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

631–640 of 855 posts

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#631

Post by fivea »

nicoburns wrote: post #295
fivea wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

https://github.com/rui314/mold would suggest otherwise. Massive speedups by multithreading the linker. I think traditional linkers just aren't highly optimised.

> https://github.com/rui314/mold would suggest otherwise.

Does it, though?

I mean, if you read that link you'll notice it boasts the linker's performance by comparing it with cp and how it's "so fast that it is only 2x slower than cp on the same machine."

Is cp supposed to be CPU-bound?

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#632

Post by masklinn »

dingle_thunk wrote: post #623
brigade wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100W of that is probably for the USB ports; afaik TB4 ports are required to support 15W, and I don’t think there’s been a Mac didn’t support full power simultaneously across all ports. (if that’s even allowed?)

I suppose given that this is two M1 Max glued together, assuming cooling is a solved problem, the max SOC power consumption just twice as high as usual, plus interconnect overhead. Right? Based on the thermal and power consumption characteristics of previous chips I would not be surprised if say ~120W is the max power draw of this thing. edit: Of course the M1 max only shipped in laptops, so... who knows.

> assuming cooling is a solved problem

I’d assume that’s what most of the chonk is about, no?

> Based on the thermal and power consumption characteristics of previous chips I would not be surprised if say ~120W is the max power draw of this thing.

The Max could be brought up to 90W or so.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#633

Post by fivea »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #439
fivea wrote: post #325

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.

> L1/2/3 are CPU caches, not SSD.

Why did you omit the reference to "file system"?

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that a linker's main job is reading object files and write the output to a file?

I find this sort of argument particularly comical given a very old school technique to speed up compilation is to use a RAM drive to store the build's output.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#634

Post by pjmlp »

brailsafe wrote: post #575
pjmlp wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they definitely won't care is Apple hardware at Apple prices, specially outside first world countries.

Ya but they never have, and it seems a bit irrelevant in the context of this particular product. I'd see that being relevant if it was supposed to be a product with extremely broad appeal, but it isn't that even for first world countries.

It it relevant in the context that people keep celebrating M1 as if Apple would take over the whole computing world.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#635

Post by pjmlp »

manquer wrote: post #274
pjmlp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% of the desktop market and 100% of cloud deployments won't care.

Desktop will care about noise of the fans. Data centers are also pretty conscious of power consumption, more power means more cooling infra required and higher energy bill, while it is not the top priority it certainly is a significant factor in decision making.

Buying M1 chips from Apple isn't happening.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#636

Post by fivea »

kllrnohj wrote: post #437
Macha wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An M1 Ultra is $2000 incrementally over a M1 Max, so there is no price gap, even with the inflated prices 3090s actually go for today.

To be fair that $2000 also gets you +32GB RAM, +512GB storage, and +10 CPU cores. It's not just the GPU. Although yeah you can definitely fit a 3090-equipped PC into a $4k budget even with ebay pricing if pure GPU performance is all you really want.

> To be fair that $2000 also gets you +32GB RAM, +512GB storage, and +10 CPU cores.

Even though it's not an apples to apples comparison, keep in mind that a 1x32GB DIMM sells for less than 150$, and you can buy 1TB SSDs for less than 100$.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#637

Post by KerrAvon »

IndrekR wrote: post #449
FridgeSeal wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can right now (ok, in the morning actually) walk into a computer store across the road here and buy 3090 off the shelf for 2299..2499€ (different makes and models). Those are in stock and physically on the shelf. Same for lesser cards of same series or AMD RX6000.

Yeah, they can fuck right off with those prices. Ethereum’s proof of stake switch can’t come too soon.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#638

Post by fivea »

momothereal wrote: post #479
unicornfinder wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention if you build your own PC you can upgrade the parts as and when, unlike with the new Mac where you'll eventually just be replacing the whole thing.

I believed that until I realized I couldn't individually upgrade my CPU or RAM because I have a mobo with LGA1150 socket and only supports DDR3 (and it's only 6 years old). So eventually you still have to "replace everything" to upgrade a PC.

> I believed that until I realized I couldn't individually upgrade my CPU or RAM because I have a mobo with LGA1150 socket and only supports DDR3 (and it's only 6 years old).

DDR4 was released in 2014, which would suggest you purchased your mobo two full years after DDR3 was already deemed legacy technology and being phased out.

Also LGA1150 was succeeded by LGA1151 in 2015, which means you bought your mobo one full year after it was already legacy hardware.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#639

Post by BillinghamJ »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #276

In some ways I wish this processor was available from a CPU chip seller. As a compute engine it gets a lot "right" (in my opinion) and would be fun to hack on. That said, the idea that USB C/Thunderbolt is the new PCIe bus has some merit. I have yet to find someone who makes a peripheral card cage that is fed by USBC/TB but there are of course standalone GPUs.

An eGPU enclosure is exactly what you're describing - PCIe x16 over TB4. They're quite commonplace now

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#640

Post by toastal »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #298
dheera wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USB C/Thunderbolt is the new PCIe bus Oh please hell no. I have to unplug and plug my USB-C camera at least once a day because it gets de-enumerated very randomly. Using the best cables I can get my hands on. File transfers to/from USB-C hard drives suddenly stop mid-transfer and corrupt the file system. Don't ask me why, I'm just reporting my experiences, this is the reality of my life that UX researchers don't se…

Friendly reminder that USB-C is a form factor, and thunderbolt is the actual transfer protocol. Sounds like you're listing the common complaints with usb-3 over usb-c peripherals, which are not a suitable replacement for PCIe. Thunderbolt is something different, more powerful & more reliable.

Thunderbolt 3 is USB4
Post reply on HN