'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 — M4
Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X

All that power is in a small package.'

<https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>

'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating Intel's
Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category and 16% in
the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max
showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core
performance.'

But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.

:-)

On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 — M4
> Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>
> All that power is in a small package.'
>
> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>
> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating Intel's
> Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category and 16% in
> the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max
> showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core
> performance.'
>
> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>
> :-)

Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop CICS
CPU line.

On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>> M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>
>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>
>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-
>> single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-
>> ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>
>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating Intel's
>> Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category and 16% in
>> the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max
>> showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core
>> performance.'
>>
>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop CICS
> CPU line.

You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.

"CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM
middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.

I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they both
work on CICS systems.

The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for "Complex
Instruction Set Computer".

CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are
many—complex—CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in
contrast to "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the
distinction has been made moot as the decades since it was a debate
about which is better have passed.

And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU
technology might do to Intel's CPUs?

Alan wrote:

>'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>
>All that power is in a small package.'
>
><https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>
>'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
>Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
>and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X,
>the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher
>multi-core performance.'
>
>But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>
>:-)

Why is this on the iPhone group? This seems to be a desktop topic.

On 2024-11-04 12:20, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>> M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>
>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>
>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>
>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
>> Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
>> and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X,
>> the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher
>> multi-core performance.'
>>
>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> Why is this on the iPhone group? This seems to be a desktop topic.

Feel free to ignore it then.

:-)

On 11/4/2024 2:01 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>>> M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>>
>>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>>
>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the- single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core- ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>>
>>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
>>> Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
>>> and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X,
>>> the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher
>>> multi-core performance.'
>>>
>>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop
>> CICS CPU line.
>
> You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.
>
> "CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM
> middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.
>
> I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they both
> work on CICS systems.
>
> The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for "Complex
> Instruction Set Computer".
>
> CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are
> many—complex—CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in
> contrast to "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the
> distinction has been made moot as the decades since it was a debate
> about which is better have passed.
>
> And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU
> technology might do to Intel's CPUs?

So I transposed a letter. CICS was the intent. Not like you NEVER had a
typo.

On 11/4/2024 2:01 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>>> M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>>
>>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>>
>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the- single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core- ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>>
>>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
>>> Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
>>> and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X,
>>> the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher
>>> multi-core performance.'
>>>
>>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop
>> CICS CPU line.
>
> You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.
>
> "CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM
> middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.
>
> I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they both
> work on CICS systems.
>
> The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for "Complex
> Instruction Set Computer".
>
> CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are
> many—complex—CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in
> contrast to "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the
> distinction has been made moot as the decades since it was a debate
> about which is better have passed.
>
> And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU
> technology might do to Intel's CPUs?

#2, ARM/Nvidia is RISC, just like Apple. More power efficient.

On 2024-11-05 13:10, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 11/4/2024 2:01 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>>>> M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>>>
>>>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-
>>>> the- single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-
>>>> core- ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>>>
>>>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>>>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
>>>> Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
>>>> and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X,
>>>> the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher
>>>> multi-core performance.'
>>>>
>>>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop
>>> CICS CPU line.
>>
>> You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.
>>
>> "CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM
>> middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.
>>
>> I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they
>> both work on CICS systems.
>>
>> The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for
>> "Complex Instruction Set Computer".
>>
>> CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are many—complex
>> —CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in contrast to
>> "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the distinction has
>> been made moot as the decades since it was a debate about which is
>> better have passed.
>>
>> And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU
>> technology might do to Intel's CPUs?
>
> So I transposed a letter. CICS was the intent. Not like you NEVER had a
> typo.

And yet you did it again, when you should have been particularly
attentive to the issue.

On 2024-11-05 13:11, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 11/4/2024 2:01 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 —
>>>> M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>>>
>>>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-
>>>> the- single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-
>>>> core- ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>>>
>>>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>>>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
>>>> Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
>>>> and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X,
>>>> the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher
>>>> multi-core performance.'
>>>>
>>>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop
>>> CICS CPU line.
>>
>> You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.
>>
>> "CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM
>> middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.
>>
>> I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they
>> both work on CICS systems.
>>
>> The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for
>> "Complex Instruction Set Computer".
>>
>> CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are many—complex
>> —CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in contrast to
>> "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the distinction has
>> been made moot as the decades since it was a debate about which is
>> better have passed.
>>
>> And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU
>> technology might do to Intel's CPUs?
>
> #2, ARM/Nvidia is RISC, just like Apple. More power efficient.

Which:

1. Doesn't answer my question.

2. ARM and Nvidia are different companies that need to be examined
differently and ARM doesn't come up in your previous post.

3. Nvidia and Intel PC CPUs run the same binaries, and therefore, the
same instruction sets. That's why Dell can sell you the same base PC
with either Nvidia or Intel CPUs.

