I think the Ryzen ai max 395+ gets really close in terms of performance per watt.
Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
81–90 of 640 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#82In my opinion AMD is on a good way having at least comparable performance to MacBooks copying Apples architectural decisions. Unfortunately their jump on the latest AI Hype Train did not suit them well for efficiency. Ryzen 7840U was significantly more efficient than Ryzen AI 7 350 [1] However, with AMD Strix Halo aka AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 (PRO) there are Notebooks like the ZBook Ultra G1a and Tablets like the Asus R…
AMD’s Strix Halo is still significantly far behind M4 in performance and efficiency. Not even close n
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#83I 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 computer Apple is impossible to beat and it will take a paradigm shift for that for to change (completely new platform - similar to the introduction of the smart phone). Framework has its place as a specialized device for people who enjoy flexible hardware and custom operating systems.
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#84Earlier 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?
For me, the keyboards in the UK have an awful layout.
Not sure why they can follow ANSI in the US but not ISO here. I just have to override the layout and ignore the symbols.
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#85Apple tailors their software to run optimally on their hardware. Other OSs have to work on a variety of platforms. Therefore limiting the amount of hardware specific optimizations.
Well I don’t think so. First, op is talking about Chrome which is not an Apple software. And I can testify that I observed the same behavior with other software which are really not optimized for macOS or even at all. Jetbrains IDEs are fast on M*. Also, processor manufacturers are contributors of the Linux kernel and have economical interest in having Linux behave as fast as they can on their platforms if they want…
Chrome uses tons of APIs from MacOS, and all that code is very well optimized by Apple.
I remember disassembling Apple’s memcpy function on ARM64 and being amazed at how much customization they did just for that little function to be as efficient as possible for each length of a (small) memory buffer.
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#86Apple tailors their software to run optimally on their hardware. Other OSs have to work on a variety of platforms. Therefore limiting the amount of hardware specific optimizations.
The fastest and most efficiency Windows laptop in the world is an M4 MacBook running Parallels.
How does it compare with VMWare? I’d rather not use Parallels…
edit: whoever downvoted - please explain, what's wrong with preferring VMWare? also, for me, historically (2007-2012), it's been more performant, but didn't use it lately.
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#87Apple tailors their software to run optimally on their hardware. Other OSs have to work on a variety of platforms. Therefore limiting the amount of hardware specific optimizations.
No, it's not, it's absolutely the hardware. The vertical integration surely doesn't hurt, but third-party software runs very fast and efficient on M-series too, including Asahi Linux.
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#88Earlier 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.
How about single-core performance?
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#89I’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 recently upgraded from an M1 mac book pro 15", which I was pretty happy with, to the M4 max pro 16". I've been extremely impressed with the new laptop. The key metric I use to judge performance is build speed for our main project. It's a thing I do a few dozen times per day. The M1 took about four minutes to run our integration tests. I should add that those tests run in parallel and make heavy use of docker. There are close to 300 integration tests and a few unit tests. Each of those hit the database, Redis, and Elasticsearch. The M4 Pro dropped that to 40 seconds. Each individual test might take a few seconds. It seems to be benefiting a lot from both the faster CPU with lots of cores and the increased amount of memory and memory bandwidth. Whatever it is, I'm seriously impressed with this machine. It costs a lot new but on a three year lease, it boils down to about 100 euros per month. Totally worth it for me. And I'm kind of kicking myself for not upgrading earlier.
Before the M1, I was stuck using an intel core i5 running arch linux. My intel mac managed to die months before the M1 came out. Let's just say that the M1 really made me appreciate how stupidly slow that intel hardware is. I was losing lots of time doing builds. The laptop would be unusable during those builds.
Life is too short for crappy hardware. From a software point of view, I could live with Linux but not with Windows. But the hardware is a show stopper currently. I need something that runs cool and yet does not compromise on performance. And all the rest (non-crappy trackpad, amazingly good screen, cool to the touch, good battery life, etc.). And manages to look good too. I'm not aware of any windows/linux laptop that does not heavily compromise on at least a few of those things. I'm pretty sure I can get a fast laptop. But it'd be hot and loud and have the unusable synaptics trackpad. And a mediocre screen. Etc. In short, I'd be missing my mac.
Apple is showing some confidence by just designing a laptop that isn't even close to being cheap. This thing was well over 4K euros. Worth every penny. There aren't a lot of intel/amd laptops in that price class. Too much penny pinching happening in that world. People think nothing of buying a really expensive car to commute to work. But they'll cut on the thing that they use the whole day when they get there. That makes no sense whatsoever in my view.
Re: Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?
#90Apple tailors their software to run optimally on their hardware. Other OSs have to work on a variety of platforms. Therefore limiting the amount of hardware specific optimizations.
This argument never passes the sniff test. You can run Linux on a MacBook Pro and get similar power efficiency. Or run third party apps on macOS and similarly get good efficiency.
You can run Linux on a MacBook Pro and get similar power efficiency.
What? No. Asahi is spectacular for what it accomplished, but battery life is still far worse than macOS.
I am not saying that it is only software. It's everything from hardware to a gazillion optimizations in macOS.