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

561–570 of 855 posts

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#561

Post by novok »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #378
outworlder wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad that historically Apple has not given any attention to Mac gaming.

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.

Every god damn child has an iPad already to keep them entertained and the hardware is plenty good enough. Going one step further in the age ranges to get big game revenue like the switch will help them capture more.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#563

Post by Nursie »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #365
whoisburbansky wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cursory look gives you a ~$3500 price tag for a gaming PC with a 3090 [1], vs. at least $4k for a Mac Studio with an M1 Ultra. Roughly the same ballpark, but I wouldn't call the M1 Ultra more affordable given those numbers. 1. https://techguided.com/best-rtx-3090-gaming-pc/#:~:text=With... .

Hahaha good luck getting your hands on a 30xx series card though. Here in Australia, 3090’s go for close to 3k on their own.

I'm seeing 3080s, in stock in stores I might consider buying from, sub-1800 AUD. It is heading back towards RRP (still about 50% over I guess). 3090s are twice that, yep.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#564

Post by brokenmachine »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #234
alwillis wrote: post #212

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…

I care about power only because it means louder fans, and I like quiet.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#565

Post by LeoPanthera »

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

I bet someone will make a bracket to hold a bunch of Mac Studios in a rack.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#566

Post by atq2119 »

paulmd wrote: post #459
Macha wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already seen x86 draw even with Intel 12th gen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0bsjUMz3EM

So in that one, you've got a 20-thread Intel part (6+8C/20T) at probably 3.5 GHz going against a 10-thread Apple part (8+2C/10T), at probably 3 GHz, and the Apple part still comes out on top by ~5% in Cinebench R23 MT. And that's with Intel having 50% more high-performance threads available. Work out the IPC there - the Intel has a 2x thread count advantage, a 17% clock advantage, and Apple comes out 5% ahead. So the…

I don't think there's anything specifically different about the reorder buffer between x86 and ARM.

The reorder buffer size is just a logical consequence of the frontend width.

And yes, scaling an Aarch64 frontend is dead simple compared to x86 due to the fixed instruction width. The disadvantage of x86 is serious, but I don't know if we can count it out quite yet. This is the first time Intel and AMD got any serious pressure on that front. I'm sure they're taking the challenge seriously, and it'll take some years before we'll see the results.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#567

Post by matja »

frant-hartm wrote: post #452
paulmd wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit of a wet fart though, even Charlie D thinks it's too little too late. OEM-only (and only on WRX80 socket), no V-cache, worse product support. https://semiaccurate.com/2022/03/08/amd-finally-launches-thr... The niche for high clocks was arguable with the 2nd-gen products but now you are foregoing v-cache which also improves per-thread performance, so Epyc is relatively speaking even more attractive. And if you tak…

The PRO Threadrippers are not cut down, they have 8 memory channels and 128 PCIE 4.0 lanes. I think the only limitation compared to Epyc is that you can have 1 socket only.

And WRX80 has dedicated chipset lanes (https://www.amd.com/en/chipsets/wrx80), so effectively more PCI-e than EPYC, and bootable NVME RAID support on top.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#568

Post by codyb »

derac wrote: post #528
altairprime wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seems unlikely that the general population would spend 2-4k on a console.

Don’t gamers spend tons of money on gaming PCs?

Also, might be cheaper a couple years down the line.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#569

Post by inkyoto »

schmuelio wrote: post #552
TheKarateKid wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we're seeing right now with Apple's M1 chips for desktop computing is on the same level of revolutionary as what the original iPhone did for mobile phones. The advancements in such a short period of time in the amount of computing power, low power usage, size, and heat usage of these chips is unbelievable and game-changing.

Don't get me wrong, the benefits of using ARM architectures for general purpose vs. x86 are really compelling. The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them, but the cruft of the x86 instruction set and the architectural stuff you have to do to make the instruction set work is really showing it's age. That being said, the GPU perfo…

> The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them

Without denying some good work and engineering having gone into some x86 chips, they are not the reasons for the x86 becoming a leader. The duopoly of Intel and Microsoft – coupled with the aggressive Intel strategy to undermine competitors on the pricing and the sheer production volume they could quickly ramp up – has squeezed every single other viable competitor out of the market and relegated very few to become niche players (e.g. POWER) and entrenched the duopoly as a unfortunate leader. And then complacency and arrogance had set in for years to come until recently.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#570

Post by codyb »

t3rabytes wrote: post #483
flipgimble wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"every video game company" = Epic Games, and mostly because they don't like to pay overhead for their Fortnite loot boxes that most parents wish they could have some control over. I don't have allegiance to either company mostly because they don't care about me, just my money.

Epic doesn’t do lootboxes, next.

They used to? At least Rocket League had them for a long time. Unsure how long after Epic purchased it they had them though.
Post reply on HN