<https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=do+you+need+different+binaries+for+intel+vs+nvidia+cpus&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>

Now why don't you stopping showing off your ignorance?

On 2024-11-05 21:10:33 +0000, Tom Elam said:
> On 11/4/2024 2:01 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 — M4
>>>> Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>>>>
>>>> All that power is in a small package.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-
>>>> single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-
>>>> ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>>>>
>>>> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>>>> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating Intel's
>>>> Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category and 16% in
>>>> the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max
>>>> showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core
>>>> performance.'
>>>>
>>>> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop
>>> CICS CPU line.
>>
>> You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.
>>
>> "CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM
>> middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.
>>
>> I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they both
>> work on CICS systems.
>>
>> The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for
>> "Complex Instruction Set Computer".
>>
>> CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are
>> many—complex—CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in
>> contrast to "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the
>> distinction has been made moot as the decades since it was a debate
>> about which is better have passed.
>>
>> And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU
>> technology might do to Intel's CPUs?
>
> So I transposed a letter. CICS was the intent. Not like you NEVER had a typo.

Intel does and can easily make RISC chips, but it was simply that
computer makers didn't want them ... until Apple started using them in
their devices, now everybody is beginning to jump on that bandwagon.

Of course, Apple was using their own design (along with partners IBM)
RISC CPUs years ago with the PowerPC Macs, so it's not really anything
new. Those too were much better than Intel's chips of the time.

> Alan wrote:
> 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6
— M4
> Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>
> All that power is in a small package.'
>
>
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the-single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x

>
> 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily

> keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
Intel's
> Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category and 16%
in
> the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max
> showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core

> performance.'
>
> But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip
design.
>
> :-)

Lets be frank. Remember when the Power-Mac tower quad
came out?

The M-series are all ARM processors. Literally an array of them
alongside other chips that have little or nothing to do with it at
all. One chip literally is there for decoding ( if it is used ), that
is literally a Sega Saturn VCD adapter add-on or Super Gameboy.

Yes I will admit that as a base the OSX or MacOS ( whatever it is
called now ), could be used in terms of VMware emulation. Which has
now achieved Direct X 12 usage via specific settings on OSX/MacOS (
which I am not going into ).

Yes in terms of that I could replace my Windows desktop, and load my
Linux, or whatever via emulation terms.

................

There is not really anything any sane person can do with any Apple
device outside of

1. Work ( programming )
2. Work ( in terms of a dating scammer )

Apple is not and has never been about fun at all. You have some girl
who thinks Apple is a great thing, but it is really just a computer
for people who have no idea how computers work. At it's core all Apple
computers and devices suck because of that fact.

................

Why have Apple anything? you literally have to call them at some point
to get your machine to work, and you have to have an account you log
into with them.

.................

Apple is a subscription then a machine.

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=677662414#677662414

On 2024-11-11 07:03, Danart wrote:
>
> > Alan wrote:
> > 'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6
> — M4 > Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
> > > All that power is in a small package.'
> > > https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-
> the-single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core-
> ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x
>
> > > 'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily
>
> > keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating
> Intel's > Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category
> and 16%
> in > the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max
> > showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core
>
> > performance.'
> > > But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip
> design.
> > > :-)
>
> Lets be frank. Remember when the Power-Mac tower quad
> came out?

Sure. Let's be frank. And yes, I remember.

> The M-series are all ARM processors. Literally an array of them
> alongside other chips that have little or nothing to do with it at
> all. One chip literally is there for decoding ( if it is used ), that
> is literally a Sega Saturn VCD adapter add-on or Super Gameboy.
> Yes I will admit that as a base the OSX or MacOS ( whatever it is
> called now ), could be used in terms of VMware emulation. Which has
> now achieved Direct X 12 usage via specific settings on OSX/MacOS (
> which I am not going into ).

What do you suppose any of that actually meant?

>
> Yes in terms of that I could replace my Windows desktop, and load my
> Linux, or whatever via emulation terms.

Again, not what I would call a sentence that's parseable for meaning.

> ...............
>
> There is not really anything any sane person can do with any Apple
> device outside of
>
> 1. Work ( programming )
> 2. Work ( in terms of a dating scammer )
>
> Apple is not and has never been about fun at all. You have some girl
> who thinks Apple is a great thing, but it is really just a computer
> for people who have no idea how computers work. At it's core all Apple
> computers and devices suck because of that fact.

Most people have no interest in HOW a computer works.

That is NORMAL.

> ...............
>
> Why have Apple anything? you literally have to call them at some point
> to get your machine to work, and you have to have an account you log
> into with them.

Utterly false.

> ................
>
> Apple is a subscription then a machine.
>
>
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=677662414#677662414
>
>