Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 942 posts

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#481

Post by unchocked »

jean_tta wrote: post #426
hutrdvnj wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years I think that is because the performance has been the same for the past 10+ years.

Most people have no need to compare CPUs between mobile/non mobile or generation. They just need to know if the laptop they're looking at has the high end / middle end / low end CPU. You'd be comparing a new laptop with latest(-ish) CPUs. The i3/i5/i7 makes it plain & simple to know that. You don't need to figure out what the "middle end" CPU is called this year. It's the i5, problem solved.

Right, and this describes the marketing problem. If I already have an i5, why would I need another one unless it's broken?

If I have an M1 and they're selling M5's, I'm continually reminded that my rig is out of date.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#482

Post by sto_hristo »

_xnmw wrote: post #270
sto_hristo wrote: post #153

Make it as fabulous as much as you want, $1700 for an 8 core, 8 gigs of ram machine is just one plain fabulous joke. This in the time when 16 gigs ram is the baseline if you plan to do anything more than facebook and instagram.

X cores + X gigs of RAM does not mean better performance for higher values of X. That is the fundamental innovation of Apple Silicon, which people still struggle to grasp. The M1 upended how we think about CPU performance. It's not even a CPU, it's a unified memory architecture with hardware-level optimizations for macOS. You can't even cleanly compare the performance benefits of having memory and CPU on the same chi…

But we still live in a physical universe where there are voluminous things some of us need to put into ram. Things like big projects, application servers, database servers, IDEs, and for some of those - multiple instances of them. On top of that, browsers with tabs open, productivity tools. Can't benchmark out of that.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#483

Post by Macha »

earthboundkid wrote: post #447
klelatti wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decision that people think about most is when to upgrade (by definition it stretches over a longer time period than the single point purchasing decision). That's why we have iPhone 7/8/9...13 and similarly for Samsung etc. If your i3/i5/i7 designation gives no clues then that's not helpful.

Yes, this point is so obvious, I feel like I've got to be missing something. I am a professional programmer. I am vaguely aware that Intel chips have X-Lake based codenames. I have no idea how to compare the chip in my current laptop to a new laptop based on Intel's marketing names. To convince myself to upgrade, I just go to Geekbench, because nothing else in the marketing tells me the new chip is better. Seems like…

Intel CPU numbering:

iX-YYZZZ[Suffix]

X = 3/5/7/9 = market positioning bucket. Higher is better

Y = generation, currently at 11. This is basically a numeric form of the "* Lake" naming, except for 10th gen where Ice Lake (10nm, better power efficiency) and Comet Lake (14nm, higher max perf) co-existed in laptops

ZZZ = position within that generation, higher is better, more detailed than the i3/i5/i7/i9 bucketing.

Suffixes:

H = "High Performance" - laptop CPUs with higher perf and higher energy usage. The fastest laptop chips in a given gen previously got branded "HQ" (originally the Q meant quad core), but otherwise HQ = H.

U = "Ultra portable" - laptop CPUs with lower perf and energy usage. Usually can boost well for short tasks, so you might not notice if the most intensive thing you do is compiling code but fall flat for longer workloads such as gaming.

Y = Lowest power usage - These are all garbage, to be honest. You might have one in your windows tablet or netbook.

M = "Mobile" - dead these days, as the H chips replaced them, there were a couple of gens where H and M co-existed with H > M > U.

G_N_ - Integrated graphics rating. All G3 cpus in the same gen will have the same igpu. This only exists on tenth gen/eleventh gen 10nm chips. These chips are more efficient than H/U series chips at the same perf, but don't yet reach the performance peaks of the H series due to lower clock speeds.

K - Unlocked overclockable CPUs, mostly desktop chips, but HK chips for laptops exist too.

F - No integrated GPU. Mostly desktop only.

T - Power efficient desktop CPU (thanks mehlmao)

These suffixes can be combined, e.g. HK for overclockable laptop cpus or KF for desktop cpus with overclocking and no IGPU.

---

So the rule of thumb version for a laptop buyer is H = high power, U/Gx = better battery life, within that, pick highest perf ranking number (ZZZ) within your budget. Deduct 1-2 positions per generation out of date. If you need to compare cross-gen or vs AMD, you need to go look at reviews.

The G numbers in particular are pretty meaningless to consumers. Basically all Intel iGPUs fall into a bucket that is "Good enough for windows or esports titles, not good enough for new or recent AAA games".

Other features are more of interest to DIY builders, nobody is going to sell you a laptop with no igpu and no dgpu, and if you're not interested enough to read up on this, you certainly don't care about overclocking.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#484

Post by oblio »

jsmith45 wrote: post #415
oblio wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. A 5nm version of the AMD stuff should be reasonably close to the M1. The main bottleneck is the production capacity, we badly need more manufacturers of high end chipsets.

