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

801–810 of 855 posts

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#801

Post by Sporktacular »

ip26 wrote: post #574
Sporktacular wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's hetrogeneity, system integration, pipeline width and instruction set as well.

Well, that’s a relief then, all any data center needs to run these days is Apple’s wide-ranging suite of in house services, such as applache, dovewin, pOSXgres, and SAPple.

In the context of the server market of course you're right. But the idea that it's a given that AMD, Intel have similar PPW chips on the way still using the x86 architecture, is not correct. There's going to be more to it than node size.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#802

Post by philistine »

ralfd wrote: post #778
altairprime wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, only the macOS users would be spending a thousand dollars or more for their console-capable Macs, which are general purpose computers with absurd amounts of memory. TV users could spend a lot less for an Apple TV 4K with M1 inside, assuming Apple released it with less of this or that.

The Apple TV (A12 chip) is currently $199. The new iPad Air with the M1 chip costs $599. They also don't need the display, camera, microphone. And could sell it at a loss and make the margins with TV+ and game sales. But they would need their own bundled controller/accessories and get serious about AAA gaming.

Apple has never sold a hardware product at a loss. Never.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#803

Post by kllrnohj »

Bud wrote: post #695
fnord123 wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't assume heat is solved as it's been Apples weak point in the past. The cube would crack, g5 iMac's would melt capacitors, MacBooks would burn users' laps.

Those issues were all almost 20 years ago. If you think this is still a problem, you haven't used any recent Macs. The current MB Air and MB Pro both run very cool even under prolonged heavy loads. Apple's management of any and all heat issues has been far better than any competitors for a while now.

> Apple's management of any and all heat issues has been far better than any competitors for a while now.

Only if you define "for a while" as "since a year ago with the introduction of the M1".

Apple refused to make a thicker laptop or one with better ventilation to adequately cool the CPUs & GPUs they were sticking in them. They were among if not the worst of them all at handling the heat of the components they were using. Until the M1 Pro & Max rolled around, anyway, and suddenly they got thicker, with feet that raise it farther off the desk, and absolutely massive amount of vents all over 3 sides of the machine. Curious timing on that...

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#804

Post by rbanffy »

manigandham wrote: post #793
rbanffy wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> performance per watt is really irrelevant. Watts are dollars that you'll continue spending over the system life. It matters because you can only draw so many amps per rack and there will be a point when, in order to get more capacity, you'll need to build another datacenter.

The market is not data center use.

You'll still spend another Mac Studio on energy in order to run a comparable PC for the next five years. To say nothing about not wanting to be in the same room as its fans.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#805

Post by rowanG077 »

kllrnohj wrote: post #720
dingle_thunk wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The M1 Max hits 100w in a laptop form factor with 'real' workloads when hitting CPU and GPU simultaneously (or at least not parasitic ones like prime95 & furmark). So this is probably >200w, unless it's been power limited and thus performs worse than 2x M1 Max's do anyway.

Does the M1 Max throttle when hit with hitting CPU & GPU at the same time? 14 inch would be most interesting to me.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#806

Post by conk »

trodrigues wrote: post #706
kllrnohj wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPU claims on the M1 Pro & Max were, let's say, cherry picked to put it nicely. The M1 Ultra claims already look suspicious since the GPU graph tops out at ~120W & the CPU graph tops out at ~60W yet the M1 Studio is rated for 370W continuous power draw. Since you mention ML specifically, looking at some benchmarks out there (like https://tlkh.dev/benchmarking-the-apple-m1-max#heading-gpu & https://wandb.ai/tcapel…

> Well, assuming you can actually buy any of these, anyway. The M1 Ultra might win "by default" by simply being purchasable at all unlike pretty much every other GPU :/ Can we stop it with the meme that these GPUs are unobtainable? Yes, they are still overpriced compared to their supposed original prices and they'll likely never return to that price given that the base prices of manufacturing, materials and such have…

Where are these available? I just checked all the links on Nvidia's webpage for a 3060 and they are all out of stock...

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#807

Post by [deleted] »

TuringNYC wrote: post #491
polyrand wrote: post #258

I think the GPU claims are interesting. According to the graph's footer, the M1 Ultra was compared to an RTX 3090. If the performance/wattage claims are correct, I'm wondering if the Mac Studio could become an "affordable" personal machine learning workstation (which also won't make the electricity bill skyrocket). If Pytorch becomes stable and easy to use on Apple Silicon [0][1], it could be an appealing choice. [0]…

It shocks me how much payroll and cap-ex is spent on the M1 and how little is invested in getting TensorFlow/Pytorch to work on it. I could 10x my M1 purchases for our business if we could reliably run TensorFlow on it. Seems pretty shortsighted. The GPU claims wouldnt even need to be on parity with NVIDIA, it would just need to offer a vertically integrated alternative to having to use EC2.

[deleted]

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#808

Post by kllrnohj »

doublepg23 wrote: post #627
mixedCase wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMD has never disappointed me in this regard.

Zen 4 will being using a new socket, I wouldn’t go buying a Zen 3 with plans to upgrade the CPU down the road.

Well, you should still get one last upgrade out of an AM4 socket in the form of the upcoming 5800X3D ( https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d )

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#809

Post by kllrnohj »

schmuelio wrote: post #550
metalliqaz wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Nvidia has never really care much about TDP, but this still seems unbelievable to me. How could a relatively new design beat a 3090 with 200W less power, while having to share a die with a CPU? It just doesn't seem possible.

Unless the M1 Ultra is actually magic I don't think it is possible. My guess is they're putting a lot of weight on the phrase "relative power" and hoping you assume it means "relative to each other" and not "relative to their previous generation" (i.e. M1 Ultra -> M1 Max and RTX 3090 -> RTX 2080Ti) or "relative to the stock power profile". Put bluntly, if the M1 Ultra was capable of achieving performance parity with…

It's actually kinda magic but in the opposite way. The M1 Ultra is absolutely massive. 114 billion transistors. The 3090? A measely 28 billion. Now granted the M1 also has some CPU cores on there but even still, it seems safe to say that the M1 Ultra has more transistors spent on the GPU than a 3090 does. More transistors does often mean more faster when it comes to GPUs.

But you'll all but certainly see the 3090 win more benchmarks (and by a landslide) than the M1 Ultra does. Because Nvidia is really, really fucking good at this, and they spend an absurd amount of money working with external projects to fix their stuff. Like contributing a TensorFlow backend for CUDA. Or tons of optimizations in the driver to handle game-specific issues.

Meanwhile Apple is mostly in the camp of "well we built Metal2, what's taking ya'll so long to port it to our tiny marketshare platform that historically had terrible GPU drivers?"

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#810

Post by kllrnohj »

lostlogin wrote: post #786
nr2x wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first half of the event was old wine in new bottles - I reckon that’s the main growth area they are squeezing.

Or was it last seasons wine in old bottles?

The "new" display is an 8 year monitor whose updates were a better webcam & integrated speakers, and they're charging more for it than ever before. More like rotten wine in old bottles.
Post reply on HN