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

Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

tlkh.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 217 posts

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#181

Post by rgbrenner »

nwienert wrote: post #169
rgbrenner wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not going to scale linearly though. The Max has 400mb of memory bandwidth. If you attempt to use as much as possible, as single Max chip uses 220-240mb/sec. The remainder is likely because they planned to use multiple chips in later products. But 2 Maxs will completely saturate it... so that's going to be a bottleneck if they try 4 Maxs. And there would be little point going above 4. For comparison, the 3090 has…

Aren’t you assuming they won’t scale the memory bandwidth?

Yes, that's the way that works. To scale memory bandwidth, you would need a new chip. It wouldn't be an M1 Max anymore. If rumors of them using multiple m1 maxs is true, then they have 400mb/sec of memory bandwidth.

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#182

Post by azinman2 »

jensensbutton wrote: post #178
azinman2 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many parts of the world don't have stable electricity, reducing electricity usage reduces costs and overall emissions in to the planet, and as you approach much longer periods you massively increase convenience.

Those parts of the world aren't generally spending multiple thousands of American dollars on a laptop.

You'd be surprised. Additionally, that also includes parts of the US as well.

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#183

Post by bilalq »

Glad to see benchmarks and a writeup for an audience doing something other than video editing. It feels like Youtubers only make review videos for other Youtubers these days. Even if the methodology here isn't very scientific, it's at least useful as anecdotal info.

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#184

Post by dev_tty01 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #141
vel0city wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really due to the hardware or because of the overall behavior of the two browsers? Isn't Safari better battery-wise than Chrome even on Intel Macs? IIRC Edge has better efficiency in Windows than Chrome, so its not surprising me Chrome is less efficient. Its a bloated shadow of its original self.

macOS has a bunch of energy management and performance-related "private" APIs and libraries that Safari is allowed to call, but Chrome is not.

That's the second time you have made that assertion in this discussion. Can you be more specific please? I have not seen any evidence of that, but I am very interested.

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#185

Post by edgyquant »

azinman2 wrote: post #175
littlestymaar wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine an entire core optimized for Safari and its Javascript engine. Their next chip is called the "M1 Marathon Edition" and you get 36 hours of real-world battery life with Safari. I don't think that would be worth it. What's the point of 36 hours of battery life? How often do you need more than 12 hours of life on battery? Increasing the maximum battery life only makes sense when it also increases battery life…

Many parts of the world don't have stable electricity, reducing electricity usage reduces costs and overall emissions in to the planet, and as you approach much longer periods you massively increase convenience.

I don’t think regions susceptible to black/brown outs and power outages are the intended market of an M1 Mac, though that could change.

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#186

Post by edgyquant »

FireBeyond wrote: post #141
vel0city wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really due to the hardware or because of the overall behavior of the two browsers? Isn't Safari better battery-wise than Chrome even on Intel Macs? IIRC Edge has better efficiency in Windows than Chrome, so its not surprising me Chrome is less efficient. Its a bloated shadow of its original self.

macOS has a bunch of energy management and performance-related "private" APIs and libraries that Safari is allowed to call, but Chrome is not.

I would also like to see some documentation on these private apis. Sounds fascinating I wonder what they’re doing differently? Are they exposing the same kind of abstractions but the public api is purposely slower? Why would they not want all apps to use less battery life?

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#187

Post by [deleted] »

edgyquant wrote: post #185
azinman2 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many parts of the world don't have stable electricity, reducing electricity usage reduces costs and overall emissions in to the planet, and as you approach much longer periods you massively increase convenience.

I don’t think regions susceptible to black/brown outs and power outages are the intended market of an M1 Mac, though that could change.

[deleted]

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#188

Post by littlestymaar »

azinman2 wrote: post #175
littlestymaar wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine an entire core optimized for Safari and its Javascript engine. Their next chip is called the "M1 Marathon Edition" and you get 36 hours of real-world battery life with Safari. I don't think that would be worth it. What's the point of 36 hours of battery life? How often do you need more than 12 hours of life on battery? Increasing the maximum battery life only makes sense when it also increases battery life…

Many parts of the world don't have stable electricity, reducing electricity usage reduces costs and overall emissions in to the planet, and as you approach much longer periods you massively increase convenience.

There's a gap between no stable electricity and 20+ hours without electricity, so what fraction of Apple customers do you expect to live in this tiny niche, like 0.1%? In such situation you'd use an external battery anyway…

> reducing electricity usage reduces costs and overall emissions in to the planet

You're going to need a looooooooooooooooong time for the electricity usage reduction to compensate for the enormous energy cost of manufacturing a new laptop. If you care about the climate, don't buy a new laptop if your previous one is still running fine, there's just no way energy efficiency is going to be worth it.

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#189

Post by mrkstu »

bogantech wrote: post #97
foobiekr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They almost certainly will not do this and it would be a NUMA nightmare if they did.

Not sure why you were downvoted for this. Considering that some of the magic in these things is the shared, local memory with a very wide bus it would seem obvious that trying to go multi chip would indeed be a massive headache in this regard

Check out this[0] link to see why the thought is Apple is doing exactly that.

[0]: https://architosh.com/2021/10/apples-new-m1-pro-is-chop-vers...

Re: Benchmarking the Apple M1 Max

#190

Post by graftak »

edgyquant wrote: post #185
azinman2 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many parts of the world don't have stable electricity, reducing electricity usage reduces costs and overall emissions in to the planet, and as you approach much longer periods you massively increase convenience.

I don’t think regions susceptible to black/brown outs and power outages are the intended market of an M1 Mac, though that could change.

Aren’t many companies normally located in the Silicon Valley now migrating to Texas, where the electricity infrastructure is wonky at best.
Post reply on HN