But let's say that a 5nm Ryzen comes out ahead for mobile usage. (But not necessarily by very much.) Chips like the M1 (or ideally, something similar made available to other device manufacturers) is still really interesting. The ARM architecture can scale down better than x86/x64 can, allowing a device maker to hit low end performance targets with less cost than x86 chips can manage. For the low end, it also tends to…

> This makes M1 type chips really interesting for any manufacturer who want to make devices that span a huge scale of performance requirements, from slow kiosks performance range to the decent laptop range.

This is purely theoretical. Apple will > sell its chips to other companies.

So if you were expecting Apple Silicon on its own to start a revolution, that's never going to happen.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#485

Post by giantrobot »

afavour wrote: post #321
ianai wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His “as tested” was 11 hours for AMD and 13 for M1. His “max time use” for AMD was 14.5 and 20 for M1. That’s a 38% greater time for the M1 in a best possible outcome and 18% on “average”. Substantial differences that users would perceive noticeably.

I’m not so sure. I think it reaches a meaningful maximum. Can I do an entire days work on the laptop? Yes to both. Can it last an entire flight, even a long one? Yes to both. It’s not that it doesn’t matter at all, it’s just that it matters a lot less once you’ve checked boxes like that. The effective experience of both would be “you only need to charge it overnight”

For me it's always been "how desperately do I need to find an AC outlet" with my laptops. I've been pretty happy with my M1 MBA in that regard because the answer has been "not desperate at all". I've done a couple weekend trips since getting it and I never even thought of getting the power adapter out of my bag the entire trip. This was despite doing a bit of work.

The same can't be said for the MBPs I've owned over the past decade. They get ok battery life but I always needed to know where the nearest outlet was. While an 11 hour Ryzen might be close to a 13 hour MBA, those extra two hours is the difference between a full weekend worth of work or just a full day.

For anyone wanting long battery life in a laptop those extra couple hours are important.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#486

Post by mrweasel »

arvinsim wrote: post #240
mrweasel wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I still use seven year old MacBook Pro with 8GB of RAM. It’s perfectly fine for developing in at least Python, Go or Nim, with a Docker container or two and MariaDB in the background. Sure, when/if I upgrade I’d go for 16GB of memory, but one should be careful about projecting ones own needs onto other.

What IDE are you using?

None, I use Vim or TextMate. But you have a point Xcode isn’t fast on my laptop. You use it, but if I where to use Xcode professionally I’d get a newer machine with more memory.

I have been working on a TVOS app, and it works fine, but there is some waiting involved.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#487

Post by my123 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #461
baybal2 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the Ryzen 5000 mobile chips really don't look bad at all in comparison, and a 5nm version of those would level the field. Not look too bad best to say. Even if we add a one node advantage, we still have a ~15 watt chip making 20W-30W chips sweat. If you downclock Zen 3 to match 15W TDP, you may well get M1 beating it by double digit margin. M1 is simply a way more efficient chip than any X86 chip can be because…

That's not how downclocking chips work. Reducing the wattage reduces performance by much less. In multicore workloads Zen 3 slaps the M1 even per watt.

Nope, about Zen 3.

5800U (Zen 3 mobile) and M1 are actually very close multithread perf wise despite one being a 8 core part and the other a 4+4 part. And with more power use for Zen 3 too.

What hurts Zen 3 there is while the M1 maintains the full clock with all cores busy, Zen 3 has to downclock away from its max turbo clocks.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#488

Post by FpUser »

hutrdvnj wrote: post #378
klelatti wrote: post #150

One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1. It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computers means that there can be a consistent message that "M1 is great - get a new Mac and get an M1". It also provides an opportunity to distinguish between M1 and the next generation M2 (presumably). I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 sta…

> I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years I think that is because the performance has been the same for the past 10+ years.

Not really. I had this exact case when modern i7 laptop had kicked the butt of my 10 year old desktop speed wise at the same number of cores. Not sure how's this trend would go when started now though.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#489

Post by makomk »

hutrdvnj wrote: post #378
klelatti wrote: post #150

One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1. It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computers means that there can be a consistent message that "M1 is great - get a new Mac and get an M1". It also provides an opportunity to distinguish between M1 and the next generation M2 (presumably). I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 sta…

> I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years I think that is because the performance has been the same for the past 10+ years.

The overall performance of Intel's range of processors may not have changed much, but what they called an i3, i5 or i7 sure has lately. For example, the popular i7-7700k is most similar in terms of core count, clocks etc to the current i3 chips, and I don't think there was any real equivalent to the current i5 or i7 chips back then. If I remember rightly, the generations prior to that were still seeing actual performance improvements generation-on-generation too.

Re: Apple’s M1 Positioning Mocks the Entire x86 Business Model

#490

Post by hobs »

josho wrote: post #452
michaelt wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not. But if you're thinking "Should I upgrade my 6 year old i7 system?" or "Will I notice the difference from spending an extra $200 on my CPU?" these days it isn't easy to come up with a sure answer.

That’s intentional. It’s so that the salesperson can use messaging to guide you to whatever machine they have the best margins on.

Spoiling your customers with choice actually often has the opposite effect, they become apathetic and do nothing.
Post reply on HN