Live data from Hacker News

Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

wccftech.com

11–20 of 448 posts

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#12

50% slower than the absolute best of class NVIDIA discrete GPU offering that consumes massively more wattage is hardly a damning statement.

They said it's not faster than the desktop parts, which is almost a false statement since it actually is faster at multithreaded than both base desktop SKUs. And then they switch to providing a specific percentage when comparing the the 4080 (also based on an deceptively narrow comparison, one their other articles counter) for dramatic effect.

I don't think it was ever meant to be the most informative article: it seems written to serve the contrarians because that's profitable from a readership perspective for a publication like this.

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#13

50% slower than the absolute best of class NVIDIA discrete GPU offering that consumes massively more wattage is hardly a damning statement.

Absolute best of class? What?

A 4080 is best of class?

And second of all, for the price it should be compared to the 4090, which absolutely demolishes it.

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#14
post #3

50% slower than the absolute best of class NVIDIA discrete GPU offering that consumes massively more wattage is hardly a damning statement.

The complete lack of any power numbers is extremely telling.

As if that matters on a desktop?

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#15
post #7

50% slower than the absolute best of class NVIDIA discrete GPU offering that consumes massively more wattage is hardly a damning statement.

granted, wccftech is a grain of salt kind of site. To wit, here's another article....from the same site! https://wccftech.com/m2-ultra-only-10-percent-slower-than-rt...

[deleted]

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#16
I think the most interesting benchmark of the M2’s potential advantage conventional Intel/Nvidia machines would be a memory-heavy ML training or inference workload. Apple made some noises about having 190GB of unified memory as an advantage for that scenario, since the system wouldn’t need to wait for copying from COU RAM to GPU RAM but I’d like to see that put to the test.

I’m also disappointed that Apple didn’t go for a 2-socket Mac Pro so they could offer a compute advantage over Mac Studio in addition to the PCI Express slots. Other than the IO, I can’t think of a reason to pick the Mac Pro.

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#18
post #5

Ahhaha, Intel's TDP is 2-4 times bigger under full load (and I guess ~10-15x under moderate load) while having negligible perf advantage over M2. The author can not be serious.

Since when was TDP a deciding factor in desktop purchasing decisions? Sure M SOCs are great on laptops, but there are no reasons to get them on the desktop, slower, more expensive and with less compatibility.

Re: Apple M2 Ultra SoC isn’t faster than AMD and Intel last year desktop CPUs

#19
Poorly written, resulting in what could look like a bias.

The article mentions that apple has focused on single core performance while the x86 processors in question are designed for multi core use cases. This reflects two different markets being addressed and the sad state (small amount) of multicore code today.

Also it’s silly to claim that the M2 Ultra is so expensive — you can get the same performance from a 3K “studio” desktop that you do from the >7K “Mac Pro”.

I use apple for all my “terminals” (macs, iPhone, etc) but really want AMD and Intel to keep working on these multithreaded powerhouses because I depend on that on the cloud side. I don’t see this ever being in Apple’s markets. Articles that further that are needed, but this isn’t one of them.

Post reply on HN