Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 640 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#111

Post by happymellon »

mycall wrote: post #33
Remnant44 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM instructions are fixed size, while x86 are variable. This makes a wide decoder fairly trivial for ARM, while it is complex and difficult for x86. However, this doesn't really hold up as the cause for the difference. The Zen4/5 chips, for example, source the vast majority of their instructions out of their uOp trace cache, where the instructions have already been decoded. This also saves power - even on ARM, decod…

When limited to 5 watts, the Ryzen HX 370 works pretty darn well. In some low-power user cases, my GPD Pocket 4 is more power efficient than my M3 MBA.

We will need some citations on that as the GPD Pocket 4 isn't even the most power efficient pocket pc.

Closest I've seen is an uncited Reddit thread talking about usb c charging draw when running a task, conflating it with power usage.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#112

Post by BlindEyeHalo »

mmcnl wrote: post #92

A lot of insightful comments already, but there are two other tricks I think Apple is using: (1) the laptops can get really hot before the fans turn on audibly and (2) the fans are engineered to be super quiet. So even if they run on low RPM, you won't hear them. This makes the M-series seem even more efficient than they are. Also, especially the MacBook Pros have really large batteries, on average larger than the co…

The macbook air doesn't even have a fan. I don't think you could built a fan-less x86 laptop.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#113

Post by Tade0 »

al_borland wrote: post #18

I’ve been thinking a lot about getting something from Framework, as I like their ethos around relatability. However, I currently have an M1 Pro which works just fine, so I’ve been kicking the can down the road while worrying that it just won’t be up to par in terms of what I’m used to from Apple. Not just the processor, but everything. Even in the Intel Mac days, I ended up buying a Asus Zephyrus G14, which had nothi…

I had a 2020 Zephyrus G14 - also bought it largely because of the reviews.

First two years it was solid, but then weird stuff started happening like the integrated GPU running full throttle at all times and sleep mode meaning "high temperature and fans spinning to do exactly nothing" (that seems to be a Windows problem because my work machine does the same).

Meanwhile the manufacturer, having released a new model, lost interest, so no firmware updates to address those issues.

I currently have the Framework 16 and I'm happy with it, but I wouldn't recommend it by default.

I for one bought it because I tend to damage stuff like screens and ports and it also enables me to have unusual arrangements like a left-handed numpad - not exactly mainstream requirements.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#114

Post by wordofx »

aurareturn wrote: post #73
DuckConference wrote: post #52

They're big, expensive chips with a focus on power efficiency. AMD and Intel's chips that are on the big and expensive side tend toward being optimized for higher power ranges, so they don't compete well on efficiency, while their more power efficient chips tend toward being optimized for size/cost. If you're willing to spend a bunch of die area (which directly translates into cost) you can get good numbers on the ot…

Per core, Apple’s Performance cores are no bigger than AMD’s Zen cores. So it’s a myth that they’re only fast and efficient because they are big. What makes Apple silicon chips big is they bolt on a fast GPU on it. If you include the die of a discrete GPU with an x86 chip, it’d be the same or bigger than M series. You can look at Intel’s Lunar Lake as an example where it’s physically bigger than an M4 but slower in C…

[flagged]

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#115

Post by rwallace »

pythonRon wrote: post #105

Does the M series have a flat memory model? If so, I believe that may be the difference. I'm pretty sure the entire x86 family still pages RAM access which (at least) quadruples activity on the various busses and thus generates far more heat and uses more energy.

I'm not aware of any CPU invented since the late eighties that doesn't have paged virtual memory. Am I misunderstanding what you mean? Can you expand on where you are getting the 4x number from?

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#116

Post by FrankyHollywood »

Backward compatibility.

Intel provides processors for many vendors and many OS. Changing to a new architecture is almost impossible to coordinate. Apple doesn't have this problem.

Actually in de 90s Intel and Microsoft wanted to move to a RISC architecture but Compaq forced them to stay on x86.

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#117

Post by aurareturn »

noelwelsh wrote: post #99

Like a few other comments have mentioned, AMD's Strix Halo / AI Max 380 and above is the chip family that is closest to what Apple has done with the M series. It has integrated memory and decent GPU. A few iterations of this should be comparable to the M series (and should make local LLMs very feasible, if that is your jam.)

On Cinebench 2025 single threaded, M4 is roughly 4x more efficient and 50% faster than Strix Halo. These numbers can be verified by googling Notebookcheck.

How many iterations to match Apple?

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#118

Post by out_of_protocol »

On efficiency side, there's big difference on OS department. Recently released handheld Lenovo Go S has both SteamOS (which is Arch btw) and Windows11 versions, allowing to directly compare efficiency of a AMD's Z1E chip under load with limited TDP. And the difference is huge, with SteamOS fps is significantly higher and and the same time battery lasts a lot more.

Windows does a lot of useless crap in the background that kills battery and slows down user-launched software

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#119

Post by spankibalt »

nik736 wrote: post #76
spankibalt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "There is a level of polish that I haven’t seen on any x86 laptop, which makes it really hard for me to venture outside of Apple’s sandbox." Hah, it's exactly the other way around for me; I can't stand Apple's hardware. But then again I never bought anything Asus... let alone gamer laptops.

What exactly is wrong with Apple hardware?

I very much prefer penabled detachables, a much better form factor than the outdated classic laptop, with a focus on general-purpose computing, such as HP's ZBook x2 G4 detachable workstation. The ideal machine would be a second iteration of that design, just updated to be smaller as well as more performant and repairable. Of course that's not gonna happen, as there's, apart from legal issues, no money in it.

Apple on the other hand doesn't offer such machines... actually never has. To me, prizing maintainability, expandability, modularity, etc., their laptops are completely undesireable even within the confines of their outdated form factor; their efficient performance is largely irrelevant, and their tablets are much too enshittified to warrant consideration. And that's before we get into the OS and eco-system aspects. :)

Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

#120

Post by marshray »

rwallace wrote: post #115
pythonRon wrote: post #105

Does the M series have a flat memory model? If so, I believe that may be the difference. I'm pretty sure the entire x86 family still pages RAM access which (at least) quadruples activity on the various busses and thus generates far more heat and uses more energy.

I'm not aware of any CPU invented since the late eighties that doesn't have paged virtual memory. Am I misunderstanding what you mean? Can you expand on where you are getting the 4x number from?

I doubt any CPU has more levels of address translation, caching, and other layers of memory access indirection than AMD/Intel 64 at this point.
Post reply on HN