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

101–110 of 529 posts

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

#101

Post by regularfry »

tambourine_man wrote: post #46
cercatrova wrote: post #26

Is anyone else thinking, what the f*ck? Are we in a new era of computing? It certainly feels that way when looking at these desktop class ARM chips, where performance doubled every year or so, just like back in the 80s and 90s.

Yes. Exactly. I haven't been this exited about a chip in a really long time. Decade-long, probably. And I'm really hopping Intel manages to get its act together. Competition is great for everyone.

I'd make a bet on Intel not turning around without new leadership at least willing to fling a gravitationally-significant pile of money at TSMC in the short term and significantly improve their pipeline in the medium to long term. They're so far behind now they're basically betting on everyone else screwing up. It's not just their position, though, it's their rate of change... their chip releases aren't getting faster as fast as AMD's or ARM's are, not by a long way.

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

#102

Post by karthikshan »

akavi wrote: post #67

So are we going to see this chip in MBPs at some point, or is there a reason that's a bad idea? Furthermore, is there any reason to think there's a less throttle-happy version that might be available for the Pros?

They're already selling a 13" MBP with this chip and a fan to reduce throttling

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

#103

Post by tomp »

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…

> Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows

Are they? I just checked now for US prices:

13‑inch MacBook Pro (Intel Core i5) 32GB = $2059

13-inch Dell XPS (Intel Core i7) 32GB = $2099

These are both the cheapest options available for my desired configuration (32GB RAM and 13-inch screen), and MacBook has far superior build quality, trackpad and OS.

Probably for different specs MacBooks are comparatively more expensive (if you need powerful CPU or GPU) but for a "developer" use (where my main constraint is RAM, i.e. the number of apps I can have open at once) Apple isn't actually that expensive.

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

#104

Post by zeusk »

kemiller wrote: post #79
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…

My guess is that they are releasing the M1 right now because it's the smallest SoC they're going to make and its yields are just barely enough to be viable. Once they get better yields on the 5nm process, they will start making the larger, more yield-sensitive SoCs with more RAM in them.

The ram is not on the same chip/die as M1, it's another chip that's put in the same package. Increasing RAM will not affect apple's yields at all since the RAM dies are not made by apple and are not 5nm

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

#105

Post by jeffbee »

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 agree completely since for large projects 16GB is barely enough to run Bazel. I know that's kind of sad but often Bazel wants to load large graphs into memory. Combined with the fact that the graphics are stealing part of main memory, I don't think I'm going to be happy with 16GB. I ordered one anyway, but I don't expect to be too psyched about the reality of it when it gets here.

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

#106

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

peteradio wrote: post #84
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…

What uses most of your ram when you need 16GB+?

For some projects, linking non-stripped binaries can take huge amounts of virtual memory. At least on ELF/DWARF platforms with the Gnu linker.

Not sure if that applies here, since I assume the Mac will be using the LLVM linker, and Mach-O != ELF.

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

#107

Post by gigel82 »

tomduncalf wrote: post #7
sfblah wrote: post #5

Is it just for Rust compiles, or has anyone tested other languages like Java, C/C++, etc? I ask because I don't have access to an M1 MacBook.

TechCrunch give figures for compiling WebKit on the 13" Pro in their review: https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro... - the gains are not as drastic, but it is still faster than the 16" and as fast as a Mac Pro, while using hardly any battery. Very impressive stuff. I only got a new 16" last year but a lot of my time is spent compiling, I might find it hard to resist upgrading next yera when th…

This feels fishy somehow; we need a more thorough in-depth look at exactly what is being compiled in both instances (I've seen projects that build half the object files on different architectures). It's likely not a 1:1 comparison on actual amount of code being compiled and linked.

It will be awesome if accurate, but I think we need more data.

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

#108

Post by djsumdog »

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…

Not to mention the e-waste and the inability for users to upgrade their own devices.

I wonder what the performance cost was of having standard memory modules. I suspect it wasn't significant and this is more of a move to prevent upgrade and increase consumption and waste.

This is another reason I really don't ever want to own another Apple device. They want more and more control over the system and they keep moving to policies that reduce the ability of regular people to repair. The performance benefit doesn't really seem worth it if I can't run any other operating systems except macOS on it.

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

#109

Post by wayneftw »

tomaskafka wrote: post #41
aequitas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or you can build a pretty decent upgradeable game machine for a fraction of developer MBP :).

We've got a Windows 10 box at every TV. Aside from games, it's just so much faster and ad-free compared to using a Smart TV/Roku/Apple TV/etc. They're also easier to operate with a Logitech K400r keyboard and touchpad. Add an XBox controller and a decent GPU and it's just like using a console but with cheaper games.

You don't need to build an expensive gaming PC either. My 4 year old i5/GTX1070/16gb/SSD still plays all the games I want it to. I can even play at 4K. I expect this $900 machine to last me at least a couple more years.

If you just want to watch YouTube/Netflix/etc on your couch and do some very light gaming though, check out what you can get for ~$200 - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07B8VX5HZ

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

#110

Post by HatchedLake721 »

kube-system wrote: post #63
knolan wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Air in the article is fanless.

Right, and I think some benchmarks I've seen this morning indicate that it throttles during more intensive tasks. The Pro benchmarks better, the only difference being the fan.

After 8 minutes
Post reply on HN