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

331–340 of 448 posts

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

#331

Post by TylerE »

avidphantasm wrote: post #268
jeroenhd wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the M2 Ultra prices, it'd be cheaper to buy a 4090 than to go the Apple route. With the M2 pro you'll probably still be better off with a 4080 unless you really need more than 16GB of VRAM. I don't know the M2's efficiency for things like machine learning, but the M1's machine learning performance seemed to have been beaten 4-5x by the 3060Ti so I'm pretty sure "more VRAM" is all it's got going for it in ML task…

Cheaper in terms of money, but in terms of time? I have a hard time justifying anything that requires configuration and dicking around. I’m a grown-up and don’t have “free time”. I need things that just work. For me, that’s not Intel and Windows or Intel and Linux. It’s macOS, which is the only true workstation platform left.

This is exactly why I went from a monster PC rig to a Mac Studio. Just got tired of random components dying every year or so.

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

#332

Post by comte7092 »

ddingus wrote: post #315
GeekyBear wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, consider how much a PC laptop has to throttle performance if you unplug it from the wall.

Yes! That is often significant. Sometimes worse than half performance, or it will suck the battery dry fast enough to seriously increase battery life decay.

And don’t forget cooling! All that extra power draw generates heat.

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

#333

Post by sudosysgen »

Retric wrote: post #297
sudosysgen wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That metric is irrelevant now that we have adaptive refresh rates. You don't really "miss" a frame anymore. 1% low is now the correct metric.

If the pipeline stalls for 70ms it’s a problem even if in theory you don’t “miss” a frame you still aren’t getting new frames until rendering finishes. All adaptive refresh rates do is avoiding unwanted delays after the frame finishes.

That's not how it works. A 70ms pipeline stall means a ~90ms frame which means that your 1% framerate low is going to be reduced.

Adaptive refresh rate means that only frame rate matters. You can't miss a frame, you can only have a frame take longer, and that's measured perfectly well by 1% or 0.1% low frame rates.

Also I don't see why an M series CPU is going to be any better at feeding the (asynchrous, multiple frames in flight) GPU rendering pipeline than a modern x86 CPU, when both are just as fast. macOS is also pretty bad at realtime scheduling for heavy workloads compared to modern Linux and Windows.

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

#334

Post by markemer »

MBCook wrote: post #198
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> The i9-13900T and i7-13700T come in at a max turbo power of just 106W Now add in the GPU. Because the Apple number combined both.

Yep - the total TDP of the comparison is like 600W. The Pro is also for people with strange PCIe card needs - the Mac Studio delivers this performance in a tall MacMini form factor and nearly silent operation. Not that there aren't things to complain about, but Apple Silicon architecture is impressive for what it is. The GPU suffers more for its uncommon architecture that is similar to a phones but is harder to optimize for. Adobe, Logic, and the like will make that effort. I doubt game engines will. But that's why I also have a power hungry windows laptop.

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

#335

Post by zarzavat »

threeseed wrote: post #323
smoldesu wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> provided the drivers exist. Provided Apple signs 'em :p

Microsoft has implemented driver signing with Windows so not sure what the issue is. And users can still use unsigned drivers provided they disable the option.

Apple has beef with the worlds largest GPU maker and refuses to sign their drivers because they got screwed by that company over a laptop GPU a decade ago and still hold a grudge.

Microsoft on the other hand, is run by adults.

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

#336

Post by tomnipotent »

threeseed wrote: post #324
LeoNatan25 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what tower case you are using, or what cooling system you have set up, but in modern times, if you hear much noise from your cooling solution, you have chosen components poorly. From fans to pumps to dampened cases, you could have build a relatively silent system.

With a Mac Studio it isn't just relatively silent in almost cases it is silent. With a PC you still have case fans running because even with modern motherboards they don't support switching them off at low temperature. You need to be running special Windows software. And to cool the CPU you really need to be running AIO or dedicated water coolers which themselves will have 3 fans almost always running.

> cool the CPU you really need to be running AIO or dedicated water coolers

There is no shortage of silent air coolers, such as the NH-D15, that are 20-30 dBA and undetectable unless the only noise in the room. It's usually stock case fans that are the culprit.

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

#337

Post by ChrisLTD »

pas wrote: post #321
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's becoming a lot more difficult to justify the power consumption of the current Intel (and, to a lesser degree, AMD) offerings, especially for sustained personal productivity and burst compilation tasks. I don't get it. The M2 is 15W. There are mobile Ryzen APUs with the same TDP. They're about the same speed; maybe the M2 is a little faster for single thread and the PC is a little faster for multi-thread, it's…

can someone recommend a concrete laptop then, please? I have been putting off the buying of a new one for years now. (I have an old XPS 13 and a P50 with an M1000M, so ... yeah, old dogs!) I want to put Linux on it. So far I have been looking at the legion 5 pro, because a friend got one recently, and seems amazing, though haven't yet got my hands on it long enough to try it with an USB stick with a recent Ubuntu (wi…

From what I’ve read and seen, Linux is the worst option if you’re concerned about battery life.

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

#338

Post by adastra22 »

threeseed wrote: post #323
smoldesu wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> provided the drivers exist. Provided Apple signs 'em :p

Microsoft has implemented driver signing with Windows so not sure what the issue is. And users can still use unsigned drivers provided they disable the option.

The issue is that Apple explicitly doesn’t want to.

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

#339

Post by threeseed »

tomnipotent wrote: post #336
threeseed wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a Mac Studio it isn't just relatively silent in almost cases it is silent. With a PC you still have case fans running because even with modern motherboards they don't support switching them off at low temperature. You need to be running special Windows software. And to cool the CPU you really need to be running AIO or dedicated water coolers which themselves will have 3 fans almost always running.

> cool the CPU you really need to be running AIO or dedicated water coolers There is no shortage of silent air coolers, such as the NH-D15, that are 20-30 dBA and undetectable unless the only noise in the room. It's usually stock case fans that are the culprit.

If you're running a PC with a dedicated GPU then you will have minimum 6 extra fans.

3 for the GPU and 3 for the case. The latter are pretty noisy and constantly run.

Post reply on HN