Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

271–280 of 640 posts

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

#271
There's a dimension to this people wilfully ignore: the AArch64 design is inspired, especially if you have a team as good as Apple have to execute an implementation of it. And that isn't a one way causality because AArch64 is what it is because of things that the Apple team wanted to do, which has led to their performance advantages today.

I don't think many people have appreciated just how big a change the 64 bit Arm was, to the point it's basically a completely different beast than what came before.

From the moment the iPhone went 64 bit it was clear this was the plan the whole time.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting M4 die sizes from? M1 Pro is ~250mm2. M4 Pro likely increased in size a bit. So I estimated 300mm2. There are no official measurements but should be directionally correct. AMD's multicore passmark score is more than 40% higher. It's an out of date benchmark that not even AMD endorses and the industry does not use. Meanwhile, AMD officially endorses Cinebench 2024 and Geekbench. Let's use those.…

What a waste of time. "directionally correct"... so you don't know and made up some numbers? Great. AMD doesn't "endorse benchmarks" especially not fucking Geekbench for multi-core. No-one could because it's famously nonsense for higher core counts. AMD's decade old beef with Sysmark was about pro-Intel bias.

  "directionally correct"... so you don't know and made up some numbers? Great.
I never said it was exactly that size. Apple keeps the sizes of their base, Pro, and Max chips fairly consistent over generations.

Welcome to the world of chip discussions. I've never taken apart and M4 Pro computer and measured the die myself. It appears no one has on the internet. However, we can infer a lot of it based on previously known facts. In this case, we know M1 Pro's die size is around 250mm2.

  AMD doesn't "endorse benchmarks" especially not fucking Geekbench for multi-core. No-one could because it's famously nonsense for higher core counts. AMD's decade old beef with Sysmark was about pro-Intel bias.
Geekbench is the main benchmark AMD tends to use: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-5-7600x-has-already-be...

The reason is because Geekbench correlates highly with SPEC, which is the industry standard.

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

#273
It sounds like something is horribly misconfigured.

- Try running powertop to see if it says what the issue is.

- Switch to firefox to rule out chrome misconfigurations.

- If this is wayland, try x11

I have an amd SOC desktop and it doesn’t spin up the fans or get warm unless its running a recent AAA title or an LLM. (I’m running devuan because most other distros I’ve tried aren’t stable enough these days).

In scatterplots of performance vs wattage, AMD and Apple silicon are on the same curve. Apple owns the low end and AMD owns the high end. There’s plenty of overlap in the middle.

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

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge reason for the low power usage is the iPhone. Apple spent years incrementally improving efficiency and performance of their chips for phones. Intel and AMD were more desktop based so power efficiency wasnt the goal. When Apple's chips got so good they could transition into laptops, x86 wasn't in the same ballpark. Also the iPhone is the most lucrative product of all time (I think) and Apple poured a tonne of t…

> and Apple poured a tonne of that money into R&D and taking the top engineers from Intel, AMD, and ARM, building one of the best silicon teams. how much silicon did Apple actually create? I thought they outsourced all the components?

Outsourced to who? The only companies with the engineers you’d need are the other CPU makers like Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, and Nvidia. And none of them make a CPU as efficient as Apple does.

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

#275
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no AArch32 or Thumb support (A32/T32) on M-series chips. AArch64 (technically A64) is the only supported instruction set. Fun fact: this makes it impossible to run Mario Kart 8 via virtualization on Macs without software translation, since it's A32. How much that does for efficiency I can't say, but I imagine it helps, especially given just how damn easy it is to decode.

It actually doesn't make much difference: https://chipsandcheese.com/i/138977378/decoder-differences-a...

Oh wow, I need to dig way deeper into this but wonderful resource - thanks!

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

#276

Well, there is a major architectural reason why the entire M-series appears to be "so fast" and that is the unified memory, which completely eliminates the buffer-to-buffer data copying that is probably over half of what a non-unified memory architecture chip is doing at any given time. M-series chips have an architecture that completely eliminates data copying, just reference the data where it is, and you're done.

I really like the principles behind AMD's chiplet design, of course they've had different design goals behind it (easier diversification of their product portfolio), but it remains a fact that you can slap a not-so-terrible GPU right next to a CPU core.

There's probably a lot still missing: Apple integrated the memory on the same die, and built Metal for software to directly take advantage of that design. That's the competitive advantage of vertical integration.

