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

Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

macworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 368 posts

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

#301

Post by 1_player »

baq wrote: post #288
viktorcode wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just sad. Personally, I can't go back to displays with low DPI. Too much strain for my eyes.

you would if you used windows. DPI scaling is _horrible_. macos figured this out years ago. it'll take a decade to solve this problem on windows and it'll never be 100% solved, because legacy apps don't support any kind of scaling at all.

I've used Windows 10 on a 4K monitor at 200% for a couple years and I didn't have any issue. macOS' scaling works best, but Windows has been HiDPI ready for a while, and only a small handful of old apps need you to enable the application-scaling option manually. Especially since Windows still runs 15 years old applications that use crappy old APIs, while macOS doesn't.

It's not fantastic by any means, but it's a disservice to call it _horrible_.

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

#302

Post by timpattinson »

MBCook wrote: post #163
neogodless wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one. Well no... they put a very fast (high refresh) gaming screen in a gaming laptop. If you want QHD or 4K screens, they are out there. That's not... more than a Google away. So it's a really bad assumption to make. Here, first google result for "Intel 4K laptop", it's $1500. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-zenbook-flip-15-q538ei-15-... Your fau…

According to The Verge there is another configuration of this machine with double the RAM and a 4K 240Hz for the same price. Why in the world would you want a 1080p display just to get an extra 120 FPS? Even if you can perceive that difference (which I kind of doubt) you’re not going to get rates that high with your settings up high anyway. In The Verge’s tests only the old CS:GO got above 150 (it got over 400!). “ I…

Professional CS:GO is played mostly at 1280x720 and 300-400FPS+ There is definitely a market need for this type of setup, whether you think it's a dumb idea or not.

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

#303

Post by terafo »

olliej wrote: post #67
MBCook wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that but the Apple GPU is around double the strength of the Intel integrated GPU. Obviously the 3080 smashes the Apple GPU but that comes at a huge power cost.

Seriously why can’t Intel make a decent igpu? My understanding is that the M1 GPU is just “ok” and isn’t competing with AMD or nvidia?

Because of memory bandwidth limitations. There are EIGHT memory channels in M1 Max. To pull off that amount of bandwidth you would need to do a lot of crazy engineering and get not that much in return, because this approach doesn't scale well beyond M1 Max performance. You can't just add more and more memory channels. Even if they slap two chips together and use memory controllers of both, total bandwidth still would be less than in one 3090. And it will, most likely, loose to 3090 in all tasks other than video encoding. And you wouldn't be able to put a lot of these chips together, too much overhead. But on the other hand you can put 4x3090 into one PC. At the end it is just cheaper to use dedicated GPU past certain level of performance, especially if you don't make your own hardware AND software.

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

#304

Post by bayindirh »

omegalulw wrote: post #293
chias wrote: 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…

> 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. When you overclock you add voltage which helps with this which goes a long way. You would often hit thermal limits first, so heat dissipation is a major factor.

This is not my experience in the olden Athlon XP days. Even though you give the extra voltage and give enough cooling, the CPU starts to encounter many internal errors and needs to re-run a lot of instruction trains to get sane results.

This causes heat and load spikes, and while you get no errors, the increased frequency doesn't give you any real world performance gains. Returning a to a slower configuration actually gives a much snappier and performant system.

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

#305

Post by u320 »

kingosticks wrote: post #275
amluto wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s related indirectly. A longer pipeline tends to result in shorter stages within the pipeline. (This is the whole point of pipelining.)

OK, yes there's often correlation but that's it. A longer pipeline doesn't affect max circuit frequency. The other sibling comment regarding distance isn't true. regardless of how insane your feedbacks are. Physical placement tools have always handled this in my experience (as a chip designer for 10+ years).

There is no point of lengthening the pipeline if you don't get higher frequency from it. It would just add complexity and and a higher branch mispredict penalty.

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

#306

Post by mbarbar »

8192kjshad09- wrote: post #158
p1necone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I think it's a question of what the different target markets are willing to pay. A lot of people want gaming laptops, so systems with big GPUs and big CPUs and not so great size/weight/battery life can be had relatively cheap. But most people that want big CPUs and good battery life but don't care about the GPU so much are people who need the system for their job, so manufacturers can get away with pricing tho…

Out of curiosity what jobs need a good CPU but also can't take advantage of a good GPU? It seems like most of the high performance numerical computing software today is GPU-accelerated. If performance for your job is super important, why isn't your software GPU-accelerated? I might just be naive but it's honestly hard for me to imagine why anybody would need a good CPU and not also want a good GPU.

I work on static analysis (points-to analysis) that does not use any GPU at all and is mostly single threaded.

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

#307

Post by terafo »

loeg wrote: post #31
xt00 wrote: post #6

Yea the old narrative of "arm is power efficient, but doesn't actually run real desktop level stuff at that power level" is pretty dead at this point.. it now runs desktop level stuff at 3x lower power than intel's latest chips.. and the potential for apple's chips to keep improving at that same power envelope is definitely there.. so...

Yeah, ARM is fine, as long as Mac meets your needs. No other ARM is close, and as a PC hardware platform, it’s still a giant pain compared to x86.

If there was a way to put Altra Max into PC, it would rip and tear threadripper apart.

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

#308

Post by brian_herman »

dijit wrote: 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.

Yeah, even AMD with their 5800X3D can't keep up.

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

#309

Post by jorvi »

chias wrote: post #113
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think this is going to happen, but: It would be extremely funny if Apple strapped a heavy copper heatsink and a turbo fan to an M1 and just overclocked the ever-lasting crap out of it. The crazy thing about using a Macbook Pro (with an M1 Pro or M1 Max CPU) is that, in single-threaded performance, it's really no faster than a dippy little Macbook Air. And at the end of the day, single-thread performance is mo…

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…

> This is part of why if you're overclocking your computer, you end up experiencing errors or unexpected crashes even when temperature doesn't go too high. Past reasonable tolerances, you can't just cool it more and expect it to work.

People push CPUs to absurd limits with LN2 cooling so they’d just not true.

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

#310

Post by terafo »

MBCook wrote: post #163
neogodless wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one. Well no... they put a very fast (high refresh) gaming screen in a gaming laptop. If you want QHD or 4K screens, they are out there. That's not... more than a Google away. So it's a really bad assumption to make. Here, first google result for "Intel 4K laptop", it's $1500. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-zenbook-flip-15-q538ei-15-... Your fau…

According to The Verge there is another configuration of this machine with double the RAM and a 4K 240Hz for the same price. Why in the world would you want a 1080p display just to get an extra 120 FPS? Even if you can perceive that difference (which I kind of doubt) you’re not going to get rates that high with your settings up high anyway. In The Verge’s tests only the old CS:GO got above 150 (it got over 400!). “ I…

You don't play on the highest settings in competitive shooters even when you are CPU bound and your machine outputs same amount of frames regardless of performance. Higher settings means more distractions for them.
Post reply on HN