Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

281–290 of 529 posts

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

#281
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

This is still Electron, no?

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

#282

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.

Note that the comparison is also compiling to ARM vs compiling to Intel, so its partly to do with the simplicity of the compilation process between the two architectures.

https://twitter.com/rikarends/status/1328762958118346753

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

#283
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure. Some people simply need Windows and now you can't Bootcamp on ARM Macs so people will take the best Windows laptop instead.

Who knows, they might continue to offer an Intel MBP for years to come, or even add Windows ARM support if it commands enough demand. The other manufacturers have no mote here.

Windows arm is not real windows. It's not a substitute. Apple might command it's developers like a herd, moving them to whatever fancy new thing they make but windows is much more fragmented with 20+ years of backwards compatibility and tons of unmaintained software that won't be magically ported.

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

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPU gains on ARM have been increasing consistently year over year for the past decade. People have posted benchmarks of the A11/ A12/ A13 versus Intel for a while so this has been pretty obvious. It's just surfacing because suddenly we have a desktop CPU with desktop software like compilers and other things where it's more obvious outside of benchmark tools. Apple is just jumping onto their existing ARM track, on…

Chalking it down to ARM doesn’t cut it... other companies make ARM chips too, including Qualcomm. Most Android phones run ARM, and given they outnumber iPhones heavily you’d expect massive improvements. But this is better than putting Qualcomm’s best chip into the Mac.

Qualcomm spend their time and energy on gaining monopoly lock-ins via standards committees, not building better chips.

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

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satya Nadella just tweeted about their new Pluton processor. I have a feeling it won't get the same hype as the M1 but they are clearly already trying to defend.

FYI - Pluton is a security chip, not a general purpose CPU.

Ah. I haven’t been following. I thought the timing was comical but I guess less so in that case.

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

#286

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…

Not to forget that apparently some of the people driving that scrappy team that had a big part in Intel's resurgence has been working on the M1. This actually reminded me of how I got skeptical comments from people when I told them that my small and scrappy Pentium-M (P-M -> M1, HAH!) based laptop was almost as fast as their desktop P4 monsters in compiling code.

The P4 (and Netburst in general) was a true low-point for Intel. Intel is struggling with fab issues right now, but things were really bad from about '02 to '06, with the P4 not completely going away until '08.

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

#287

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…

Intel in 2020 is IBM in 1980.

So in 2060 it will still be a huge company with $20B in revenue?

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

#288
post #231

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…

> can't stick enough memory in one Sorely disappointed that the Mini is limited to 16GB. That alone makes it feel obsolete, because 16GB is the new 8GB with as much desktop virtualization I find myself doing.

I don't believe Air's M1 has any virtualization support at all.

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

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I would turn that around. What kind of development are you doing where you feel 32GB is "Barely enough"?

Right now I primarily work on a very complex react based app. I've also done Java, Ruby, Elixir, and Python development and my primary machine has never had 32GB.

More RAM is definitely better, but when I hear phrases like "32GB is barely enough", I have to wonder what in the hell people are working on. Even running K8s with multiple VMs at my previous job I didn't run into any kind of hard stops with 16GB of RAM.

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

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, this has little to do with it being ARM. 30 years ago ARM had a significant micro architectural advantage in performance per watt, but in this era of 10 billion transistor chips, that advantage has disappeared. x86_64 rationalized the x86 architecture and decode is such a small fraction of the power budget that it really doesn't matter anyways. What does matter, IMO: - assembling a killer team - 5nm process - hi…

I'm no expert, but the only big architectural differences are a massively larger decoder and a reorder buffer that's several times as large as x86 designs. If these are actually the reasons for the performance difference, and it's difficult to do these on x86 because of the instruction set, it seems to this amateur that ARM64 really does have an advantage over x86.

Don't forget ARM's more relaxed memory model vs. x86's TSO.
Post reply on HN