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

131–140 of 529 posts

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

#131

Post by ogre_codes »

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…

> You can't get an M1 configuration right now larger than 16GB which is a table-stakes baseline dev requirement today.

Everyone on my team has been using 15" MacBook Pros with 16GB RAM for the past 3 years. I suspect most developers run with 16GB of RAM just fine.

I'm not arguing "16GB is fine for all developers everywhere!", but it's absolutely not a hard requirement. I suspect for a lot of us, the difference in performance between 16GB and 32GB is trivial.

Regardless, the thing which is kind of stunning about this chip is that they are getting this kind of performance out of what is basically their MacBook Air CPU. Follow on CPUs—which will almost certainly support 32GB RAM—will likely be even faster.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #90
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…

Isn't fast on-die/on-package (not sure either) memory access a key factor for Apple's gigantic performance leap, though? With memory pre-soldered on small notebooks for years now, it's not much of a difference for consumers anyway once more than 16GB becomes available.

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by tyre »

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...

Is it just me or are the current offering of M1 chips not developer machines anyway?

They max at 16GB RAM. That's a huge limiting factor by itself. If they can work out Docker before 32GB memory MBP, then it seems fine.

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

#134

Post by speedgoose »

localhost wrote: post #65

Here's another benchmark, this time XCode, that I screencapped from Dave Lee's YouTube review: https://twitter.com/john_lam/status/1328754454930231299 The 3950X Hackintosh performed on par with the MBA.

The 3950X is an expensive desktop CPU with 105W of heat loss. The M1 is very impressive.

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

#135

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #36

My Ryzen 3900 is also so much faster than my (former dev machine) iMacPro with a Xeon and fast SSD (Rust compiles, TypeScript builds). Tech moves on. But the main thing for me is Linux, as it feels much more responsive than current OS X versions on the iMacPro. (the reason for dropping the iMacPro was no AI learning though not performance).

There are some data-points comparing the M1 to a 3950X

https://twitter.com/john_lam/status/1328754454930231299

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

#136

Post by nullandvoid »

dom96 wrote: post #113
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 actually feel like 16GB is pretty much the sweet spot. I've built a desktop PC recently and didn't bother with 32GB and haven't had any troubles. The only time I've run into limits is when I was doing things like running games and big IDEs at the same time which seems like a waste in any case regardless of how much RAM is available.

For me on windows, multiple virtual desktops, browser (chrome for work, ff for personal) IDE's and VMs (ubuntu running in wsl, and any docker containers) made 16gn unuseable for me

And that's before I decided to boot up a game with all of the existing applications

For me the £50 is well worth not having to care about pruning applications constantly!

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

#137

Post by user5994461 »

Paul-ish wrote: post #8

Is it fair to compare performance for different compile targets?

I'm tempted to say it's not.

From experience compiling C++ a build can easily take 10 times longer depending on the optimizations flags that are enabled. The bulk of the time is spent in deep optimizations that may be architecture and CPU specific.

Wouldn't be surprised if compiling on a different architecture is multiple times faster because the compiler is not as optimized or doesn't have the same default flags.

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

#139

Post by alacombe »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #62
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.

Huh? Apple is quite the opposite of fanless... They have literally the most devoted fanbase among computer vendors.

[obviously the HN crow can't take a joke...]

edit: nor can they take a typo :-/

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

#140

Post by minimalist »

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…

Perhaps this will encourage programmers to write true native applications again instead of wrapping web scripting languages in a browser and calling it a day.
Post reply on HN