Live data from Hacker News

Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

macworld.com

261–270 of 368 posts

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#261

This is a 10nm processor, right ? So a 10mn processor can be as fast as a 5mn processor but at more than double the voltage ? Not so bad. What would be the perf of this processor with TSMC 5nm tech ?

Those numbers are not comparable. In fact, these days they are meaningless. Intel used to measure a part of a transistor. Worked well until the geometry of the transistor changed and there wasn’t something comparable. So they chose something different that kinda looked right. TSMC chose something else. These numbers are meaningless. Mostly all the fabs really are talking about transistors per mm. But if you look clos…

Thank you for your answer. I got instantly buried below the "bad perf per watt" comments and thought nobody would see my question.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#262

Hold on - it's 2022, and an extremely high end $4000 laptop with the latest Intel CPU and an NVIDIA 3080Ti comes with a display that's... 1080 resolution? My 2008 17" MacBook Pro has a screen that's 1920 x 1200. My iPhone 6+ is 1920 x 1080. What am I missing? Is the non-Apple world really fine with stagnant resolutions?

It's a gaming laptop. The refresh rate is 360hz.

My 7 year old laptop is 1440p, and 4k laptops have been a thing for a long time. Every manufacturer has one.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#263
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overclocking isn't just limited by heat dissipation, and dealing with the additional heat generation is one of the easier issues to overcome. Much more limiting is the fact that the electronic components in the hardware (everything from RAM to the more "integrated" components on the PCBs) have certain amounts of time which they need to take in order to tie voltages high or low, to either read or output a bit. This am…

It's not like Apple would ever do it, but the M1 should have heaps of OC headroom. Given that the RAM is already on package, all they need to do is turn up the CPU multiplier. AMD chips are doing similar clocks to Intel on TSMC N7, so Apple could (but won't) have a chip running way higher than the clocks they are currently shipping with. Also, it's kinda inaccurate to imply any overclocked setup will crash, there's p…

Overclocking headroom means you have timing slack, and timing slack means you have faster ~= leakier circuits than necessary, or stages which aren't filled with work which is also an inefficiency.

I expect Apple has an extreme focus on power efficiency and especially idle / leakage power, much more than Intel considering the core basically the same as they use in their phones. They also have a different approach to turbo / dvfs. So I would expect M1 to actually be a lot tighter than Intel and not have so much OC headroom.

Obviously you can buy timing with voltage to some degree, so there would be something there probably. Modern nodes are running into more problems with voltage induced breakdown though so the OC limit looks very different to what you can ship in a product. Has anyone measured M1's VDD?

> AMD chips are doing similar clocks to Intel on TSMC N7, so Apple could (but won't) have a chip running way higher than the clocks they are currently shipping with.

Not their existing microarchitecture though. They do nearly 2x the work per clock as AMD chips which necessitates more logic per stage. Getting a microarchitectural edge means making less logic do more work and it's very possible Apple have some edge there, it just wouldn't be near 2x IMO.

The silicon technology of course plays into it, but when you look at how fast individual transistors and the shortest poly to connect them can switch, speeds over 100GHz have been possible on 90nm. Today's cutting edge is probably over 200GHz (e.g., search ring oscillator). So it's not a fundamental switching speed limit of the tech that gets you.

I would say Apple could probably redo the physical design and synthesis work and minimal logic changes to target a faster and leakier device that's not suitable for phones but might be a little fairer comparison. It wouldn't put it at a 5-6GHz frequency, but could easily be enough to re-take these benchmarks and still be ahead on efficiency.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 3 M1 series chips, the M1, the M1 Pro, and the M1 Max. The M1 is a different die to the M1 Pro and M1 Max. I believe the Pro and Max are the same die binned differently as you alluded to.

They are all different dies. However, the M1 Pro is just an M1 Max design with a chunk lopped off the bottom. Not at the manufacturing stage; at the design stage. They are otherwise identical; the device tree representation of the M1 Max is a superset of the M1 Pro, down to memory addresses and everything. Binning comes in with the lower-core-count variants of each chip.

Again yield; not sure how many people understand how big yield would be even Apple. At some yield you can’t support the demand. None of what was written above makes a lot of sense unless Apples just burning fab cycles. They might be but I kind of doubt it since it would seriously impact device cost and would take up slots in the fab leading to longer lead times. Not even Apple can dictate all their chips to be P1 at TSMC. In actuality it’s much more likely that the difference is in metal connectivity for cores. For low core designs it’s likely the lower number of cores are yield fallout and they use an e-fuse to disable them. The metal difference would be faster and allow them to respond faster to changes in demand even while wafers are in the line. The cost of all these masks and skus would be a factor even for Apple because we aren’t talking about some old technology node here. They are on the bleeding edge and I’m sure they have capacity constraints just like everyone else.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#265
post #11
post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

the fact is, apple hardware is not _that_ expensive relative to what you get for the money. Their supply chain is super optimized, and it's hard to beat them on price if a competitor decides to try (at the same quality that is).

Apple's base spec is super price competitive -- no $1000 laptop is even in the same universe of quality as a Macbook Air. But when you start upgrading the memory and storage is where Apple really takes you to the cleaners.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#266
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact is, apple hardware is not _that_ expensive relative to what you get for the money. Their supply chain is super optimized, and it's hard to beat them on price if a competitor decides to try (at the same quality that is).

