Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 640 posts

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

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 hours seems a lot worse than the ~10 hours I get on my M4 Air.

I get like 3 hours on my MBP when I use it. MacBooks have better runtime only when they are mostly idle, not when you fully load them.

Can confirm, when developing software (a big project at $JOB) getting 3h out of a M3 MBP is a good day. IDE, build, test and crowdstrike are all quite power hungry.

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

#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 other two legs of the Power-Performance-Area triangle. The issue is that the market position of Apple's competitors is such that it doesn't make as much sense for them to make such big and expensive chips (particularly CPU cores) in a mobile-friendly power envelope.

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

#54
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go down the rabbit hole of broken compiler settings for debian default builds, if you want to see how much low-hanging fruit we still have. Who here would be interested in testing a distro like debian with builds optimized for the Framework devices?

Should .. should I install gentoo?

The answer is always yes, continously.

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

#55

I considered getting a personal MBP (I have an M3 from work), but picked up a Framework 13 with the AMD 7 7840U. I have Pop!_OS on it, and while it isn't quite as impressive as the MBP, it is radically better than other Windows / Linux laptops I have used lately, battery life is quite good, ~5hr or so, not quite on par with the MBP but still good enough that I don't really have any complaints (and being able to up up…

5 hours seems a lot worse than the ~10 hours I get on my M4 Air.

At a certain point it's not like it matters. If you're working for 5 hours, let alone 10, you will almost certainly be able to plug in during that time.

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

#56

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…

> There is a level of polish

Yeah, those glossy mirror-like displays in which you see yourself much better than the displayed content are polished really well

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

#57
post #4

RISC vs CISC. Why you think a mainframe is so fast? ARM is great. Those M are the only thing I could buy used and put Linux on it.

I thought people stopped believing this around 2005 when Apple users finally had to admit that PPC was behind x86. Even though this was the case for the most part during the entire history of PPC Macs (I owned two during these years) https://chipsandcheese.com/p/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-matter

At least my G5 helped keep my room warm in the winter.

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

#58

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…

> "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.

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

#59
post #56

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…

> There is a level of polish Yeah, those glossy mirror-like displays in which you see yourself much better than the displayed content are polished really well

Having used both types extensively my dell matte display diffuses the reflections so badly that you can’t see a damn thing. The one that replaced it was even worse.

I’ll take the apple display any day. It’s bright enough to blast through any reflections.

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

#60
I tend to think its putting the memory on the package. Putting the memory on the package has given the M1 over 400GB/s which is a good 4x that on a usual dual channel x64 CPU and the latency is half that of going out to a DRAM slot. That is drastic and I remember when the northbrige was first folded into the CPU by AMD with the Athlon and it had a similarly big improvements in performance. It also reduces power consumption a lot.

The cost is flexibility and I think for now they don't want to move to fixed RAM configurations. The X3D approach from AMD gets a good bunch of the benefits by just putting lots of cache on board.

Apple got a lot of performance out of not a lot of watts.

One other possibility on power saving is the way Apple ramps the clockspeed. Its quite slow to increase from its 1Ghz idle to 3.2Ghz, about 100ms and it doesn't even start for 40ms. With tiny little bursts of activity like web browsing and such this slow transition likely saves a lot of power at a cost of absolute responsiveness.

Post reply on HN