Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 529 posts

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#11

Post by aequitas »

hinkley wrote: post #4

I'm at the point where I need a new Macbook Pro and I can't help thinking I want the last generation of the x86_64 architecture, not the first generation of something new. Those have never paid off for me. At work, Intel would clearly be better. We do a growing amount of Docker work destined for Intel machines. But at home it's fuzzier, since I've been playing with k3s on a cluster of Pi clones. It's going to come do…

> It's going to come down to games, I think. Although I haven't had much time for them lately.

I've moved to consoles for games. Rarely I play a game on my Mac anymore. When you sit behind your desk all day for work. Playing games in that same environment and posture gets tiring. The console brings the games to the living room TV in a much more confortable setting.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#12

Post by namdnay »

hinkley wrote: post #4

I'm at the point where I need a new Macbook Pro and I can't help thinking I want the last generation of the x86_64 architecture, not the first generation of something new. Those have never paid off for me. At work, Intel would clearly be better. We do a growing amount of Docker work destined for Intel machines. But at home it's fuzzier, since I've been playing with k3s on a cluster of Pi clones. It's going to come do…

I don’t know what your work setup is, but if you like having dual screens you should either pick one of the Intel models up now or be ready to wait a year or two for support

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#13

Post by wayoutthere »

mmastrac wrote: post #2

I'm glad to see some real-world individuals testing this. Will be interesting to see a "post-mortem" on why the M1 has done so well, and where the limits will be in the future (ie: how far can you get with DRAM-on-die?)

I'm going to go with a combination of the 5nm feature size, simplified instruction set, an architecture that's low-power by default so it doesn't need to be throttled for heat/power, and the use of many types of specialized cores to better match workloads with cpu power. It's a modern architecture in the way that x86 just isn't as a 40-year-old architecture that has to maintain backwards compatibility.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#14

Post by dharmab »

hinkley wrote: post #4

I'm at the point where I need a new Macbook Pro and I can't help thinking I want the last generation of the x86_64 architecture, not the first generation of something new. Those have never paid off for me. At work, Intel would clearly be better. We do a growing amount of Docker work destined for Intel machines. But at home it's fuzzier, since I've been playing with k3s on a cluster of Pi clones. It's going to come do…

If you require Docker, the Apple Silicon machines are not an option, and won't be for at least a little while.

https://www.docker.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-chips-and-docke...

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#18

Post by tootie »

Nearly universal praise for the M1 versus it's predecessor but I don't see how this really changes Apple's position the way he implies. Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows and can't use high-powered GPUs like AMD/Nvidia. The people who choose PC, still have the same incentives to do so. For most users, the faster performance will probably not be very noticeable. The reduced power consumption is the biggest draw in my eyes.
Post reply on HN