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

441–450 of 529 posts

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

#441

Post by scottlamb »

stefan_ wrote: post #112
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…

It's not magic memory, it's LPDDR4X-4266 or LPDDR5-5500. These work just fine without being in-package, so it's purely a cost cutting decision.

That's a pretty significant step up from what they were previously shipping, right? The 16" MBP page says it has "2666MHz DDR4". Are any other major (laptop or desktop) manufacturers using LPDDR4X-4266 or LPDDR5-5500?

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

#442

Post by lavp »

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.

Couldn't agree with you more. For the first time in who knows how long, I can confidently say that we made a leap into a new generation of computer power. It's a huge step up from the small marginal improvements we've been seeing over the past few years.

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

#443

Post by bufferoverflow »

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #66
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…

Keep in mind that so far Apple has only started offering M1 on what are essentially entry-level computers. I think it's likely there will be a 32GB Unified Memory version for the 16" MBP (which maybe will become available on the 13" or Mac Mini too). I think M1 would not be able to achieve the performance and efficiency improvements if the RAM were not integrated, so they'll stick with Unified Memory for the time bei…

Entry level? Did you see their prices?

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

#444

Post by nitrogen »

swiley wrote: post #429
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've been able to do realtime ray tracing in software since forever though and the shadertoys and whatnot have been full of hardware accelerated demos, that's not so interesting. I remember playing with a number of demos on my intel core 2 duo macbook (not pro) a decade ago.

The new GPUs have hardware specifically designed to do the type of math that raytracing does, such as ray/volume intersections, faster or more efficiently than generic shader hardware. Sufficient quantity (FLOPS) can become a quality of its own.

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

#445

Post by _blz2 »

codeulike wrote: post #282
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.

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

You can get better optimizations with CISC. If anything, compiling to a RISC ISA and expecting the same optimizations is actually tougher.

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

#446

Post by scottlamb »

psds2 wrote: post #116
jeffbee wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that makes any sense, considering that the RAM is not on the same die as the processor. It's on the module, yes, but they're not making it on the same process. I realize this image is a schematic representation rather than an actual photograph, but here it is. https://www.apple.com/v/mac/m1/a/images/overview/chip__fffqz...

The point being made is that the processors that they will package with more memory are going to exist on larger dies. When you increase die size you decrease yield so you need to have a mature process.

> The point being made is that the processors that they will package with more memory are going to exist on larger dies.

Are they? I don't think this is how AMD does things—all their desktop and Threadripper processors are constructed out of 8-core chiplets. The higher-core count processors just use more chiplets per package, not necessarily larger dies. If Apple's already putting multiple chiplets on one package (core + RAM), I wonder if they'll use the same approach to scaling.

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

#447

Post by bufferoverflow »

minimalist wrote: post #177
yborg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the opposite, this increases the speed of such apps to closer to what is now native speed.

I'm referring to the second point about memory that OP made. You know, having to allocate 700MB of memory in order to run an electron chat application.

It's seems wasteful, but RAM is so cheap, who cares?

You can get 16GB for $52 on Amazon. That 700MB is equivalent to $4.64 one-time payment.

There are more important things to worry about, seems to me.

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

#448

Post by jcheng »

threeseed wrote: post #307
bartread wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, in theory at any rate, Rosetta2 will allow you to run all that software on Apple silicon.

We already know that Rosetta2 doesn't support everything.

Do you have any links? Other than virtualization, I hadn't heard about any limitations.

Edit: Looks like kernel extensions aren't supported either.

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

#449

Post by holoduke »

bhouston wrote: post #181
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…

Intel in 2020 is IBM in 1980.

No Intel is back to 2002 with it p4. Give them a year or 2 and they are back with a new cpu. Don't forget that they have enough in their r&d pockets.

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

#450

Post by Bayart »

whizzter wrote: post #161
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…

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.

I remember people using socket adapters to put Pentium M chips on their desktop. I also have very bad memories of my P4 Prescott around the same era. What an absolute trash pile of an architecture.
Post reply on HN