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

401–410 of 640 posts

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

#401

Post by adwn »

jcranmer wrote: post #267
BirAdam wrote: post #250

First, Apple did an excellent job optimizing their software stack for their hardware. This is something that few companies have the ability to do as they target a wide array of hardware. This is even more impressive given the scale of Apple's hardware. The same kernel runs on a Watch and a Mac Studio. Second, the x86 platform has a lot of legacy, and each operation on x86 is translated from an x86 instruction into RI…

> Second, the x86 platform has a lot of legacy, and each operation on x86 is translated from an x86 instruction into RISC-like micro-ops. This is an inherent penalty that Apple doesn't have pay, and it is also why Rosetta 2 can achieve "near native" x86 performance; both platform translate the x86 instructions. Can we please stop with this myth? Every superscalar processor is doing the exact same thing, converting th…

> they pretend that it's only because x86 somehow cheats and converts itself to RISC internally.

Which hasn't even been the case anymore for several years now. Some µOPs in modern x86-64 cores combine memory access with arithmetic operations, making them decidedly non-RISC.

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

#402

Post by dagmx »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #379
dagmx wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point is that they’re comparing between SoCs that aren’t in the same class, not that it’s not fast. They’re not arguing against their subjective experience using it, they’re arguing against the comparison point as an objective metric. If you’re picking analogies, it’s like saying Audis are faster than Mercedes but comparing an R8 against an A class.

1. Everyone is different, I don't care if a computer is worse on paper if it's better in real 2. I'd say apples and oranges is subjective and depends on what is important to you. If you're interested in Vitamin C, apples to oranges is a valid comparison. My interest in comparing this is for running local coding LLMs - and it is difficult to get great results on 24/32gb of Nvidia VRAM (but by far the fastest option/$…

Let me start with your last point because it’s where you’ve misread the original comment and why none of your following arguments seem to make sense to onlookers.

They have a MacBook Pro with an M4, not an M4 Pro. That is a wildly different class of SoC from the 395. Unless the 395 is also capable of running in fanless devices too without issue.

For your first point, yes it does matter if the discussion is about objectively trying to understand why things are faster or not. Subjective opinions are fine, but they belong elsewhere. My grandma finds her Intel celeron fast enough for her work, I’m not getting into an argument with her over whether an i9 is faster for the same reason.

Your second point is equally as subjective, and out of place in a discussion about objectively trying to understand what makes the performance difference.

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

#403

Post by kube-system »

RajT88 wrote: post #366
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…

> 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. Apple is vertically integrated and can optimize at the OS and for many applications they ship with the device. Compare that to how many cooks are in the kitchen in Wintel land. Perfect example is trying to get to the bottom of why your windows lapto…

Also on the HN front page today:

> Framework 16

> The 2nd Gen Keyboard retains the same hardware as the 1st Gen but introduces refreshed artwork and updated firmware, which includes a fix to prevent the system from waking while carried in a bag.

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

#404

Post by shermantanktop »

alt227 wrote: post #368
fafhnir wrote: post #201

I have the same experience here with my MacBook Air M1 from 2020 with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. After three years, I upgraded to a MacBook Pro with M3 Pro, 36GB of RAM, and 2TB of storage. I use this as my main machine with 2 displays attached via a TB4 dock. I'm working in IT and I get all new machines for our company over my desk to check them, and I observed the exact same points as the OP. The new machines are eith…

> there is no alternative to a Mac nowadays I need to point this out all the time these days it seems, but this opinion is only valid if all you use is a laptop and all you care about is single core perfomance. The computing world is far bigger than just laptops. Big music/3d design/video editing production suites etc still benefit much more from having workstation PCs with higher PCI bandwidth, more lanes for multip…

Doesn’t Apple have significant market share for pro music and video editing?

For studio movies, render farms are usually Linux but I think many workstation tasks are done on Apple machines. Or is that no longer true?

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

#405

Post by alt227 »

shermantanktop wrote: post #404
alt227 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no alternative to a Mac nowadays I need to point this out all the time these days it seems, but this opinion is only valid if all you use is a laptop and all you care about is single core perfomance. The computing world is far bigger than just laptops. Big music/3d design/video editing production suites etc still benefit much more from having workstation PCs with higher PCI bandwidth, more lanes for multip…

Doesn’t Apple have significant market share for pro music and video editing? For studio movies, render farms are usually Linux but I think many workstation tasks are done on Apple machines. Or is that no longer true?

Prosumer, but not pro. Pixar for example are not modelling and animating on Apple Silicon.

On the video side Vegas Pro is used in a lot of production houses, and it does not run on Apple Silicon at all.

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

#407

Post by shermantanktop »

stego-tech wrote: post #319

There’s a number of reasons, all of which in concert create the appearance of a performance gap between the two: * Apple has had decades optimizing its software and hardware stacks to the demands of its majority users, whereas Intel and AMD have to optimize for a much broader scope of use cases. * Apple was willing to throw out legacy support on a regular basis. Intel and AMD, by comparison, are still expected to run…

Intel chose and stuck with backcompat as a strategy. They could, tomorrow, split their designs into legacy hardware and modern hardware. They didn’t, but Apple has done breaking generational change many times.

Apple also has a particular advantage in owning the os and having the ability to force independent developers to upgrade their software, which make incompatible updates (including perf optimizations) possible.

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

#408

Post by GeekyBear »

> When can we expect a x86 laptop chip to match the M1 in efficiency/thermals?!

One of the things Apple has done is to create a wider core that completes more instructions per clock cycle for performance while running those cores at conservative clock speeds for power efficiency.

Intel and AMD have been getting more performance by jacking up the clock speeds as high as possible. Doing so always comes at the cost of power draw and heat.

Intel's Lunar Lake has a reputation for much improved battery life, but also reduces the base clock speed to around 2 gigahertz.

The performance isn't great vs the massively overclocked versions, but at least you get decent battery life.

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

#409

Post by whynotminot »

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.)

> A few iterations of this should be comparable to the M series

This assumes Apple's M series performance is a static target. It is not. Apple is iterating too.

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

#410

Post by diggan »

RajT88 wrote: post #366
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…

> 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. Apple is vertically integrated and can optimize at the OS and for many applications they ship with the device. Compare that to how many cooks are in the kitchen in Wintel land. Perfect example is trying to get to the bottom of why your windows lapto…

> Apple is vertically integrated and can optimize

> Compare that to how many cooks are in the kitchen in Wintel land. Perfect example is trying to get to the bottom of why your windows laptop won't go to sleep and cooks itself in your backpack

So, I was thinking like this as well, and after I lost my Carbon X1 I felt adventurous, but not too adventurous, and wanted a laptop that "could just work". The thinking was "If Microsoft makes both the hardware and the software, it has to work perfectly fine, right?", so I bit my lip and got a Surface Pro 8.

What a horrible laptop that was, even while I was trialing just running Windows on it. Overheated almost immediately by itself, just idling, and STILL suffers from the issue where the laptop sometimes wake itself while in my backpack, so when I actually needed it, of course it was hot and without battery. I've owned a lot of shit laptops through the years, even some without keys in the keyboard, back when I was dirt-poor, but the Surface Pro 8 is the worst of them all, I regret buying it a lot.

I guess my point is that just because Apple seem really good at the whole "vertically integrated" concept, it isn't magic by itself, and Microsoft continues to fuck up the very same thing, even though they control the entire stack, so you'll still end up with backpack laptops turning themselves on/not turning off properly.

I'd wager you could let Microsoft own every piece of physical material in the world, and they'd still not be able to make a decent laptop.

Post reply on HN