521–530 of 855 posts
They say this is the M1 Ultra Benchmark https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/13330272 Wow.
Single core does not appear any better than m1 mini.
I wouldn’t expect single-threaded improvement until the M2.
This is insane. They claim that its GPU performance tops the RTX 3090, while using 200W less power. I happen to have this GPU on my PC and not only it costs over $3000, but its also very power-hungry and loud. Currently, you need this kind of GPU performance for high resolution VR gaming at 90 fps, but its just barely enough. This means that the GPU will run very loudly and heat up the room, and running games like HL…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microwaving lunch: 2 minutes at 800W; desktop with monitor: 8 hours at 150W, that is 45 times higher. Similar for coffee, no simple math for AC. If you can reduce 150W to 80W, it is both significant and achievable - this is what my desktop usually draws.
You forget these things sit ~idle (or at browser load) 99% of the time. The magnitude of difference only expresses at peak consumption. Furthermore, what about the lost time/hassle for changeover plus embodied energy in throwing out the last system? It's insanity.
Acceleration of that cycle with a Mac replacement, which usually has a 50-60 month lifecycle, is a pretty significant savings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Exposing my limited understanding of that level of the computing stack - it is but Apple seems to have very very good caching strategies - filesystem and L1/2/3. That would mean that these comparisons between Threadripper and the M1 Ultra do not reflect CPU performance but instead showcase whatever choice of SSD they've been using.
L1/2/3 are CPU caches, not SSD. Though there is a good chance these are mostly firmware optimizations, not hardware. So still not an apples-to-apples comparison of cpu design.
was surprised to learn that the CPUs and GPUs on the M1x chips are essentially a single unit, and for the M1 Ultra they basically slapped two M1’s together. in traditional PC building, the CPU is quite distinct from the GPU. can anyone ELI5 what the benefits are to having the CPU closely integrated with GPU like the M1 has? seems a bit unwieldy but i dont know anything about computer architecture
I believe some Intel/AMD low power chips (non-performance laptops) have use this unified memory model as well.
But it became extremely common on phones where there was no historical baggage and it was thought out from day one. I believe all the consoles use a unified memory layout now, but I’m not 100% sure.
The usual limitation is you’re stuck with the on-die GPU, which can pale in comparison to a top of the line AMD or nVidia board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD will be on TSMC N5P next year, which will give them node parity with Apple (who will be releasing A15 on N5P this year), and actually a small node lead over the current N5-based A14 products. So we will get to test the "it's all just node lead guys, nothing wrong with x86!!!" theory. Don't worry though there will still be room to move the goalposts with "uhhh, but, Apple is designing for high IPC and low clocks,…
There is a third variable: Apple is putting ram much closer to the CPU than AMD. This has the advantage that you get lower latency (and slightly higher bandwidth), but the downside that you're currently limited to 128gb of ram, compared to 2tb for threadripper (4tb for epic). Amd's 3d cache that they're launching in a few months will be interesting since it lets the L3 go up a ton.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t support your argument when we’re talking about a massive processor like a threadripper vs. a M1 Ultra. The performance per watt isn’t in the same universe and that matters.
> The performance per watt isn’t in the same universe and that matters. I couldn’t give less of a shit about performance-per-watt. The ONLY metric I care about is performance-per-dollar. A Mac Studio and Threadripper are both boxes that sit on/under my desk. I don’t work from a laptop. I don’t care about energy usage. I even don’t really care about noise. My Threadripper is fine. I would not trade less power for less…
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/09/transport-no...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of Apple's historic MO has been to not invest in areas they don't see themselves having a competitive advantage in. Now that they can make gaming happen with a very low wattage budget they may well try to enter that space in earnest.
The difference between an Apple TV and a Mac Mini is essentially how powerful of Apple silicon it has, whether it runs tvOS or macOS, and whether it has HDMI out or not. The Studio is a more compact form factor than any modern 4K gaming console. If they chose to ship something in that form factor with tvOS, HDMI, and an M1 Max/Ultra, it would be a very competitive console on the market — if game developers could be p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Games seem playable running through Microsoft’s inferior x86 compatibility layer in a Windows ARM VM on M1 Pro/Max, so I don’t see how running games through Rosetta would be any worse.
If you have some monster like 3090, you expect it to run games smoothly on “ultra” settings. In reality, some games are pushing its limits even on “middle” settings (Cyberpunk 2077 @ 2k, RDR2 @ 4k). Any emulator will hit performance, so if you want some top-of-the-top performance - you still need Windows PC with RTX 3090. And it will not be even more expensive than Mac Studio ;)
How does Apple manage to blow every other computing OEM out of the water? What's in the secret sauce of their company? Is it great leadership? Top tier engineering talent? Lots of money? I simply don't understand.
They have talent, they have execution, they have data about what rubs on macs they can use to optimize really well. But they have the profits and the cash reserves to make big bets and wait them out.
I think the M1 was expected 1 or 2 years before it was released. But they waited. Maybe it wasn’t good enough. Maybe the software support wasn’t there. But they didn’t have to push it out anyway and hope for the best. They could afford to wait.
Maybe that makes them willing to take bigger risks. Maybe through history they just knew Intel slowing down would happen (it bit them with 68k, then PPC, then G3/4/5) and we’re prepared in a way only done one with their own chips could be.