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

Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 351 posts

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#71

Post by D13Fd »

etrautmann wrote: post #41
D13Fd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had MacBooks since 2005, and I'm an amateur photographer. I really don't miss the ports or MagSafe at all. I actually like the USB charging better, as it allows you to connect the cord to either side, and it doesn't get accidentally knocked out if I use it on my lap. I've found that the cord being on other side is nearly as good as magsafe anyway, as it will be better positioned to pull out if it gets yanked. Ye…

The vast majority of cameras, even professional mirrorless or DSLRs, currently use SD cards now. Perhaps that's changing, but I would imagine there's sufficient utility to the SD card reader that many users would value that feature.

That's not true for professional mirrorless/DSLRs, which on the high end often use other cards like CFast, XQD, or CF. And as mentioned, many readers for those cards also integrate SD readers.

The vast majority of people these days just use their phones for cameras, and don't use point-and-shoots or other things with full-size SD cards.

So really SD cards cater to just the mid-range camera market, where people use mirrorless/DSLRs but not high-end versions that often use faster cards.

I don't think it's a good idea for Apple to make everyone's laptops bulkier so a small minority of people can avoid using a $17 adapter like this:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NW8RPYN/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#72

Post by tobyhinloopen »

newsclues wrote: post #51
redm wrote: post #45

As someone who just invested in a Mac Pro late last year, I'm a bit frustrated. I wanted years for a modular design that I could keep and upgrade over a longer time only to find out I'll be forcefully phased out within 2 years.

They aren’t forcing you to phase out your machine. They will continue to support it.

They’re not. The Mac Pro modular design has always been a lie. Yes, it’s modular, but there’s nothing you can put in there because there are no useful drivers.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#73

Post by [deleted] »

tyingq wrote: post #46

It says the split for performance versus efficiency cores will be: - 20 total, 16 high performance, 4 efficiency - 40 total, 32 high performance, 8 efficiency Which is kind of interesting given that the 8 core M1 is split half/half at 4 high performance, 4 efficiency. Sounds like perhaps MacOS doesn't typically have more than 4 cores worth of low-priority work, regardless of the system size/workload?

[deleted]

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#74

Post by cesaref »

bombcar wrote: post #57
tyingq wrote: post #46

It says the split for performance versus efficiency cores will be: - 20 total, 16 high performance, 4 efficiency - 40 total, 32 high performance, 8 efficiency Which is kind of interesting given that the 8 core M1 is split half/half at 4 high performance, 4 efficiency. Sounds like perhaps MacOS doesn't typically have more than 4 cores worth of low-priority work, regardless of the system size/workload?

It seems obvious once you look at it - the "efficiency" mode is almost a quasi-sleep and so it makes sense to only dedicate a certain number of processors to it (as every efficiency core could in theory have been a performance core).

The OS appears to partition the processors, like linux cpuset stuff, with low priority threads getting given to the efficiency cores, so you basically keep the low priority background stuff off the performant cores.

How many is optimum is an interesting question, I would assume the apple peeps have a good idea and are on the money with this design.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#75

Post by tyingq »

bombcar wrote: post #57
tyingq wrote: post #46

It says the split for performance versus efficiency cores will be: - 20 total, 16 high performance, 4 efficiency - 40 total, 32 high performance, 8 efficiency Which is kind of interesting given that the 8 core M1 is split half/half at 4 high performance, 4 efficiency. Sounds like perhaps MacOS doesn't typically have more than 4 cores worth of low-priority work, regardless of the system size/workload?

It seems obvious once you look at it - the "efficiency" mode is almost a quasi-sleep and so it makes sense to only dedicate a certain number of processors to it (as every efficiency core could in theory have been a performance core).

Perhaps. It wasn't obvious to me. I thought things like non-active browser tabs and various background daemons would easily occupy more than 4 efficiency cores. Though I suppose that has a lot to do with how they are implemented.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#76

Post by salamandersauce »

mikece wrote: post #19
pjmlp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40 cores isn't extreme. "Titan S375 - Dual AMD EPYC Rome 7002 Series - Scientific Research Server PC up to 128 cores" https://www.titancomputers.com/Titan-S375-Dual-AMD-EPYC-Rome...

The key part there being "scientific research server." The Amazon Graviton2 ARM chips have something like 64 cores but that makes sense for machines that are powering AWS. Unless the point of these Mac pros is to be at supercomputer speeds or to pack massive specs like VM packs a Bughatti Veyron (because we can) I don't see much of a point beyond the highest of high end video editing and scientific research.

I mean Mac Pros can easily be configured to $50,000+ machines from their base price of $6,000. They aren't aimed at the average joe. The majority of these things are being sold for business purposes in the first place with maybe a handful of sales to ultra rich enthusiasts.

The 40 core model is probably the replacement of the 28 core Xeon which is a $7,000 option.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#77

Post by oneeach »

tyingq wrote: post #46

It says the split for performance versus efficiency cores will be: - 20 total, 16 high performance, 4 efficiency - 40 total, 32 high performance, 8 efficiency Which is kind of interesting given that the 8 core M1 is split half/half at 4 high performance, 4 efficiency. Sounds like perhaps MacOS doesn't typically have more than 4 cores worth of low-priority work, regardless of the system size/workload?

Consider the use cases. The Mac Pro is a desktop, always plugged in and used for the power. The M1 is on a laptop running on a battery where efficiency is more important to improve the battery life.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#79

Post by xadhominemx »

cogman10 wrote: post #61
xadhominemx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding a bunch of tiny cores to an SOC is easy. What’s much harder is writing the software to make use of them.

Nah, that's pretty easy if you do anything involving video. AV1 will eat all the cores.

It’s definitely not easy. In general it is very hard. Some applications have been optimized and for a few applications the fit is very natural (ie, where it is easy to avoid single threaded bottlenecks, or where you don’t need to pass data from core to core via the cache). But for general purpose workloads, it will take a lot of optimization.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#80

Post by [deleted] »

tyingq wrote: post #46

It says the split for performance versus efficiency cores will be: - 20 total, 16 high performance, 4 efficiency - 40 total, 32 high performance, 8 efficiency Which is kind of interesting given that the 8 core M1 is split half/half at 4 high performance, 4 efficiency. Sounds like perhaps MacOS doesn't typically have more than 4 cores worth of low-priority work, regardless of the system size/workload?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN