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

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

#501

Post by utxaa » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

w0utert wrote: post #280

oarsinsync wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/132875317…

>> 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. What makes you think that given sufficient cooling, it will not perform exactly the same as the M1 in the MBA but sustained? It’s not like the ARM architecture changes anything in the thermodynamics of cooling cpus compared to an x86 chip, right? I’d wager that unde…

What makes you think that given sufficient cooling, it will perform exactly the same as the M1 in the MBA but sustained?

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

#502

Post by utxaa » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #46

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.

Yes. Exactly. I haven't been this exited about a chip in a really long time. Decade-long, probably. And I'm really hopping Intel manages to get its act together. Competition is great for everyone.

well don't exit! stick around man.

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

#503

Post by utxaa » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #316

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was waiting for AMD Zen3 to build a new desktop. But now that these tests are out, I am very, very tempted to go with Apple again. The Mac Mini numbers look comparable enough and it will be cheaper than an equivalent Windows machine (never thought I'd see this timeline).

If you can, wait. We don't know what sustained loads are going to look like, or even medium term reliability.

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

#504

Post by utxaa » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #71

burlesona wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and posted something similar on another M1 thread, though it got downvoted and I'm not sure why :D

I lot of people are having a hard time grasping or accepting. “But this benchmark has these issues”, “but this is hardware accelerated, so it's not a fair comparison”, etc. I think when enough benchmarks and real world usage have been run, it will sink in. What did people expect? They've been killing it with 5W fan-less chips for years. Have you seen how confident Apple is in those videos?

it's fair to be careful with something new. if it's that great and it will be quickly apparent.

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

#505

Post by andrekandre » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

sudhirj wrote: post #475

andrekandre wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because of vertical integration they can pass by reference instead of copying values internally on the hardware. got any links about that?

Going by the engineering explanations in the announcement video. See the segments shot in the “lab” set. They’re actually pretty proud of this and are explaining the optimisations quite candidly.

interesting, thanks

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

#506

Post by DonaldPShimoda » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #443

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, as far as Apple computers go... yeah, these are absolutely entry level. And $700 (new M1 Mac Mini starting price) is really pretty reasonable even compared to other options, honestly.

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

#507

Post by DonaldPShimoda » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #243

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seems to me, off chip RAM becomes a new sort of cache. If Apple sizes the on chip RAM large enough for most tasks to fly, bigger system RAM can get paged in and performance overall would be great, until a user requires concurrent performance exceeding on chip RAM.

Hmm that's a good point!

The thing I worry about is that the whole appeal of the Mac Pro is upgradeability — you can replace components over time. So integrated RAM would be problematic since that's a component people definitely like to upgrade.

But with your idea... I dunno, if they could pull that off that would be super cool!

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

#508

Post by DonaldPShimoda » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #123

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you completely. I am looking forward to the next offering and hope that they have a plan for more memory. In the meantime I wonder if they are going to do dual (or more) socket configurations. I was just thinking to myself imagine a Mac Pro with 8 of these M1 chips in it all cooled by one big liquid heat block. That thing would rip.

> hope that they have a plan for more memory.

I can't imagine them not doing it. If they were satisfied that 16GB was sufficient, I would've expected them to also refresh the 16" MBP with M1. I think the fact that they didn't is a good indicator that something about M1 isn't ready for the big boy league, and my guess is RAM will factor into that.

My guess is that the second generation (M2?) will improve performance with little efficiency gain and will include up to 32GB "Unified Memory". And then binning will be used to produce the 16GB and 8GB variants.

> I wonder if they are going to do dual (or more) socket configurations.

Whoa, that's something I hadn't thought of! I wonder if M1 is amenable to that kind of configuration. That would be pretty neat!

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

#509

Post by wmf » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #487

wmf wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The memory bandwidth you get on the M1 is around what you would expect from a dual channel desktop with good RAM. So basically twice as fast as competing laptops.

Laptops have the same or faster RAM than desktops now.

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

#510

Post by tambourine_man » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

utxaa wrote: post #502

tambourine_man wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Exactly. I haven't been this exited about a chip in a really long time. Decade-long, probably. And I'm really hopping Intel manages to get its act together. Competition is great for everyone.

well don't exit! stick around man.

No matter how much I spend on keyboards, I still can't type.

But thanks, I will :)