M1 is bullshit and OP doesn't know what they're talking about.

[whm1974]

2 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Why look at benchmarks when you have the ability to do your own testing though? And I'm with WereCaft, I don't recall him ever saying it was going to be underpowered. Considering he already knew how capable iPad Pros stacked up with current x86 chips. 

I rather go by Benchmarks done by others who are not involved in marketing the Product.

[whm1974]

7 minutes ago, Benji said:

Linus doesn't even get products from Apple to review, so he is not "involved in marketing it" in any way besides having a large audience, that inherently counts as some sort of marketing. Not to mention that basically every outlet or private person that has it runs benchmarks that totally outperform the old ones and they are happy with it, I don't even need to think that Apple is involved in that, outside of making an actually good SoC and software that perfectly harmonises with it. Basically every time a processor gets released, everybody blindly trusts reviews when they usually say the same. Apple releases a laptop with a full-fledged macOS ARM and their first "desktop-grade" chip and the same reviewers get their hands on it and people are like "Uuuuh, marketing, is it real? Is it paid? They have to be faking it, right?" No, they don't. That is only an issue once an actually huge company, larger in their revenue than the desktop manufacturers, does it. Nobody else gets questioned like that, but Apple always does just because they stick to their ecosystem and you can't modify it like Linux and "generic hardware", so obviously what is being said by others that is positive has to be a lie.

 

But I actually also can't recall a video in which he says that it performs bad in any way. I can imagine that he learned from the "PS5 disaster".

I wasn't talking about Linus at all, but Apple providing the Benchmarks. Since Marketing is Shading the Truth if not outright lie in order to sell a product, it should not and can not be trusted.

[whm1974]

8 minutes ago, Benji said:

Uhm, honestly, listen. NOBODY takes even a second glance at their "***% performance/efficiency increase" metric because it is rubbish. Who trusts that? Nobody. Who uses that outside of "live blogs" to have something to write during an Apple event? Nobody. We are talking about reviewers and independent people testing these and not about Apples useless metrics. And I'm certain that the OP also didn't mean these Apple-provided performance metrics. Outside of these "xx* performance increase" Apple didn't even really provide proper benchmarks besides the typical Apple app comparison (like in the 1.8x to 2.8x performance increase compared to the previous-generation MacBook Pro 13" based model). So, I don't know where the issue should be when they decide what kind of metric they want to use and what comparison they use. They basically compare themselves to themselves or other products. And if you actually mean the "fastest iGPU on the market", even that is accurate according to multiple tests. I actually don't remember that Apple straight-up faked their benchmarks or comparisons.

I'm fine with those folks who are Independent Reviewers who know to use the Correct benchmarks and do so properly.

[pythonmegapixel]

4 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

I'm fine with those folks who are Independent Reviewers who know to use the Correct benchmarks and do so properly.

Such as... y'know.... Linus?

 

You have to realise also that synthetic benchmarks are rarely entirely representative of how a product will perform.

[Lord Vile]

On 11/21/2020 at 7:47 PM, WereCatf said:

When Linus compared the M1 to the iPad Pro, he was actually complimenting it; he has said how impressed he was with the iPad Pro and how it was as powerful as a proper laptop. They apparently even went and edited a full video on it. So, OP saying Linus is hating on the M1 is bullshit and OP doesn't know what they're talking about.

He’s been very dismissive of it.

[dalekphalm]

21 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

He’s been very dismissive of it.

Post a specific video w/ a timestamp or some other text comment that we can specifically talk about.

 

If he's been dismissive, post an example, and we can debate whether he was in fact being dismissive.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

48 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Post a specific video w/ a timestamp or some other text comment that we can specifically talk about.

 

If he's been dismissive, post an example, and we can debate whether he was in fact being dismissive.

Well, he didn't jump into the hype bandwagon and screech in ecstasy about it "being faster than Zen 3 full desktop chips at 0.01 watts!!", so he's obviously a hater. 

 

Because that's what the forum's recent inflow of cultists seem to consider "Apple hate": not joining the hype train and proclaiming the revolution is here. Excitement is mandatory, lest you be suspicious of heresy. 

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, he didn't jump into the hype bandwagon and screech in ecstasy about it "being faster than Zen 3 full desktop chips at 0.01 watts!!", so he's obviously a hater. 

 

Because that's what the forum's recent inflow of cultists seem to consider "Apple hate": not joining the hype train and proclaiming the revolution is here. Excitement is mandatory, lest you be suspicious of heresy. 

It's rather odd because it seems to be one or the other.

 

The "more traditional" forum members seem to frequently be outright apple haters, in which they will very easily call people sheep or isheep or apple fanboys for the smallest things.

 

Then you've got the folks who are claiming that Apple can make a DIY CPU that would "destroy" AMD/Intel.

 

And there's me in the middle - I don't particularly like macOS, but I don't hate it. I do quite like iOS and iPhones, but I'm sure no Apple fanboy. I'm also not an Apple hater either.

[BlakSpectre]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

It's rather odd because it seems to be one or the other.

 

The "more traditional" forum members seem to frequently be outright apple haters, in which they will very easily call people sheep or isheep or apple fanboys for the smallest things.

 

Then you've got the folks who are claiming that Apple can make a DIY CPU that would "destroy" AMD/Intel.

 

And there's me in the middle - I don't particularly like macOS, but I don't hate it. I do quite like iOS and iPhones, but I'm sure no Apple fanboy. I'm also not an Apple hater either.

I beg to differ on the "more traditional" forum members being haters, while I have had brushes with some of apple/console haters, I have to say many, just like me just love tech.

 

I am not sure why I am posting this message just to defend but here I am .

