541–550 of 917 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 vs M1 Max - OpenCL https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/compare/3551790?bas ... [29.0%] 30% performance for ~15% of power use in laptop form factor? that's not boo, that seems like a clear win for apple.
Also, the 3090 costs almost like the whole macbook
I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…
> I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. Two reasons: 1. M1 is a super fast laptop chip. It provides mid-range desktop performance in a laptop form factor with mostly fanless operation. No matter how you look at it, that's impressive. 2. Apple really dragged their feet on updating the old Intel Macs before the transition. People in the Mac world (excluding hackintosh) were stu…
Where the M1 architecture really shines is the collaboration between CPU, GPU, memory, SSD, and other components on the SoC. The components all work together within the same 5nm silicon fabric, without ever having to go out to electrical interconnects on a motherboard. Thereby saving power, heat, etc.
What you lose in repairability/upgradability, you gain in performance on every front. That tradeoff is no different than what we chose in our mobile devices. If repairability and upgradability are more important to you, then definitely don't buy a device with an Apple M1; absolutely buy a Framework laptop (https://frame.work).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a three-year old hand-built 16-core ThreadRipper 1950X machine here with 64GB 4-channel RAM. I have a 14" MBP M1 Max on order. I just checked the Geekbench scores between these two machines: M1 Max: 1783 single-core | 12693 multi-core 1950X: 901 single-core | 7409 multi-core That's a big difference that I'm looking forward to. Also, just checked memory bandwidth. I have 80GB/s memory bandwidth [1] on my 1950X.…
So you are comparing a laptop that is just coming out to something 4 years old.
yeah, that actually is fairly wild. Granted, there are good technical reasons there (lower memory bandwidth, the 1950X having a NUMA/NUCA arrangement that often hampers the ability to bring all the cores to bear on a single task, Zen1 having extremely high memory latency and cross-CCX latency in general, etc) but it still actually is a very impressive feat.
I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…
Other benchmarks too have their biases. You can find plenty of discussion on this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the MAX has double the memory bandwidth of a PRO, but I cannot see workloads other than the ones you mentioned where it would make a significant improvement. Perhaps ML but that’s all proprietarized on CUDA so it’s unlikely. Perhaps Apple could revive OpenCL from the ashes?
Pro only supports 2 external displays which is why I ordered max
I was offered a large external monitor by my employer, but I turned it down because I didn't want to get used to it, and working in different locations is too critical to my workflow. But I'd love to see how people with more than 2 external displays are actually using them enough to justify the space and cost (not being facetious, I really would).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s disingenuous. I haven’t seen any claims that haven’t been backed up by benchmarks and specific use cases. What most people keep missing is the M1 jumped out way ahead on performance per watt on their first attempt at making their own processor . I’ve seen the M1 Mac for less than $700. In that price range, there’s not much competition when it comes to computation, GPU performance, etc. and comes fairly…
> on their first attempt at making their own processor. They've been making their own chips for over a decade now. The M1 is not fundamentally different from the A series, and in fact seems to serve as a drop in replacement (in the iPad Pro line). That being said, this is the first time they're confident enough in their own processor to rewrite their whole desktop software stack and market what are traditionally mobi…
Pretty sure it wasn’t a matter of confidence, as Apple has been signaling making their own desktop processor for a while. There was an iPad launch a few years ago where Phil Schiller said that particular A-series processor had desktop-class performance like three different times.
Also, it’s the third time they’ve done a processor transition: 68K to PowerPC to Intel to ARM. There’s no doubt they’ve known for years they could do this if needed.
It wasn’t a rewrite; it was mostly a recompile, especially after Apple dropped support for 32-bit apps. iOS and macOS share many frameworks and APIs and that’s been running on ARM since 2007.
When Apple announced the switch to Intel in 2006, Jobs revealed they had Mac OS X running on Intel in the lab for years; there’s no doubt they’ve had macOS running on ARM for years as well.
Likely getting the logistics of software and hardware development to align at the scale Apple operates at is what took the time; not the lack of confidence.
This move was probably inevitable but it certainly didn’t help that Intel repeatedly missed deadlines and performance goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m comparing Windows PC (i7-6700k, nvme) with MBA m1 and MBA is noticeable faster in just everything. Compilation time of JS and Java code is literally 2 times faster on MBA M1 than on desktop i7 CPU.
That hardware is from 2015, though. A fairer comparison would be to current gen Intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 2060 and 3090 on these compares are the desktop chips, right?
The 3090 is a high end desktop machine. There is no mobile version of the 3090 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proc... ).