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

51–60 of 529 posts

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

#51

Post by quonn »

tootie wrote: post #18

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 t…

For Apple, it‘s not about attracting new customers but about reducing costs (on the software side and also in licensing costs for the CPU) to increase profits.

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

#52

Post by tshaddox »

tootie wrote: post #18

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 t…

Far more expensive than Windows laptops? I haven’t looked in a year or so, but last I checked, to get a Windows laptop with a good screen and build quality, you would also need to spend close to (or likely more) than 1,000 USD.

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

#53

Post by boudin »

bigdict wrote: post #29

Is this cross compilation to x86 or a native compile to Arm? That could be playing an important role if it's easier to optimize and emit code for one architecture versus the other.

I was wondering that also. Based on Twitter comments it seems that he was compiling to arm, so there's a bit of comparing apple and pears there.

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

#54

Post by addaon »

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?)

In the M1 processor, DRAM is on-package, but not on die. (Even large eDRAMs sharing a die with logic don't currently reach to gigabytes.) How far can DRAM-on-package go? NVidia just released a GPU with 96 GB of HBM on package (80 GB enabled, 16 GB disabled for yield reasons), with 30x the bandwidth (!!!) of the M1 processor. This wouldn't be a low power or low cost solution, but for something like a future generation Mac Pro, it gives a good intuition for how far you can go with today's technology.

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

#55

Post by andy_ppp »

dharmab wrote: post #14
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...

Didn’t they mention Docker specifically in the Apple Event? Obviously it won’t work properly for 6 months at least...

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

#56

Post by knolan »

51Cards wrote: post #38
phkahler wrote: post #9

The real competition is no longer Intel. Its AMD. Or if you're just buying Apple because you like them then there is no competition, you buy what they offer. I like fanless systems so I'll be watching Apple closely.

Then new M1 Pro relies on its fan to prevent throttling so I don't know about their plans to go fanless yet.

The Air in the article is fanless.

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

#57

Post by coldtea »

tootie wrote: post #18

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 t…

>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

It was never about being cheaper or the best bang for the buck.

Mac was always playing at the expensive end of the market, for people who want/appreciate (most of) what they get (macOS, the hardware/software integration, the ecosystem, the design choices, the better components at various levels - screen, trackpad, the sturdy unibody construction, the sound, the battery life, etc), including some compromises (e.g. lighter and more battery over more powerful graphics cards, simplified product line vs endless configurations and decision fatigue, etc), plus the ability to run commercial apps like FCPX, Adobe Suite, MS Office, and (for those few that care) a UNIX underneath.

Now the Mac has all that, plus a very fact CPU, it can customize for the OS even further, build extra coprocessors and SOC goodies, have crazy battery life at great performance, and even lower cost or higher margins.

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

#58

Post by TylerE »

whalesalad wrote: post #48

I love everything about the move to Apple Silicon with the exception of the decision to put memory on-die or in-package (not sure how it is configured). They call it 'Unified Memory'. It makes a lot of sense but I don't know if they are going to be able to pack enough memory in there. A lot of folks are fixated on CPU performance lately (which is rad) but I think that there is a tendency to ignore memory. I have 32gb…

I wonder if the CPU can support mixed RAM.

E.g. have the on-die 8GB of "fast" ram, and then support 2 external DIMMs or something for "overflow", file caching, etc.

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

#60

Post by cactus2093 »

dharmab wrote: post #14
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...

Interesting, although seems like they kind of buried the lede. Surely the go toolchain and Electron should already work find on Rosetta? Getting some new Mac Minis for CI should only take a week or two.

What's unclear from this is if the hypervisor even supports everything they need or if they're waiting on Apple for more features, and how much work it'll require on their end to support the new hypervisor. Since Docker for Mac is closed source I think we're just waiting on the company for it as well. I wonder if we're looking at a month, 6 months, or multiple years?

Post reply on HN