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

Apple M1 Ultra

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 855 posts

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#261

Post by fivea »

kiratp wrote: post #230
willcipriano wrote: post #87

Is it actually more powerful than a top of the line threadripper[0] or is that not a "personal computer" CPU by this definition? I feel like 64 cores would beat 20 on some workloads even if the 20 were way faster in single core performance. [0] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3...

My workstation has a 3990x. Our "world" build is slightly faster on my M1 Max. https://twitter.com/kiratpandya/status/1457438725680480257 The 3990x runs a bit faster on the initial compile stage but the linking is single threaded and the M1 Max catches up at that point. I expect the M1 Ultra to crush the 3990x on compile time.

> The 3990x runs a bit faster on the initial compile stage but the linking is single threaded and the M1 Max catches up at that point.

Isn't linking IO-bound?

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#262

Post by jazzyjackson »

arcticbull wrote: post #102
msoad wrote: post #76

At what point Apple will put those chips in their servers or sell server chips? It only makes sense for them to take this architecture to the cloud deployments

They likely won't re-visit the Xserve, IMO. No reason to. They can't sell them at a premium compared to peers and its outside their area of expertise.

I don't know, the performance per watt has a big effect on data-centers, both in power budget and HVAC for cooling.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#263

Post by manquer »

adfgadfgaery wrote: post #226
sharikous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And massively behind in terms of power consuption

Yes, certainly. I don't think that's relevant in this case, though. Why would anyone care if their workstation CPU draws 60W or 200W? It's easy to cool in either case and the power consumption is trivial. M1 is clearly the best design on the market for mobile devices and is merely very good for desktops. Let's keep the enthusiasm realistic.

Higher power means more cooling, which usually means more noise. A lot of people find value in quieter machines.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#264

Post by paulmd »

runako wrote: post #159
willcipriano wrote: post #87

Is it actually more powerful than a top of the line threadripper[0] or is that not a "personal computer" CPU by this definition? I feel like 64 cores would beat 20 on some workloads even if the 20 were way faster in single core performance. [0] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3...

Having not seen benchmarks, I would imagine that claimed memory bandwidth of ~800 GB/s vs Threadripper's claimed ~166 GB/s would make a significant difference for a number of real-world workloads.

Someone will probably chime in and correct me (such is the way of the internet - Cunningham's Law in action) but I don't think the CPU itself can access all 800 GB/s? I think someone in one of the previous M1 Pro/Max threads mentioned that several of the memory channels on Pro/Max are dedicated for the GPU. So you can't just get a 800 GB/s postgres server here.

You could still write OpenCL kernels of course. Doesn't mean you can't use it, but not sure if it's all just accessible to CPU-side code.

(or maybe it is? it's still a damn fast piece of hardware either way)

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#265

Post by ksubedi »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #204
xiphias2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As more developers move to ARM architecture by buying Macbooks (I did it last year the first time in my life), ARM cloud will grow very fast, and Apple needs growth, so they can't afford not to do it in a few years (probably with M2 architecture they are already thinking of it). Regarding the exact timeline: I don't know :)

They’d have to go all-in on supporting third party OSs like Linux first. Sure, there are projects to bring linux to the M1, but enterprises that buy commercial server hardware will demand 1st party support

Knowing Apple, their version of "cloud" servers would probably be some sort of SDK that lets developers build applications on top of their hardware / software stack, and charge per usage. Kind of like Firebase, but with Apple's stack.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#266

Post by guelo »

willcipriano wrote: post #87

Is it actually more powerful than a top of the line threadripper[0] or is that not a "personal computer" CPU by this definition? I feel like 64 cores would beat 20 on some workloads even if the 20 were way faster in single core performance. [0] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3...

It's bad for competition that only Apple gets to use TSMC's 5nm process. Though what's really bad is that Intel and Samsung haven't been able to compete with TSMC.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#267

Post by gzer0 »

Nition wrote: post #239
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't have to though. A Threadripper 3990X uses barrels of electricity, generates plenty of heat, comes with no GPU, has worse single-threaded performance, and still costs $4000 by itself without any of the parts needed to make it actually work.

The question is in relation to Apple's claim that it's "the world’s most powerful and capable chip for a personal computer".

It might also be reasonable to say that the threadripper is a workstation chip, not a chip for personal computers.

Edit: even AMD themselves call their threadripper lineup workstation chips, not personal.

https://www.amd.com/en/processors/workstation

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#268

Post by fivea »

enneff wrote: post #256
Teknoman117 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something is seriously fishy about those geekbench results. 24-core scores 20k, 32-core scores 22.3k, and 64-core score 25k. Something isn't scaling there.

Yeah, it’s the real world tasks that GeekBench tries to simulate that don’t tend to scale linearity with processor count. A lot of software does not take good advantage of multiple cores.

> A lot of software does not take good advantage of multiple cores.

It sounds pointless to come up with synthetic benchmarks which emulate software that is not able to handle hardware, and then use said synthetic benchmarks to evaluate the hardware performance.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#269

Post by FredPret »

mwcampbell wrote: post #111

I wonder how long it will be until a CPU as capable as this one will be the required baseline for ordinary apps. Is there any hope that the upgrade treadmill will stop any time soon?

One day we’ll be up to our eyeballs in computronium, and it will never be enough.

Thinking is a superpower even better than being the first species to develop sight.

See also “The Last Question” by Asimov.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#270

Post by Teknoman117 »

enneff wrote: post #256
Teknoman117 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something is seriously fishy about those geekbench results. 24-core scores 20k, 32-core scores 22.3k, and 64-core score 25k. Something isn't scaling there.

Yeah, it’s the real world tasks that GeekBench tries to simulate that don’t tend to scale linearity with processor count. A lot of software does not take good advantage of multiple cores.

That's certainly true. But if that's your workload you shouldn't be buying a 64-core CPU...

I use a few 32 and 64 core machines for build servers and file servers, and while the 64-core EPYCs are not twice as fast as the 32-core ones due to lower overall frequency, they're 70% or so faster in most of the things I throw at them.

Post reply on HN