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

151–160 of 351 posts

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#151

Post by Symmetry »

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?

That seems a bit weird to me. Many programs are hard to multithread but I'd expect that if any given program can make effective use of 8 threads it can probably keep scaling to 16 and 32. The hard part is getting from 1 to 2 and 2 to 4. So I'd expect that in most cases having more than 8 high performance cores doesn't make that much sense.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#152

Post by bertmuthalaly »

headmelted wrote: post #84
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?

This is what I would have expected - I suggested when the M1 was first mentioned that it might make more sense for the Mac Pro to just have a side wall of separate independent SOC stacks with independent on-thread memory that GCD could manage behind the scenes. This seems like a much more straight-forward way to throw more performance into the higher-end machines without making long-tail disruptions to the architectu…

A nitpick but arguably an important one for your point - this article argues that the efficiency cores aren’t for “browsing the web / watching YouTube / checking emails” but for non-interactive tasks like Spotlight indexing (based on GCD scheduling priority).

https://eclecticlight.co/2021/05/17/how-m1-macs-feel-faster-...

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#153

Post by Applejinx »

slezyr wrote: post #89
HPsquared wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way it's possibly more efficient without the heat pipe - the cooler is directly over the CPU in this design, and can be quite large due to the way it's packaged (though it has to be thin). The downside is it's harder to get decent airflow over the fins. The casing is probably designed to direct the airflow, but I'd have to see all parts together to figure out how this works. EDIT: the lower case appears to have…

That's a very questionable system. It needs to be completely sealed except for intake to work properly.

Correct. It needs to be completely sealed. You can't take the back off the laptop and have the cooling system function, the case is part of the cooling ducts.

Provides for heat dissipation over broader surfaces. This is normal.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#154

Post by kungito »

Symmetry wrote: post #151
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?

That seems a bit weird to me. Many programs are hard to multithread but I'd expect that if any given program can make effective use of 8 threads it can probably keep scaling to 16 and 32. The hard part is getting from 1 to 2 and 2 to 4. So I'd expect that in most cases having more than 8 high performance cores doesn't make that much sense.

Amdahl's law can be formulated in the following way:

S_\text{latency}(s) = \frac 1 {(1 - p) + \frac p s}

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#155

Post by bombcar »

Symmetry wrote: post #151
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?

That seems a bit weird to me. Many programs are hard to multithread but I'd expect that if any given program can make effective use of 8 threads it can probably keep scaling to 16 and 32. The hard part is getting from 1 to 2 and 2 to 4. So I'd expect that in most cases having more than 8 high performance cores doesn't make that much sense.

A Mac Pro is likely to be dedicated to those workloads which ARE easy to thread - video editing and processing - or simply have multiple applications running simultaneously.

Someone who doesn't need more performance cores is unlikely to invest in a Mac Pro.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#156

Post by wiremine »

There's a few configurations mentioned:

> Codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die, a redesigned Mac Pro is planned to come in 20 or 40 computing core variations, made up of 16 high-performance or 32 high-performance cores and four or eight high-efficiency cores. The chips would also include either 64 core or 128 core options for graphics.

> For the new MacBook Pros, Apple is planning two different chips, codenamed Jade C-Chop and Jade C-Die: both include eight high-performance cores and two energy-efficient cores for a total of 10, but will be offered in either 16 or 32 graphics core variations.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#157

Post by chaostheory »

Is this going to be inside an affordable box ie do I have to spend close to 5 figures for it? This is about as exciting as new cellular data speed announcements in a world where most data plans are extremely limited and quickly throttled one way or another. I still use Macs, but my resentment is building up from Apple's past choices e.g. thinness overrides every other feature, every component being solder on, ...

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#158

Post by thinkingemote »

bombcar wrote: post #155
Symmetry wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems a bit weird to me. Many programs are hard to multithread but I'd expect that if any given program can make effective use of 8 threads it can probably keep scaling to 16 and 32. The hard part is getting from 1 to 2 and 2 to 4. So I'd expect that in most cases having more than 8 high performance cores doesn't make that much sense.

A Mac Pro is likely to be dedicated to those workloads which ARE easy to thread - video editing and processing - or simply have multiple applications running simultaneously. Someone who doesn't need more performance cores is unlikely to invest in a Mac Pro.

Macs are primarily well designed consumer devices, status symbols and objects of brand loyalty. These factors will push sales beyond a basic functional need.

Re: Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps

#159

Post by Applejinx »

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.

I got an iMac Pro. I have similar feelings, but for all that it's certainly doing the heavy lifting I need right NOW.

Feels like wanting to be both on the cutting edge of performance, and running/developing for a Mac, is damn pricey. However, I'd rather have it this way, than sit with my current machine being the best you could get. In some ways I am gratified that Apple is busy making last year's news feel really inadequate.

You can be damn sure I'm devoting a lot of effort to promptly supporting the new architecture. I've already got literally hundreds of M1 builds for my Audio Unit plugins out. I chose to produce native versions of EVERY product, no matter how old it was: rather than make a new product and only release that for M1, I treated it as the same as the 32/64 bit transition, and re-did every product in the whole library.

If we're going to get absurdly capable Mac computers, I mean to be categorically included in that equation.

For now, I'll enjoy my very costly iMac Pro that's still very capable… AND the M1 Macbook Pro at a fifth of the price that outperforms the iMac Pro at a few things already.

Post reply on HN