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

791–800 of 942 posts

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

#791

Post by astrange »

runeks wrote: post #395
astrange wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAM use should always be 100% for reasonable definitions of "use". There's always more disk pages to be cached unless the machine has just booted. If they're not all being used, it means something temporarily flushed all the pages which is actually a bad thing.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that OP was talking about user space applications, not kernel disk cache.

Adding up the memory use of apps isn’t actually a good way to calculate RAM needs though. It undercounts (because file caching matters too) and overcounts (because many things are fine swapped out).

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

#792

Post by SavantIdiot »

slver wrote: post #684
SavantIdiot wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is any of this specific to Intel? As of right now, there are 6 different Intel processor brands and close to 100 different SKUs. Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/pro... Currently, there is one M1.

I just explained above there's no single M1. They vary by core count, and by clockrate. And probably more. The only thing that's "one" about M1 is the brand. It's one brand. It's easy to have a clean brand, when you don't sell naked CPUs by themselves. "Oh everything we have has M1". It doesn't even matter if this is accurate or not, we realize that, right? Are we going to hold up Intel for having hundreds of SKUs be…

I thought you were making a claim that Apple would eventually trend like Intel with hundreds of SKUs. I don't see apple complicating its CPU line like that because it has no need to: the M1 works in a variety of scenarios, which which is what the OP was pointing out.

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

#793

Post by bredren »

thehnguy wrote: post #780
bredren wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had wondered what their first Apple Silicon powered data center would be. I thought the company would wait and deploy a later gen chip. Though with the standardization of M1 across such a wide array of products makes me think it is going to be the M1.

I was bit surprised to see M1 in the iMacs. I thought the M1 was going to be a very capable proof of concept. But now we've got it in iMacs, iPads, and Macbooks. So I wouldn't be shocked if they spread it far and wide.

Ya, part of the reason I presumed there would be at least one rev was because there have been reports of system hangs and restarts on some M1 machines.

So I had thought there may be something learned in the mass deployment that would trigger even minor design changes.

Perhaps those are software issues. Or maybe the M1 as a product name should not be taken literally to describe the SoC in the current lineup.

We know the Secure Enclave component appears to have been updated mid-production this past fall for a host of A-series chips.

Perhaps, if light changes were needed Apple would not see them a sufficient to designate a new moniker.

Or perhaps they are but the iMac and (theoretical) apple silicon-based data centers are intending to build consumer confidence in this bold foray.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/12/apple-security-a12-and-s5-pro...

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

#794

Post by astrange »

msie wrote: post #731
sillysaurusx wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the 16GB. The memory pressure is indeed the issue. I find it hilarious that Apple accidentally inverted their LRU into an MRU and constantly swaps for no reason, yet it’s still so fast that nobody even noticed during QA. Mine has already read/wrote 48TB in the first three weeks; at this rate the SSD will be dead in three years. (If you haven’t looked into SSDGate yet, be sure to check your smartmon to see whethe…

This guy seems to have pinpointed the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyMCoQmsv-I The problem is unoptimized apps running on Rosetta2.

Emulated apps don’t use more memory. It’s more likely Activity Monitor calculates their usage wrong, it doesn’t show very accurate numbers in the first place.

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

#795

Post by theshrike79 »

afavour wrote: post #537
theshrike79 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes competitors may have worthy opponents to the M1 "just around the corner". But do you think that Apple stopped innovating after releasing the M1 last year? Don't you think the M2 (or M1X whatever it's called) is well into design and prototyping at this point?

The broader point, I think, is that Apple has never really competed on specs before. Not meaningfully, anyway. They’ve competed on whole product. Competing on specs opens them up to new challenges.

This is like people obsessing over the amount of RAM in iPhones.

Just because it matters on Android, which is a COMPLETELY different system, doesn't mean it matters as much on iOS.

Yes, it matters a bit when switching between multiple apps, but app suspend is handled in a completely different way on iOS than on Android.

Apples to Oranges.

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

#796

Post by ipsum2 »

rini17 wrote: post #133
ipsum2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moore's law is only about the number of transistors per chip doubling every 24 months, not about the performance. Seeing that the trend is still happening, Moore's law is not dead, as so many have claimed.

But what is it good for, if it does not improve performance? For example, increasingly larger and larger part of transistors on a chip is unused at a given time, due to cooling issues.

It obviously does improve performance, otherwise why would people be buying newer chips? :) It doesn't mean we'll see exponential performance increases though. In specialized scenarios, like video encoding and machine learning, we do see large jumps in performance.

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

#797

Post by smolder »

bredren wrote: post #359
jbverschoor wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reflection? The iPad Pro running the Axxx soc was already insanely powerful. x86 is a monster with this huge legacy. Sounds to me more like the usual anti-apple speak.. The whole article is about not having to choose between performance and powerusage. With "5000", which 5000 do you mean? A 100W cpu of about the full cost of a macmini? This is the whole point of the article. Apple made a monster move. Next up: App…

I had wondered what their first Apple Silicon powered data center would be. I thought the company would wait and deploy a later gen chip. Though with the standardization of M1 across such a wide array of products makes me think it is going to be the M1.

Given the competition for fab capacity at TSMC, I'm not so sure Apple would want to use that capacity to supply servers. If things were less tight in that department I'd agree the time is right.

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

#798

Post by astrange »

kijin wrote: post #681
unchocked wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This reminds me of when the iPhone first came out. Back then, most phones from other manufacturers had an assortment of random names and model numbers that carried no hint as to which one was better or newer. Meanwhile, iPhone N+1 was obviously better than iPhone N. Samsung quickly learned to play the same trick with their yearly Galaxy S and Galaxy Note releases. That decision probably contributed to the market shar…

The confusing names can be good for big box stores because they prevent comparison shopping, if every store gets their own SKU then they can offer to beat competitors' prices without ever having to do it. Although for phones, they were mostly handed out by carriers at the time and people didn't shop on their own.

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

#799

Post by FalconSensei »

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…

> i7 stays the same over 10+ years with only the obscure (to the general public) suffix changing from generation to generation.

My wife was confused about that earlier this week. She was like: 'you mean i7 is not newer than i5? And if i7 is better than i5, why can an i5 be better than an i7? (when it's an old i7)'

I get they have the generation. But:

1 - it's not easy to compare different models of different generations. How can a non-technical person compare 7th gen i5 with 5th gen i7?

2 - Many places that sell computers don't put the generation on the 'headline'. You have to dig in the specs to discover that, if you can find it at all

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

#800

Post by r00fus »

thehnguy wrote: post #311
raxxorrax wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an M1 from work (which I now mainly use for private stuff...) and it does have 16gb memory. It did cost a bit less than $1700 (after taxes) I believe, although I am not sure. I know it has some upgraded gpu compared to the standard model in some form, but didn't know about the memory. As for the device: It is neat, but not revolutionary to any degree. I do paint and model and can run blender/krita just fine, i…

The M1 isn't what kills x86 (if it ever does completely). ARM kills x86. Microsoft is working on the ARM transition. ARM has good control of mobile hardware. And Apple will be only selling ARM hardware (in the form of Apple Silicon) in another 12-18 months. M1 and Apple Silicon are just part of the trend.

That ARM is on the cusp of finally dethroning x86, is really, for me, amazing me that Intel has kept it dominant for so long (3+ decades).

Partially it's amazing they remained on top, and also partially that they never managed to cannibalize their own success (like Apple and later Microsoft have done).

Post reply on HN