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

251–260 of 529 posts

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

#251

Post by oarsinsync »

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.

I was until I tried doing the test myself. It takes 82 seconds to compile on my i5-4200M.

I'm not sure this test is deserving of the breathless headline and commentary, especially since the original tweeter later follows up with:

> Extra info: The M1 macbooks (air/pro) can't drive 2 external screens, and the air throttles a bit after 3+ minutes sustained compute (20-30%)

https://twitter.com/rikarends/status/1328753176552632321

I'll be more interested if the M1 can compile something 2x quicker than the i9 when the compile time on the M1 exceeds 30-60 minutes rather than being less than a minute.

EDIT: to be clear, I expect the M1 to feel faster than the i9 for the vast majority of users, however the headline is "in a real world Rust compile", implying that this is a more valid test than synthetic benchmarks. I take issue with that, as I don't really consider something that compiles in less than 2 minutes on 6 year old hardware to be a much more useful test than the benchmarks.

We already know the A-series of chips performs incredibly in short workloads. We have no information yet on how it performs under sustained workloads.

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

#253

Post by bsg75 »

supernova87a wrote: post #239
bsg75 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What basis makes this comment apply to _everyone_ ?

I think he's joking as in the early Microsoft/Bill Gates statement about memory.

I hope so. I'm sitting at 68% memory utilization on a 16GB MBP _without_ any VMs running.

Everytime a manufacturer limits a new model in 2020 to a max of 16GB, I wonder if they really understand with high end work laptops or desktop are really being used for.

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

#254

Post by klyrs »

supernova87a wrote: post #239
bsg75 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What basis makes this comment apply to _everyone_ ?

I think he's joking as in the early Microsoft/Bill Gates statement about memory.

... just a reminder, that quote is apocryphal. Lies don't just travel faster than the truth, they've also got alarming staying power.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/the--640k--quo...

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

#255

Post by chungus_khan »

The_Colonel wrote: post #232
harrygeez wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualcomm chips are not that far behind Apple's, and Microsoft has Windows on ARM ready for a while now. Those performance advantage won't be there for long. I think the bigger question is what does this spell for x86-64?

> I think the bigger question is what does this spell for x86-64? Not much? People are acting like M1 destroys x86, but as AnandTech showed in the recent benchmark, M1 is trading blows with Zen 3 in single thread performance while having much larger core and process advantage (5nm vs. 7nm) thus being actually more expensive to produce.

Plus I would like to remind people that there were points where PowerPC Macs were extremely impressive, and that didn't magically reorder the world because existing software and OS ecosystems mean a hell of a lot more than just straight performance.

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

#256

Post by bogwog »

This is really awesome to see, but also kind of scary and depressing when you realize that the company leading the way in processors is Apple: anti-competitive, developer-hostile, and anti-consumer (except when it benefits them).

Just look at how their new laptops have underwhelming and ludicrously overpriced memory configurations ($0.78125/gb vs $0.12598/gb for a WD_Black m.2 on Amazon), with no ability to extend them yourself.

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

#257

Post by bmurphy1976 »

reaperducer wrote: post #187
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally this wouldn't feel so ground breaking, but the stars are in alignment and all these improvements are hitting at the same time. We're seeing years of work and investment paying off (AMD, Apple, ARM, Nvidia, Amazon), new process nodes (TSMC), and new tech (Ray Tracing, DLSS, machine learning) all hitting at the same time. And that's the big stuff! There's also the steady incremental improvements such as batter…

Ray Tracing I'm not someone into the inner-working of chips much, but is "ray tracing" a new term used for something in microprocessors now? Or is this the same graphic "ray tracing" we were doing back in the 80's on Amigas and Atari STs?

We're crossing the threshold this year where real-time ray tracing in hardware isn't just some theoretical concept, it's actually useful and available in affordable consumer hardware (NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, as well as the PS5 and new Xbox all have it).

Yes, the NVIDIA 2xxx RTX series had it two years ago, but this is the year where it's actually viable and not so gimmicky.

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

#258

Post by _alex_ »

egao1980 wrote: post #155
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect HP/Lenovo/Microsoft are squirming in their chairs right now.

Lenovo and Microsoft had started to release ARM devices way before Apple.

Turns out software and integration matter

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

#259

Post by danaris »

andrepew wrote: post #215
bartread wrote: post #204

I think Apple have screwed themselves over a bit here by sticking ARM-based Apple silicon in their lower-end/entry level devices first. I mean what's the point in spending £5k on a fully tricked out 16-inch MBP, as I'd been considering, when an entry level Macbook Air or Mac Mini is going to run rings around it? The reason I'm not going to buy one of these lower end Macs (the Mini would be the best fit) is that I can…

I think it could be a capabilities issue. An ARM equipped Mac is a non-starter for me because my workstation is driven with a dock that has 2x 4K displays connected to it, ethernet, USB hub, etc. I'm not willing to part ways with my 2nd external display and I'm sure a lot of professionals with my setup would also consider that a deal breaker. They probably wanted to get something public so developers could start cran…

You mean "the current M1-equipped Macs are a non-starter", then. I have no doubt that either the first or second generation of Apple's high-end chips will support 2 external displays.

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

#260

Post by whycombagator »

ogre_codes wrote: post #131
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 per…

What kind of development are you doing?

16gb is OK for my needs at home running linux, but on the odd occasion I wish I had more.

At work I find 32Gb is barely enough.

Post reply on HN