41–50 of 855 posts
Looks like all the people saying "just start fusing those M1 CPU's into bigger ones" were right, that's basically what they did here (fused two M1 Max'es together). And since the presenter mentioned the Mac Pro would come on another day, I wonder if they'll just do 4x M1 Max for that.
>I wonder if they'll just do 4x M1 Max for that. They'll be running out of names for that thing. M1 Ultra II would be lame, so M1 Extreme? M1 Steve?
Are the neural engines actually used for anything, to anyone's knowledge? Edit: Apparently in iPhones, they are used for FaceID.
> M1 Ultra features an extraordinarily powerful 20-core CPU with 16 high-performance cores and four high-efficiency cores. It delivers 90 percent higher multi-threaded performance than the fastest available 16-core PC desktop chip in the same power envelope. Maybe not a huge caveat, as 16-core chips in the same power envelope probably covers most of what an average PC user is going to have, but there are 64-core Thre…
I'd like to see the actual performance comparison.
Didn't AMD do something similar with putting 2 CPU chips together with cache in-between? What's the difference here in packaging technology? (maybe there is no shared cache here)
This doesn’t seem to be two cores connected in standard SMP configuration, or with a shared cache between them. Apple claims there were like 10,000 connection points. It sounds like this operates as if it was one giant physical chip, not two separate processors that can talk very fast. I can’t wait to see benchmarks.
It's probably best to think of this chip as an extremely fast double socket SMP where the two sockets have much lower latency than normal. Software written with that in mind or multiple programs operating fully independent of each other will be able to take massive advantage of this, but most parallel code written for single socket systems will experience reduced gains or even potential losses depending on their parallelism model.
And overnight, Intel's Ice Lake is again way behind.
PC user don't pay 4k for a computer, on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price.
Of course Apple chips won’t work well for gaming, but what other benchmarks will this $2000 desktop win?
I wonder if the max 128GB graphics memory opens up some applications that would not have been viable before?
Not really. Thanks to the GPU interconnect NVLINK we have system 320GB. https://www.deltacomputer.com/nvidia-dgx-a100-320gb-3ys-edu.... There are even some with 640GB. This is at a different price point though.
And overnight, Intel's Ice Lake is again way behind.
PC user don't pay 4k for a computer, on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price.
I'm almost certain that's not true, especially for machines that would compete with the Studio
> on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price.
Citation needed. This hasn't been true for a long time as far as I can tell.
Looks like all the people saying "just start fusing those M1 CPU's into bigger ones" were right, that's basically what they did here (fused two M1 Max'es together). And since the presenter mentioned the Mac Pro would come on another day, I wonder if they'll just do 4x M1 Max for that.
>I wonder if they'll just do 4x M1 Max for that. They'll be running out of names for that thing. M1 Ultra II would be lame, so M1 Extreme? M1 Steve?