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

#277
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Cinebench 2025, a cross platform application: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF You sure like that table, don't you? Trying to find the source of that blender numbers, I came across many reddit posts of you with that exact same table. Sadly those also don't have a source - the are not from the notebookcheck source.

The reason why I keep reposting this table is because people post incorrect statements about AMD/Apple so often, often with zero data backing. For Blender numbers, M4 Pro numbers came from Max Tech's review.[0] I don't remember where I got the Strix Halo numbers from. Could have been from another Youtube video or some old Notebookcheck article. Anyway, Blender has official GPU benchmark numbers now: M4 Pro: 2497 [1]…

Weren't we comparing CPUs though? Those Blender benchmarks are for GPUs.

Here is M4 Max CPU https://opendata.blender.org/devices/Apple%20M4%20Max/ - median score 475

Ryzen MAX+ PRO 395 shows median score 448 (can't link because the site does not seem to cope well with + or / in product names)

Resulting in M4 winning by 6%

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

#278
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All that to say: M1 is pretty fast, but the reason the battery life is better has to do with everything other than the CPU cores. That's what AMD and Intel are missing. A good demonstration is the Android kernel. By far the biggest difference between it and the stock Linux kernel is power management. Many subsystems down to the process scheduler are modified and tuned to improve battery life.

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…

If x86 just officially said “we’re cutting off 32-bit legacy” one day (similar to how Apple did), they could toss out 95% of the crap that makes them power inefficient. Just think of the difference dropping A10 offered for memory efficiency.

“Modern Standby” could be made to actually work, ACPI states could be fixed, a functional wake-up state built anew, etc. Hell, while it would allow pared down CPUs, you could have a stop-gap where run mode was customized in firmware.

Too much credit is given to Apple for “owning the stack” and too little attention to legacy x86 cruft that allows you to run classic Doom and Commander Keen on modern machines.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A big thing is storage. Apple uses extremely fast storage directly attached to the SoC and physically very very close. In contrast, most x86 systems use storage that's socketed (which adds physical signal runtime) and that goes via another chip (southbridge). Why would PCIe SSDs need to go through a southbridge? The CPU itself provides PCIe lanes that can be used directly. > That means, unlike Mac devices that can…

> The CPU itself provides PCIe lanes that can be used directly. It does, but if you look at the mainboard manuals of computers, usually it's 32 lanes of which 16 go to the GPU slot and 16 to the southbridge, so no storage directly attached to the CPU. Laptops are just as bad. Intel has always done price segmentation with the number of PCIe lanes exposed to the world. Threadripper AMD CPUs are a different game, but I'…

> It does, but if you look at the mainboard manuals of computers, usually it's 32 lanes of which 16 go to the GPU slot and 16 to the southbridge, so no storage directly attached to the CPU. Laptops are just as bad.

Why would the southbridge need a whole 16 lanes? That's 32 GB/s of bandwidth (or 64, if PCIe 5). My (AMD) motherboard has the GPU and two M.2 sockets connected directly to the CPU and it's one of the cheaper ones. No idea about my laptop but I expect it to be similar because it's also AMD. Intel is obviously different here because they're more stingy with PCIe lanes.

There should be no reason for a laptop with only an integrated GPU to dangle storage off the southbridge. They take at most 4 lanes and can work with less.

> Indeed, but the difference in performance between an 8GB Windows laptop and an 8GB M-series Apple laptop is noticeable, even if all it's running is the base OS and Chrome with a few dozen tabs.

Any Windows laptop that comes with 8GB of RAM is going to have a crappy SSD included because those are always built to be cheap, not performant. It could even be a SATA SSD (500MB/s bandwidth max). Most likely they'd come with a processor significantly slower and a decent chance the RAM would also be single channel, too.

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

#280

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…

A huge reason for the low power usage is the iPhone. Apple spent years incrementally improving efficiency and performance of their chips for phones. Intel and AMD were more desktop based so power efficiency wasnt the goal. When Apple's chips got so good they could transition into laptops, x86 wasn't in the same ballpark. Also the iPhone is the most lucrative product of all time (I think) and Apple poured a tonne of t…

I don't think it is so much efficiency of their chips for their hardware (phones) so much as efficiency of their OS for their chips and hardware design (like unified memory).
Post reply on HN