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

M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

eclecticlight.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 419 posts

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#231

Post by nvarsj »

wubrr wrote: post #119
varispeed wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the lowest tier models probably beat any PC laptop when it comes to usability and comfort though.

Strong disagree. UI is very buggy and inconsistent. CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's standard on windows/linux and most other operating systems. Not sure what people mean when they say completely vague…

I was always kind of puzzled that big tech companies seem to exclusively use Macs for software dev. Then when I joined one, I discovered that everyone uses remote Linux VMs for actual development. Which makes a lot more sense - Macbook as a glorified thin client with great battery life suits it pretty well. Although, I still sorely miss Linux/Windows window management.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#232

Post by zarzavat »

kbd wrote: post #221
zarzavat wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s true but the problem with the GPU is Apple’s addiction to RAM money. Yes the GPU is improving in performance but it does you no good if it has to share a tiny amount of system RAM with the CPU.

Tiny? My M2 Air has 24g, which is more ram than any other laptop video card I've had.

Sure, if you pay for it. The 14” starts at 8GB. Eight! 200$ more for another 8GB.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#233

Post by flashback2199 »

aseo wrote: post #142
flashback2199 wrote: post #108

I don't see apple silicon in macs having been the right decision a decade from now because competing toe to toe with the entire semis industry on architecture has never worked before except in iphone where they had a huge first mover advantage.

I always understood the move to Apple Silicon was also for supply chain concerns, and not just technical. I remember reading that Apple would often express frustration at having to align their products' schedules based on Intel's schedules, and there would be a lack of support from Intel in their collaboration -- I could see this is a a valid bottleneck for Apple, and this isn't their first rodeo in processor transit…

So why work only with Intel and not also with AMD. Never understood that. They chose vendor lock in so of course the vendor is going to sit on it same as Motorola did and later IBM. Now they still have vendor lock in except the vendor is internal. From a distance, it looks super dumb, betting that you can do better with an internal project than playing off the established duopoly. I'm sure I'm too out of the know to understand.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#234

Post by BigJ1211 »

wubrr wrote: post #119
varispeed wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the lowest tier models probably beat any PC laptop when it comes to usability and comfort though.

Strong disagree. UI is very buggy and inconsistent. CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's standard on windows/linux and most other operating systems. Not sure what people mean when they say completely vague…

As someone who uses Windows, Arch with Hyperland and MacOS almost daily. I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? In my experience that’s been the least buggy and inconsistent of the three.

My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones. For the most used ones it’s CMD + whatever the standard key is for that shortcut, instead of Control. Overal I prefer that the Super key is more useful than what has been the default for many years with Windows.

I also use the CLI for virtually everything on Mac and Linux, MacOS isn’t all that different and feels more like another Linux flavour than it’s own beast.

The only UI gripes I can think off immediately is no window snapping and closing the window doesn’t mean you’ve exited the application. The first requires a third-party tool (I recommend Rectangle), the latter is a change in behaviour.

Frankly I’m not really all that interested in defending MacOS, but I hope you realise that saying “very buggy and inconsistent” without naming anything specific isn’t any less vague and ambiguous than “usability and comfort”.

Your reaction comes off as “I’m used to this, therefore the other thing is bad and unintuitive.” I’m sure this isn’t your intention, so specifics would be illuminating.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#235

Post by willseth »

masklinn wrote: post #103
_ph_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not artificially limiting the number of external screens. To support more screens, they would have to reserve die area for an additional controller. That could mean a gpu less or something. This is about engineering tradeoffs.

Considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1, I'm sure they could have found some room for a third display controller, or a more capable one (one with MST support for instance), or just a more flexible one. They're selling a $1600 machine which can't drive two external displays, it's sad. Intel's HD Graphics have been doing better since 2012 and they're trash.

It’s a business decision. You don’t think Apple knows the demand for multiple external displays? If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#236

Post by jamespo »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #133
wubrr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineering tradeoffs to support something intel/amd PCs have supported for 15+ years? Maybe apple is just shit at engineering?

Intel/AMD chips don't approach the efficiency of what Apple makes.

I don't understand this pretence that the vast majority of the time laptops are plugged into the power anyway.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#237

Post by skuhn »

tcmart14 wrote: post #207
skuhn wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this will never be fixed. It's not a technical problem. They refuse to ship software licensed under GPL v3, and bash 3.2 is the final GPL v2 version. I hate it.

Didn't they stop 'shipping' bash by default awhile ago? Now the default shell is zsh?

bash is still shipped on macos 14, the default shell is zsh since 10.15 in 2019.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#238

Post by delfinom »

asylteltine wrote: post #67

And yet the air can’t support more than one monitor. I know Apple is a small company with only a few engineers so it must have been too hard. Sarcasm obviously. As an Apple enthusiast it’s so annoying how they sniff farts.

It's intentional. Apple is going down the path of SKUs to segment their price points.

It may also be they have chips that have bad display controllers and they are using this as one way of offloading those chips with the bad controllers lasered off.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#239

Post by BigJ1211 »

wubrr wrote: post #176
toast0 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using tools from the base OS is really holding it wrong. Just like ftp.exe/Internet Explorer/Edge and Safari should only be used to download a usable browser, the Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Otherwise, you have no way to control versioning anyway. When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. Ap…

> Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs speci…

Maybe I’m and oddball, but I download third party package managers (or wrappers) on literally every OS I use.

Scoop, Chocolatey on Windows. Brew on MacOS. Amethyst on Arch.

Linux package managers eviscerate whatever is available on MacOS and Windows by a long shot.

Frankly if there’s one thing I want my OSes (excluding Linux) to keep their greasy paws off of, it would be my CLI and build environments.

I want to install and manage what I need, not be force fed whatever sludge comes out of Microsoft’s or Apple’s tainted teats. Manage and update the OS, don’t touch anything else.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#240

Post by jbverschoor »

alberth wrote: post #229
asylteltine wrote: post #67

And yet the air can’t support more than one monitor. I know Apple is a small company with only a few engineers so it must have been too hard. Sarcasm obviously. As an Apple enthusiast it’s so annoying how they sniff farts.

Only 1-monitor support seems like a market segmentation decision, not a lack of capability. (Much like how the iPhone Pro has faster USB-C data transfer speeds vs base iPhone)

Give me a "pro" which is thinner than and without a fan.

or

Give me an "air" with two external monitors and 64GB ram.

The pros are clunky and heavy. I'm on an air, and will stay there for a long time because if this

Post reply on HN