71–80 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AMD Threadripper 3990X costs about $5,000 and I'm guessing that's cheap compared to the Xeons.
An AMD Ryzen 9 5950X cost $700 and is almost 2x faster than an m1 max in multi core.
The new Alder Lake CPU from Intel for laptops is faster than M1 MAX: https://wccftech.com/intel-alder-lake-mobility-cpu-benchmark... So, nothing special about M1, especially if you consider that Adler Lake will use an older manufacturing process (7nm vs 5nm used by Apple).
And it devours, what, 5X the power and generates far more heat and fan noise requiring a much thicker machine to house it? Also the integrated graphics will (going from Intel) be nowhere near as impressive as the M1 Max's graphics, so it's hardly competing on that front either. Not really a victory there. Also, it hasn't even been released yet, so comparing hypothetical unreleased products isn't a good comparison to…
>in order to give the M1 Max some real competition, one has to skip laptop chips entirely and reach for not just high end desktop chips, but for server-class workstation hardware to really beat the M1 Max this is really interesting
It's not even interesting that the M1 is "slightly" beaten by a Mac Pro's Xeon, because nobody is doing raytracing on CPUs.
A Pascal nvidia GPU will render scenes in Blender faster than a current mid-tier AMD CPU, and it's two generations old.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=blender-...
It takes an RTX 3080 card (not even the fastest consumer Ampere card) 11 seconds to render a scene that the fastest Pascal card (1080) took 94 seconds. That's nearly an order of magnitude faster.
I saw an article comparing the M1 Max to a high end AMD card, but that's also meh. AMDs's GPUs don't perform anywhere near as well as Ampere and they use far more power, so they're an easy target to compare against. AMD fakes their benchmarks by overclocking the cards depending on temperature, and the benchmarks they run to tout performance figures are just shy of where the card starts to throttle back for thermals. An AMD GPU that has been running for an hour will perform substantially worse compared to an Ampere card.
>in order to give the M1 Max some real competition, one has to skip laptop chips entirely and reach for not just high end desktop chips, but for server-class workstation hardware to really beat the M1 Max this is really interesting
Intel's Alder Lake benchmarks show that their new mobile processor is faster than the M1 Max. So, this domination doesn't seem to be a long term thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it devours, what, 5X the power and generates far more heat and fan noise requiring a much thicker machine to house it? Also the integrated graphics will (going from Intel) be nowhere near as impressive as the M1 Max's graphics, so it's hardly competing on that front either. Not really a victory there. Also, it hasn't even been released yet, so comparing hypothetical unreleased products isn't a good comparison to…
M1 MAX is not a low-power CPU. It consumes the whole 30 WATTs (!!!) and has an active cooling system. H-series CPUs from Intel have a TPD of 35 - 45 WATTS and this is almost the same as M1 MAX. According to your calculation, Intel CPU should consume 150 WATTs which is completely wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it devours, what, 5X the power and generates far more heat and fan noise requiring a much thicker machine to house it? Also the integrated graphics will (going from Intel) be nowhere near as impressive as the M1 Max's graphics, so it's hardly competing on that front either. Not really a victory there. Also, it hasn't even been released yet, so comparing hypothetical unreleased products isn't a good comparison to…
M1 MAX is not a low-power CPU. It consumes the whole 30 WATTs (!!!) and has an active cooling system. H-series CPUs from Intel have a TPD of 35 - 45 WATTS and this is almost the same as M1 MAX. According to your calculation, Intel CPU should consume 150 WATTs which is completely wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really know where to start on this. SKUs that target very different markets are necessarily going to have different performance and efficiency tradeoffs. And core which target different cycle times are going to be able to achieve different IPC. This clearly confuses the basis of performance and different freq/ipc design points. I also didn't suggest Apple would never have the best chips ever. Clearly all else…
> I don't really know where to start on this. SKUs that target very different markets are necessarily going to have different performance and efficiency tradeoffs. And core which target different cycle times are going to be able to achieve different IPC. This clearly confuses the basis of performance and different freq/ipc design points. see my response elsewhere, but these aren't unrelated problems: Apple has higher…
I'm not sure how you established that. IPC and picoseconds available per cycle are intrinsically linked. Talking about IPC in isolation is nonsense, particularly when comparing a core that makes less than half the cycle time.
> where in the world are you getting that this is I just mean the rule of thumb for the "x86 tax", not any specific device. The full thread should have context here, I'm not saying Apple is or is not ahead in a particular instance, I'm asking about more general trends of device performance and ISA.
Some of these images look incredibly real. Even knowing those are renders my brain refuses to believe these are not actual photographs. Also, these Xeons are really put to shame here.
> these Xeons are really put to shame here. It doesn't really matter. Nobody's doing rendering on CPUs. I get that he's sticking to comparing CPU to CPU rendering to compare apples to apples, but that's like saying "My new buggy whip is amazing!" in a news article written in 1950. Everyone is doing GPU based rendering. Pascal based GPUs are still (I believe) several times faster than even current mid-tier AMD desktop…
Everyone in the field is looking at GPU and some significant advances have been made, but it's definitely not true that "nobody" is doing rendering on CPUs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An AMD Ryzen 9 5950X cost $700 and is almost 2x faster than an m1 max in multi core.
It has to be 3x faster to match M1's efficiency given the TDP is 30 vs 105.