Personally i think Linus loves tech and he knows he is slightly biased against macs so when it comes to serious performance testing for the donglebooks he defers to Anthony almost entirely and does not interject like he would with shitdos based systems.

[Lord Vile]

15 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, he didn't jump into the hype bandwagon and screech in ecstasy about it "being faster than Zen 3 full desktop chips at 0.01 watts!!", so he's obviously a hater. 

 

Because that's what the forum's recent inflow of cultists seem to consider "Apple hate": not joining the hype train and proclaiming the revolution is here. Excitement is mandatory, lest you be suspicious of heresy. 

But it is faster than Zen 3 with less power. So it’s not really hype if you can back it up. The thing with apple at presentations is they don’t overpromise. 

[whm1974]

16 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But it is faster than Zen 3 with less power. So it’s not really hype if you can back it up. The thing with apple at presentations is they don’t overpromise. 

Please Pardon me for not accepting this as Factual. The M1 ARM SoC might be quicker then the SoC in Apple's high end iPad. But I shall wait for more reviews.

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, whm1974 said:

Please Pardon me for not accepting this as Factual. The M1 ARM SoC might be quicker then the SoC in Apple's high end iPad. But I shall wait for more reviews.

Geekbench puts it above the stock 5000 series on single core therefore the fastest CPU claim is valid.

[Blademaster91]

23 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

But it is faster than Zen 3 with less power. So it’s not really hype if you can back it up. The thing with apple at presentations is they don’t overpromise. 

I doubt it's faster than Zen 3,  and it's hype because people were getting hyped up over a benchmark known to be unrealistic that also prefers ARM cpu's. And the apple presentation didn't give out any useful info either, just having a vague graph with "2X faster" or "latest PC laptop chip" with no indication of what CPU is being compared is pointless, which is why Linus criticized the presentation.

[whm1974]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Geekbench puts it above the stock 5000 series on single core therefore the fastest CPU claim is valid.

Oh please, Geekbench designed for benchmarking cell phones and Tablets? Are you for Real?

 

Answer me when the M1 SoC is properly tested with with Real Benchmarking Tools. You know for actual PCs.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, whm1974 said:

Oh please, Geekbench designed for benchmarking cell phones and Tablets? Are you for Real?

 

Answer me when the M1 SoC is properly tested with with Real Benchmarking Tools. You know for actual PCs.

Issue is it’s on ARM and most traditional benchmarks say Cinebench for example have very new versions which aren’t optimised at all plus there’s arguments against using cinebench at all.  Saying that the M1 still is only a few percent behind the 5950X. It also beats the 5950X in per core on compression

[whm1974]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Issue is it’s on ARM and most traditional benchmarks say Cinebench for example have very new versions which aren’t optimised at all plus there’s arguments against using cinebench at all.  Saying that the M1 still is only a few percent behind the 5950X.

The issue isn't that Geekbench is on ARM, but that it is not considered to a Real Benchmarking Suit for proper PCs.

 

Post again when Apple releases a real CPU for actual PCs.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, whm1974 said:

The issue isn't that Geekbench is on ARM, but that it is not considered to a Real Benchmarking Suit for proper PCs.

 

Post again when Apple releases a real CPU for actual PCs.

It is a real CPU and in cinebench on single core and on decompression it’s hitting around the same numbers as a 5950X using a fraction of the power. The M1 tops out at 20W in the Mac mini vs 105 for the 5950X. It’s just falls away after quad core loads. What would be interesting actually would be a Mac mini on FC vs a 5950X on Adobe and see how close the render times are. 

[whm1974]

8 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

It is a real CPU and in cinebench on single core and on decompression it’s hitting around the same numbers as a 5950X using a fraction of the power. The M1 tops out at 20W in the Mac mini vs 105 for the 5950X. It’s just falls away after quad core loads. What would be interesting actually would be a Mac mini on FC vs a 5950X on Adobe and see how close the render times are. 

Yawn!!! I swear the only Users worse then those of The Cult of Apple are the Members of The Cult of AmigaOS. Those Guys Make Apple Worshipers look perfectly Sane...

 

Yes AmigaOS is still around. It is at Ver 4.1 for PowerPC CPUs/SoCs.

[Lord Vile]

2 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Yawn!!! I swear the only Users worse then those of The Cult of Apple are the Members of The Cult of AmigaOS. Those Guys Make Apple Worshipers look perfectly Sane...

 

Yes AmigaOS is still around. It is at Ver 4.1 for PowerPC CPUs/SoCs.

Maybe you should look at performance not the brand 

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, whm1974 said:

The issue isn't that Geekbench is on ARM, but that it is not considered to a Real Benchmarking Suit for proper PCs.

 

Post again when Apple releases a real CPU for actual PCs.

People consistently keep dismissing Geekbench - but, do you have a source that actually verifies that it's "not a real benchmark"?

 

I've heard the claim many times. I've also heard the opposite claim - the justification behind the defense of Geekbench is that it's a pure CPU benchmark with little to no RAM usage, whereas other benchmarks often are more CPU+RAM dependent. Essentially Geekbench does realworld tasks like running "C compiler Clang, the PDF reader from Chrome and compression engine from 7-Zip" (snippet taken from a quote by @LAwLz in the M1 review thread).

 

Now, I personally don't quite believe the hype around the M1 - it definitely looks good, and I think compared to U series Intel CPU's and comparable low power AMD CPU's, I bet it probably is just as good as they've said.

 

With that in mind, I do not believe that the M1 is faster and more powerful than an 8-core/16-thread Zen 3 CPU or even the higher end Epyc/Threadripper ones, etc. It might be true, but I'm not convinced about that yet.