Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wccftech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 448 posts

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

#31

Post by KerrAvon »

gumby wrote: post #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 “…

haven’t read the article, but there are no single threaded use cases on Apple platforms that Apple cares about, so I’d take any claim that Apple is optimizing for single threaded performance with an enormous bag of salt

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

#32

Post by zbrozek »

jacooper wrote: post #18
murmansk wrote: 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.

Where and when electric energy is $0.51/kWh, one might care quite a bit.

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

#33

Post by partiallypro »

adastra22 wrote: post #2

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

Most consumers don't care about wattage on a desktop, and when you compare the prices they are similar and it loses.

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

#34

Post by wtallis »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #29
murmansk wrote: 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.

> Intel's TDP is 2-4 times bigger under full load Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today. EDIT: the author forgot that the tested system is an M2 Ultra a desktop class system with a TDP of 90 watts The i9-13900T and i7-13700T come in at a max turbo power of just 106W which is just 1.2x

> even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today.

When has Intel's real, advertised, or specified CPU power consumption or TDP ever been 20x that of the i9-13900KS?

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

#35

Post by throwaway5959 »

jacooper wrote: post #14
MBCook wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complete lack of any power numbers is extremely telling.

As if that matters on a desktop?

It does when you multiply it across millions of CPUs. Saving 100 watts across 3 million CPUs (300 megawatts) is enough to shut down the equivalent of power plants.

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

#36

Post by partiallypro »

kokonoko wrote: post #20

Thanks for the correct albeit clickbait title, now let's see the power usage, performance per watt etc. Hint: M2 destroys the competition

Do general consumers care about wattage being used on a desktop? I don't think many consider it at all, they just want the performance. It matters on a mobile device like a laptop, tablet or phone, but that's about where consumers stop caring.

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

#37

Post by mrcwinn »

The results speak for themselves (Apple is slower than some) but the context does matter: Apple has been talking about performance per watt since Steve Jobs showed a keynote slide announcing the transition from PowerPC.

The cynical view is that Apple is intentionally misleading customers with their ambiguous graph axes. Another perspective is they’re simply demonstrating the metric they’ve optimized for in the first place.

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

#39

Post by daneel_w »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #29
murmansk wrote: 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.

> Intel's TDP is 2-4 times bigger under full load Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today. EDIT: the author forgot that the tested system is an M2 Ultra a desktop class system with a TDP of 90 watts The i9-13900T and i7-13700T come in at a max turbo power of just 106W which is just 1.2x

> "Never been a problem, even when Intel TDP was 20x worse than today."

Economically and environmentally it's absolutely a problem.

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

#40

Post by lxgr »

jitl wrote: post #26
scarface_74 wrote: post #6

This and the introduction of the new slower less expandable - at least with respect to GPUs and memory - is indicative that it was a mistake for Apple to completely transition to ARM and should have kept high end options on Intel until they had a better GPU story to tell. They already had the Mac Studio, they could have kept the Mac Pro on Intel.

3rd party GPUs don’t mesh with the Metal strategy. Apple dropped and deprecated OpenGL a long time ago - and they’re the only one building metal GPUs

Doesn’t Metal support multiple GPU architectures just like OpenGL?
Post reply on HN