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

Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#691

Post by bpicolo »

41209 wrote: post #524
smoldesu wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming is a non-starter on MacOS since 2018. You can get certain, specific titles working if you pour your heart and soul into it, but it's nothing like the current experience on Linux/Windows unfortunately.

Darn. Hard pass then. I already have a pretty fast Windows laptop. The only real issue is it sounds like an helicopter underload. ( It also thermal throttles hard ).

Depends on the games you play. Some publishers are good about this, some aren't. Worth checking.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#692

Post by chasil »

snowwrestler wrote: post #458
ngngngng wrote: post #37

The benchmark to power consumption comparisons were very interesting. It seemed very un-Apple to be making such direct comparisons to competitors, especially when the Razer Blade Advanced had slightly better performance with far higher power consumption. I feel like typically Apple just says "Fastest we've ever made, it's so thin, so many nits, you'll love it" and leaves it at that. I'll be very curious to see those…

Apple used to do these performance comparisons a lot when they were on the PowerPC architecture. Essentially they tried to show that PowerPC-based Macs were faster (or as fast as) Intel-based PCs for the stuff that users wanted to do, like web browsing, Photoshop, movie editing, etc. This kind of fell by the wayside after switching to Intel, for obvious reasons: the chips weren’t differentiators anymore.

"Pentiums are harmless."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkoYlpf3EA

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#693

Post by jrk »

spicybright wrote: post #186
bla3 wrote: post #82

This is about the processors, not the laptops, so commenting on the chips instead. They look great, but they look like they're the M1 design, just more of it. Which is plenty for a laptop! But it'll be interesting to see what they'll do for their desktops. Most of the additional chip area went into more GPUs and special-purpose video codec hardware. It's "just" two more cores than the vanilla M1, and some of the effi…

I'm going to sound dumb for this, but how difficult do any of you think it would be to make a computer with 2 M1 chips? Or even 4?

The rumor has long been that the future Mac Pro will use 2-4 of these “M1X” dies in a single package. It remains to be seen how the inter-die interconnect will work / where those IOs are on the M1 Pro/Max die.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#694

Post by dragontamer »

chasil wrote: post #686
dragontamer wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what RISC or CISC means anymore. They're bad, non-descriptive terms. 30 years ago, RISC or CISC meant something, but not anymore. Today's CPUs are pipelined, out-of-order, speculative, superscalar, (sometimes) SMT, SIMD, multi-core with MESI-based snooping for cohesive caches. These words actually have meaning (and in particular, describe a particular attribute of performance for modern cores). RISC…

Here is one meaning: Intel microcode updates added new machine opcodes to address spectre/meltdown exploits. On a true RISC, that's not possible.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/meltdown-spectre-ibm-preps-fir...

Or are you going to argue that the venerable POWER-architecture is somehow not "true RISC" ??

https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/checking-aix-protection-ag...

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#695

Post by hrrsn »

tantony wrote: post #586
SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge, apparently. I just spent a bit over $7,000 for a top-spec model and was surprised to read that it comes with a 140 watt power adapter. Prior to my current M1 MBP, my daily driver was a maxed-out 16" MBP. It's a solid computer, but it functions just as well as a space heater. And its power adapter is only 100 watts.

They support fast-charging the battery to 50% in 30 minutes. That's probably the reason for the beefy charger.

I'm surprised the fast charger isn't a separate purchase, a la iPhone.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#696

Post by postalrat »

threeseed wrote: post #629
postalrat wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are you using a laptop?

Why even bother with such an inane answer ? It's because I need to use my computer whilst not physically attached to the same spot i.e. between work/home, travel. You know the same reason as almost everyone else.

If faster compilation speeds matters as much as you said earlier then I'm sure it would be worth investing in machines for both work and home.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#697

Post by thissuchness »

ttul wrote: post #221
alberth wrote: post #185

Server Chips: if you removed the GPU, and added ECC - these would be dang nice server chips.

There is technically no reason Apple could not introduce a cloud computing service based on their silicon at some point. But would it generate the kind of profit margins they need? An interesting space to watch.

More important than profit margins are the return on capital vs. the alternative uses for that capital.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#698

Post by ben-schaaf »

G4E wrote: post #333
hydroreadsstuff wrote: post #300

How do they get 200/400GB per second RAM bandwidth? Isn't that like 4/8 channel DDR5. 4/8 times as fast as current Intel/AMD CPUs/APUs? (E.g. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/201837/... with 45.8GB/s) Laptop/desktop have 2 channels. High-end desktop can have 4 channels. Servers have 8 channels. How does Apple do that? I was always assuming that having that many channels is prohibitive in terms of…

That sound like HBM2, maybe HBM3 but that would be the first consumer product to include it afaik. Basically the bus is really large, and the memory dies must be really close to the main processing die. Those memory were notably on the RX Vega from AMD, and before that on the R9 Fury. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory

If it was HBM it would have considerably higher bandwidth. A single HBM2E stack is 16GB at 460GBps, at 64GB that's 1.8TBps of bandwidth.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#699

Post by Aperocky »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #423
slayerjain wrote: post #68

Based on the numbers it looks like the M1 Max is in the RTX 3070-3080 performance territory. Sounds like mobile AAA gaming has potential to reach new heights :D

It's not a function of capability. I spent $4,000 on a 2019 MBP, including $750 for a Vega 20. It plays Elder Scrolls Online WORSE than a friend's 2020 with INTEGRATED graphics. (I guess Bethesda gave some love to the integrated chipset, and didn't optimize for the Vega. It hitches badly every couple of seconds like it's texture thrashing.) Whatever AAA games that might have gotten some love on the Mac (and there are…

Dedicated GPUs has always been just selling point. The real limit is the thermal throughput.

There has never been a reason to put separate GPU into a laptop, because a laptop can only handle so much juice before frying itself.

Re: Apple’s new M1 Pro and M1 Max processors

#700

Post by Aperocky »

dan1234 wrote: post #297
maxekman wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the exact same thing! The fanless M1 Air is a dev monster in a mouse package. Couldn’t be happier with that combo.

If the M1 supported 3 displays I would’ve bought an air last year. Feels like I’ll have to pay a lot for that 3rd monitor!

MORE PANES!
Post reply on HN