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

261–270 of 529 posts

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

#261

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vgchh wrote: post #88
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.

This is the Apple equivalent of a Tesla showing up and out competing much more expensive cars on the performance. It feels like a huge disruption and probably Apple’s chance to gain significant PC market share.

> the Apple equivalent of a Tesla showing up and out competing much more expensive cars on the performance

Which was Tesla's equivalent of Jobs walking on stage with the iPhone, itself an homage to his iMac G3 turnaround, in turn a recapitulation of his promotion of the Apple II.

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

#262

Post by throwaway894345 »

wmf wrote: post #205
throwaway894345 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing the performance improvements derive from integrating the memory onto the same chip (instead of using external memory), not from ARM (although power savings come from ARM). So we will probably see a new era of laptop SoCs, but that also means coupling RAM with CPU (or maybe you can mix and match the on-chip RAM with external RAM?).

I’m guessing the performance improvements derive from integrating the memory onto the same chip Nope, LPDDR4x-4266 is LPDDR4x-4266. Apple, Intel, and AMD all have access to the same RAM. The Firestorm core is the real advantage.

Ah, well I'm happy to be mistaken.

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

#263

Post by diebeforei485 »

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 don't think the M1 chip is a great choice for the 16" MacBook Pro. It's designed for lower power devices. It may do well on certain workloads like compilation, but may even regress (in terms of performance, not performance-per-watt) on other workloads.

Their future iterations would be much better suited to a higher power device.

It does create this weird short-term demand planning issue, but plenty of corporate customers are buying Intel Macs in large numbers right now (this past quarter was huge) because they want to avoid the bumpy initial years of the transition and stay on Intel until the app ecosystem is stable.

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

#264

Post by harrygeez »

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.

My concern is not with performance but the seemingly energy consumption advantage. If Arm chips perform just as well (or as we've just seen, better) than x86 chips while sipping much less power, why would anyone want x86 on mobile devices?

Are there any workloads that requires or perform better with x86?

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

#265

Post by diebeforei485 »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #224
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…

16GB is enough memory

I disagree and this is why I will wait for future MacBook Pros that support more memory.

I do think it is okay for something like a MacBook Air.

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

#266

Post by leptons »

redisman wrote: post #188
timw4mail wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way the SOC will be upgradable.

No - but for desktop maybe that's the future? I could imagine AMD and Intel offering multiple tiers of SoCs instead of CPUs.

No. That's a stupid idea for desktop. Not everyone needs 64GB of RAM, but some of us do - and that would be an expensive and awful upgrade to have to throw out your CPU with 32GB RAM on-chip just to put in the same CPU with 64GB on-chip. It makes absolutely no sense.

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

#267

Post by w0utert »

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 Apple have screwed themselves over a bit here by sticking ARM-based Apple silicon in their lower-end/entry level devices first.

I’m pretty sure Apple already has an 8+8 core version with 32GB+ RAM in their lab that runs at higher clocks and blows the doors off the performance of these M1 chips, and they are simply going for maximum shock effect by releasing this ‘low-end’ chip first then tighten the screws to Intel and AMD even further when they release the MBP and iMac with an M1X chip or whatever they will call it.

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

#268

Post by bartread »

leoh wrote: post #221
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 don't think it matters. They get good margins on all their hardware. Some people will still need the pro hardware or can just switch, and then switch again when the 16" has ARM.

> Some people will still need the pro hardware or can just switch, and then switch again when the 16" has ARM.

I don't know: at pro level prices I'm not sure how many people will switch and then switch again. That's a lot of money and a lot of depreciation on the flip. Granted, I'd been about to spend £5k on a laptop, which is a lot, but I'd expected it to last me 5 years or more. I'm not about to spend that money on a machine that seems to have been substantially rendered obsolete before it's even left the factory.

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

#269

Post by JeremyNT »

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.

I can't help but chuckle whenever I read these comments on HN about how doomed Intel is.

Intel just does this. Every now and then, they get so far ahead that the rest of the market just totally disintegrates, which allows them to screw around and juice up their margins while failing to actually innovate. Their brand is so strong it takes years for it to erode, even when they do suck, and when they have actual competition they've got plenty of cushion to keep selling old designs while they catch up.

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

#270

Post by diebeforei485 »

wmf wrote: post #216
aunetx wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but the ecosystem does not really change here right? I mean, memory management should be roughly the same between x86_64 and arm regarding the amount of ram used, so I guess 16gb of ram under old macbooks is the same as 16gb under the new ones

"Controlling the ecosystem" and "integration" and such are just wishful-thinking rationalizations. Chrome and Electron will use however much RAM they use; Apple can't magically reduce it. If you need 32GB you need 32GB.

Slack (probably the most popular Electron app) has confirmed they are going native on Apple Silicon: https://twitter.com/SlackEng/status/1326237727667314688?s=20
Post reply on HN