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

191–200 of 640 posts

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

#191

Post by larodi »

chvid wrote: post #83

I don't think there is a single thing you can point to. But overall Apple's hardware/software is highly optimized, closely knit, and each component is in general the best the industry has to offer. It is sold cheap as they make money on volume and an optimized supply chain. Framework does not have the volume, it is optimized for modularity, and the software is not as optimized for the hardware. As a general purpose c…

When one controls the OS and much of the delivery chain, it is not unthinkable to decide to through some billions of $$$ to create a chop optimized to serve exactly your needs.

So this is precisely what Apple did, and we can argue it was long time in the making. The funny part is that nobody expected x86 to make way for ARM chips, but perhaps this was a corporate bias stemming from Intel marketing, which they are arguably very good at.

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

#192

Post by aurareturn »

lenkite wrote: post #186
ben-schaaf wrote: post #101

Battery efficiency comes from a million little optimizations in the technology stack, most of which comes down to using the CPU as little as possible. As such the instruction set architecture and process node aren't usually that important when it comes to your battery life. If you fully load the CPU and calculate how much energy a AI340 needs to perform a fixed workload and compare that to a M1 you'll probably find s…

Hell, Apple CPU's are even optimized for Apple software GC calls like Retain/Release objects. It seems if you want optimal performance and power efficiency, you need to own both hardware and software. Looks like general purpose CPUs are on the losing train. Maybe Intel should invent desktop+mobile OS and design bespoke chips for those.

  It seems if you want optimal performance and power efficiency, you need to own both hardware and software.
Does Apple optimize the OS for its chips and vice versa? Yes. However, Apple Silicon hardware is just that good and that far ahead of x86.

Here's an M4 Max running macOS running Parallels running Windows when compared to the fastest AMD laptop chip: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13494385?baseli...

M4 Max is still faster even with 14 out of 16 possible cores being used. You can't chalk that up to optimizations anymore because Windows has no Apple Silicon optimizations.

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

#193

Post by qcnguy »

john01dav wrote: post #141
qcnguy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the more relevant case for laptops is macOS, which is heavily optimized for battery life and power draw in ways that Linux just isn't, neither is Windows. A lot of the problems here can't actually be fixed by intel, amd, or anyone designing x86 laptops because getting that level of efficiency requires the ability to strongly lead the app developer community. It also requires highly competent operating system deve…

Power efficiency is very important to servers too, for cost instead of for battery life. But, energy is energy. Thus, I suspect that the power draw is in userland systems that are specific to desktop, like desktop environments. Thus, using a simpler desktop environment may be worthwhile.

It's important but not relative to performance. Perf/watt thinking has a much longer history in mobile and laptop spaces. Even in servers most workloads haven't migrated to ARM.

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

#194

Post by TiredOfLife »

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.)

> It has integrated memory And has had for many years. Even Apple had that with Apple II

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

#195

Post by TiredOfLife »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #183
aurareturn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an M4 Max running macOS running Parallels running Windows compared to AMD's very best laptop chip: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13494385?baseli... M4 Max is still faster. Note that the M4 Max is only given 14 out of 16 cores, likely reserving 2 of them for macOS. How do you explain this when Windows has zero Apple Silicon optimizations?

Maybe Geek bench is not a good benchmark?

Geekbench is the closest thing to a good benchmark that's usable across generations and architectures.

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

#196

Post by TiredOfLife »

Aissen wrote: post #179
ptman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Ryzen AI (Strix Point?) using similar non-upgradeable LPDDR?

Framework does not have any design with those LPDDR packages.

https://frame.work/desktop?tab=specs

"LPDDR5x-8000"

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

#197

Post by mnw21cam »

purpleidea wrote: post #107

Honestly, I have serious FOMO about this. I am never going to run a Mac (or worse: Windows) I'm 100% on Linux, but I seriously hate it that I can't reliably work at a coffee shop for five hours. Not even doing that much other than some music, coding, and a few compiles of golang code. My Apple friends get 12+ hrs of battery life. I really wish Lenovo+Fedora or whoever would get together and make that possible.

I have a 7.5 year old Asus Zenbook UX305CA. It was the perfect laptop for my use case, given I run all heavy stuff on remote servers. 3200x1800 HiDPI screen, 8GB RAM, no fan, rigid aluminium construction (so it feels high quality), and it runs Linux pretty reliably. It used to get at least 6-7 hours of doing actual work, and one night I forgot to hibernate it or plug it in, and it was still running the next morning.

Now, 7.5 years later, the battery is not so healthy any more, and I'm looking around for something similar, and finding nothing. I'm seriously considering just replacing the battery. I'll be stuck with only 8GB RAM and an ancient CPU, but it still looks like the best option.

Another useful thing is that you can buy small portable battery packs that are meant for jump-starting car engines, and they have a 12V output (probably more like 14V), which could quite possibly be piped straight into the DC input of a laptop. My laptop asks for 19V, but it could probably cope with this.

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

#198

Post by atwrk »

To me it simply looks like Apple buys out the first year of every new TSMC node and that is the main reason why the M series is more efficient. Strix Halo (N4P) has, according to Wikipedia, a transistor density about 140 MTr/mm2, while the M4 (N3E) has about 210 MTr/mm2. Isn't the process node alone enough to explain the difference? (+ software optimizations in MacOS of course)

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

#199

Post by noelwelsh »

aurareturn wrote: post #117
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?

> How many iterations to match Apple?

Why are you asking me? I'm not in charge of AMD.

Yes the Strix Halo is not as fast on the benchmarks as the M4 Max, its bandwidth is lower, and the max config has less memory. However, it is available in a lot of different configurations and some are much cheaper than comparable M4 systems (e.g. the maxed out Framework desktop is $2000.) It's a tradeoff, as everything in life is. No need to act like such an Apple fanboi.

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

#200

Post by noelwelsh »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #194
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.)

> It has integrated memory And has had for many years. Even Apple had that with Apple II

What point are you trying to make? Strix Halo was released this year. How is the architecture of the Apple II relevant?
Post reply on HN