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

71–80 of 448 posts

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

#71

Post by redundantly »

ksec wrote: post #69
redundantly wrote: post #62

The comments here are strange. So many people making claims that power utilization doesn't matter. Perhaps not to them, but it does for many. Energy prices are getting higher and higher in many parts of the country, heck in the world. Devices that consume more power generate more heat. So now one is likely using more electricity to keep their home or office cool and comfortable. Noise matters for many people using wo…

Because Workstation, by a lot of people's definition, are suppose to be the power hungry in exchange for absolute performance?

You're doing it too. You're assuming how someone would define a workstation, you're assuming that definition includes it being power hungry.

A workstation can be a single core, 256MB RAM, 1 watt SBC. It can be a 96 core, 2TB RAM, 1 kw beast. It can be anything in between or even outside of that range.

I'm not saying everyone cares about power consumption, but several people here seem to be saying that no one does, and that's simply not true.

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

#72

Post by mrangle »

Havoc wrote: post #64
mrangle wrote: post #44

Definitely have to adjust for TDP. The new gen Intel processors match the M2 performance for $100-150. TDP is triple but still relatively low. There isn't really anything available from non-niche retailers that approaches the TDP of Apple chips. And what does tends to be a binned just to be sold as mobile. Better to buy the standard chip and limit clock speed. What also shocks me is more expensive chips that offer in…

>Definitely have to adjust for TDP Considered certainly, adjust less so. If you want to adjust for something price makes more sense than TDP

I consider price and TDP as the two important variables, for performance, that aren't completely reconcilable. They should be considered separately, and then together for a buying decision for example.

To illustrate and acknowledging that this calculation is more practical than satisfying to mathematicians:

I wouldn't say that a chip that takes half of the power and costs half as much, while performing three times better, than a decade old chip is twelve times better all around. Even though the gains exceed both those indicated by price and watts, taken on their own. It performs roughly six times better per dollar spent and watt consumed, respectively. These performance differences are not reconcilable into a single number that most would quickly understand, but they should be considered together. And this in fact was the specific situation for the processor that I replaced. Not accounting for processing improvements that aren't included in thread processing speed. Try playing 4k video with a decade old processor while monitoring its utilization.

Not to be argumentative as everyone is certainly entitled to their own weighting. I value TDP more than I do dollars spent. Though, both will always be unavoidably important.

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

#74

Post by ksec »

redundantly wrote: post #71
ksec wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Workstation, by a lot of people's definition, are suppose to be the power hungry in exchange for absolute performance?

You're doing it too. You're assuming how someone would define a workstation, you're assuming that definition includes it being power hungry. A workstation can be a single core, 256MB RAM, 1 watt SBC. It can be a 96 core, 2TB RAM, 1 kw beast. It can be anything in between or even outside of that range. I'm not saying everyone cares about power consumption, but several people here seem to be saying that no one does, an…

-Deleted-, Thx @wtallis

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

#75

Post by sokoloff »

ianai wrote: post #58
jacooper wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the usage, it why AMDs efficiency is impressive on laptops, but not so important on the desktop.

Performance per TDP is always relevant. Sure individuals may choose they just want whatever to maximize a metric, but that’s a different decision entirely. Like comparing a motorcycle and a truck without mentioning all the things different between the two.

TDP is the wrong measure here. i9-13900K and i7-13700K both have 125W TDP with 253W PL2 specs. By that calculation, the 13900K is more performant per TDP, so is "better" for efficiency.

Computation per kWh (or rate of computation per kW) is the right efficiency metric, not TDP (thermal design power).

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

#76

Post by mrangle »

znpy wrote: post #49
mrangle wrote: post #44

Definitely have to adjust for TDP. The new gen Intel processors match the M2 performance for $100-150. TDP is triple but still relatively low. There isn't really anything available from non-niche retailers that approaches the TDP of Apple chips. And what does tends to be a binned just to be sold as mobile. Better to buy the standard chip and limit clock speed. What also shocks me is more expensive chips that offer in…

Just wondering, what is the cpu that you picked? But I agree, tdp should really be kept in consideration.

Look at the i3. Though it isn't much different than last gen, and that buying decision should be mostly determined by price (for the same price, go later). Unless there are significant enough non-speed related architecture differences that I am not aware of and that are important to you (possible). Try to catch a sale. Going upline will double the TDP for little gain, especially if dollars spent is important as well. People that have a specific interest in more L2 and L3 cache may see the logic in going upline. The TDP and price equivalent Ryzen will equate to about 10% better gaming performance, and better multi-thread performance, but lesser single thread performance.

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

#77

Post by wtallis »

redundantly wrote: post #71
ksec wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Workstation, by a lot of people's definition, are suppose to be the power hungry in exchange for absolute performance?

You're doing it too. You're assuming how someone would define a workstation, you're assuming that definition includes it being power hungry. A workstation can be a single core, 256MB RAM, 1 watt SBC. It can be a 96 core, 2TB RAM, 1 kw beast. It can be anything in between or even outside of that range. I'm not saying everyone cares about power consumption, but several people here seem to be saying that no one does, an…

"Workstation" in this context refers to a specific target market and product segment that by industry consensus (and in some cases codified by regulators) carries specific connotations about a machine's capabilities and intended use. Your attempts to use the word in the broadest possible meaning are not helpful; you're deliberately communicating badly.

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

#78

Post by [deleted] »

daneel_w wrote: post #57
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economically and environmentally it's absolutely a problem. [citation needed] Economically the Intel CPU of the 90s that had a very bad perf/watt compared to today's standards have been awesomely worth it Environmentally, CPU have been getting better and better, the difference of a few 10s of watts doesn't really make any difference, unless you have numbers to back up your very strong claim.

Citation needed? Do you live in some alternate reality? > "... the difference of a few 10s of watts doesn't really make any difference, unless you have numbers to back up your very strong claim." We have a billion power-hungry PCs running on the planet. Power-efficiency matters for economy and for environment, because power isn't free and only a tiny speck of the world runs on clean energy. It always mattered.

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by wtallis »

sokoloff wrote: post #75
ianai wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Performance per TDP is always relevant. Sure individuals may choose they just want whatever to maximize a metric, but that’s a different decision entirely. Like comparing a motorcycle and a truck without mentioning all the things different between the two.

TDP is the wrong measure here. i9-13900K and i7-13700K both have 125W TDP with 253W PL2 specs. By that calculation, the 13900K is more performant per TDP, so is "better" for efficiency. Computation per kWh (or rate of computation per kW) is the right efficiency metric, not TDP (thermal design power).

If you have a workload that pushes the 13700K and 13900K to their turbo limits (and have ensured that those limits are actually configured to be the same), then you really will find the 13900K getting more work done for the same power and energy. That's how the extra cores help in power-limited scenarios.

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

#80

Post by TradingPlaces »

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.

The article does not say if it’s a Mac Studio or Mac Pro. I think that matters. My understanding is that there is no TDP on Apple Silicon, and that it has a lot of runway in a less constrained thermal environment like the new Mac Pro vs Mac Studio.

While I’m still surprised they didn’t put a second Ultra in the Mac Pro, I’m betting there’s a wider delta than people imagine between the two form factors.

Post reply on HN