I think one thing that creates that impression is the costs for beefier options in the Apple store. Everytime I configure a Mac and add RAM I feel ripped off. The price difference between the upgraded Mac and what you'd pay on Newegg is just so large. I'm still a happy customer, since I still get so much lasting value, but in the moment it certainly hurts.

It's Apple's way of price discrimination. They want to offer computers at every price point, but they don't want to build a dozen different models.

So their entry level machines are a great deal -- you get the quality of a 5000€ machine for just 2500€ if you can live with limited storage.

But if you want enough storage, you're paying the full price...

I'm not a fan of their policy, because the result is that lots of people get computers that are artificially crippled by low storage. But there's no way they could keep their entry level prices as low if they charged a fair price for upgrades.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#267
post #257

I would think that speed would come 5th in my list of desirable feature in a laptop 1. portability 2. battery lifetime 3. cost 4. connectivity So Intel bragging for speed with such higher consumption and dedicated GPU (as opposed to integrated one). Maybe I have some niche use

Laptops are on a spectrum IMO. You can buy 5kg machines because you expect them to move them once every 2 months.

You can buy a MacBook Air because you want to watch a show while cooking.

These are the situations I have encountered.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#268
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t find the same. Chrome seems to eat the battery a lot in my experience.

I deeply regret getting only 16gb ram in my air for exactly this reason.

I got an 8GB Mac mini. I was broke at the time but needed a replacement in a hurry, and even though my two previous machines had 16GB, 8GB should be fine for web dev work, right?

Yeah, I regret it. I like to have YouTube videos on in the background, and usually it's fine, but for some reason live streams in particular just gobble up RAM until there's sometimes skipping audio and noticeable waits when switching apps.

Interestingly hiding the chat seems to help; I wonder if the YouTube "app" isn't flushing those DOM nodes corresponding to chat messages off the page after a certain amount of time or something. When worse comes to worse, Streamlink comes to the rescue: https://streamlink.github.io

Oh well. Making do for now. And as others have said, the performance (when not RAM-constrained) and noise (or lack thereof) have been blissful.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in single-threaded performance, it's really no faster than a dippy little Macbook Air. Maybe in terms of raw FLOPS or something, but more importantly it has enormous levels of memory and storage bandwidth, which is what's actually important for most user workloads these days. That's not even accounting for the performance of the GPU cores which can be used for a ton of multimedia workloads.

> more importantly it has enormous levels of memory and storage bandwidth, which is what's actually important for most user workloads these days. I've heard this tossed around a lot, but is there any evidence that it's actually true? I struggle to imagine a regular workload that benefits from 32gbps of bandwidth, much less a scenario where the average layman could saturate a 200gbps or 400gbps bus.

> I struggle to imagine a regular workload that benefits from 32gbps of bandwidth, much less a scenario where the average layman could saturate a 200gbps or 400gbps bus.

Since this is HN, many of us like… compiling, you know, stuff. It is a regular workload for many of us on here.

The main beneficiary of the M1 Max wide memory architecture appears to be the Haskell GHC compiler, which is very, very voracious when it comes to the memory consumption and the data bus width. Regular Haskell builds shift the data around at 35-40 Gbps on average, with the Haskell optimiser hovering around 50 Gpbs and easily peaking out at 65 Gbps on medium size projects. Since cabal (the Haskell build toolchain) for some reason can't fully utilise the «-j10» parameter, roughly a 1/2 of CPU cores are not utilised. Which means we can kick off another large Haskell build in parallel without affecting memory transfer speeds of the first build.

Rust release builds are a runner-up with 30-35 Gbps transfer speeds on average. Static type analysis and type inference in Haskell and Rust is hard, is complex and requires a lot of fast memory and benefits vastly from large CPU caches.

I have not attemped a Rust LTO build yet, but I would expect the LTO builds to like the wide memory bus, like, A LOT. In general, a LTO build (e.g. large C++ builds) is heavily memory bound and shifts data blocks, small and large, around extensively.

But an application is not very useful with a dataset, so many of us then like training our data models. Data model training can easily saturate 200 Gbps per a M1 Max CPU cluster.

Then the application needs to load the data in and usually do something with it. For example, issue complex queries to a graph database. Large CPU caches coupled with a wide data bus is a winner here.

All of the above are examples of real, practical and regular workloads.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#270
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact is, apple hardware is not _that_ expensive relative to what you get for the money. Their supply chain is super optimized, and it's hard to beat them on price if a competitor decides to try (at the same quality that is).

What gives people the perception of apple being expensive is that other OEMs play tricks to boost numbers on a spec sheet that the common person checks while cheeping out massively on parts that don’t show on the spec sheet. I know someone who got an MSI laptop recently and it’s complete garbage. The screen casing cracked from the force of the hinge within months, the trackpad is borderline unusable, wifi is spotty,…

> What gives people the perception of apple being expensive is that other OEMs play tricks to boost numbers on a spec sheet that the common person checks while cheeping out massively on parts that don’t show on the spec sheet.

This is very real. I noticed that the Lenovo T14s has a noticeably better trackpad than the Lenovo T14, but you can't tell unless you try it out on both Notebooks as both are listed as "Mylar® surface multi-touch touchpad" on the spec sheet.

Post reply on HN