281–290 of 640 posts
> using the Framework feels like using an older Intel based Mac Your memory served you wrong. Experience eith Intel based Macs was much worse than recent AMD chips.
My 2019 Thinkpad T495 (Ryzen 3600) does get hot under load, but it's still fine to type on.
Battery efficiency comes from a million little optimizations in the technology stack, most of which comes down to using the CPU as little as possible. As such the instruction set architecture and process node aren't usually that important when it comes to your battery life. If you fully load the CPU and calculate how much energy a AI340 needs to perform a fixed workload and compare that to a M1 you'll probably find s…
> It's a fairly common issue on Linux to be missing hardware acceleration, especially for video decoding. To be fair, usually the linux itself has hardware acceleration available but the browser vendors tend to disable gpu rendering except on controlled/known perfectly working combinations of OS/Hardware/Drivers and they have much less testing in Linux. In most case you can force enabling gpu rendering in about:confi…
All the Blink-based ones just work as long the proper libraries are installed and said libraries properly detect hardware support.
I agree that it's unfortunate that the power usage isn't better tuned out of the box. An especially annoying aspect of GNOME's "Power Saver" mode is that it disables automatic software updates, so you can't have both automatic updates and efficient power usage at the same time (AFAIK)
First, Apple did an excellent job optimizing their software stack for their hardware. This is something that few companies have the ability to do as they target a wide array of hardware. This is even more impressive given the scale of Apple's hardware. The same kernel runs on a Watch and a Mac Studio. Second, the x86 platform has a lot of legacy, and each operation on x86 is translated from an x86 instruction into RI…
1) Apple Silicon outperforms all laptop CPUs in the same power envelope on 1T on industry-standard tests: it's not predominantly due to "optimizing their software stack". SPECint, SPECfp, Geekbench, Cinebench, etc. all show major improvements.
2) x86 also heavily relies on micro-ops to greatly improve performance. This is not a "penalty" in any sense.
3) x86 is now six-wide, eight-wide, or nine-wide (with asterisks) for decode width on all major Intel & AMD cores. The myth of x86 being stuck on four-wide has been long disproven.
4) Large buffers, L1, L2, L3, caches, etc. are not exclusive to any CPU microarchitecture. Anyone can increase them—the question is, how much does your core benefit from larger cache features?
5) Ryzen AI Max 300 (Strix Halo) gets nowhere near Apple on 1T perf / W and still loses on 1T perf. Strix Halo uses slower CPUs versus the beastly 9950X below:
Fanless iPad M4 P-core SPEC2017 int, fp, geomean: 10.61, 15.58, 12.85 AMD 9950X (Zen5) SPEC2017 int, fp, geomean: 10.14, 15.18, 12.41 Intel 285K (Lion Cove) SPEC2017 int, fp, geomean: 9.81, 12.44, 11.05
Source: https://youtu.be/2jEdpCMD5E8?t=185, https://youtu.be/ymoiWv9BF7Q?t=670
The 9950X & 285K eat 20W+ per core for that 1T perf; the M4 uses ~7W. Apple has a node advantage, but no node on Earth gives you 50% less power.
There is no contest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD 395+/ Cachyos MT Geekbench 6 25334 - not sure where you get your Geekbench number from for the 395+ You: "If it helps you focus on what the actual discussion, we are comparing maximum CPU and GPU speeds for the dollar." You: "Mac Studio itself is a much more capable box with things like Thunderbolt5, more ports, quieter"
You: AMD 395+/ Cachyos MT Geekbench 6 25334 Me: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason why I keep reposting this table is because people post incorrect statements about AMD/Apple so often, often with zero data backing. For Blender numbers, M4 Pro numbers came from Max Tech's review.[0] I don't remember where I got the Strix Halo numbers from. Could have been from another Youtube video or some old Notebookcheck article. Anyway, Blender has official GPU benchmark numbers now: M4 Pro: 2497 [1]…
Weren't we comparing CPUs though? Those Blender benchmarks are for GPUs. Here is M4 Max CPU https://opendata.blender.org/devices/Apple%20M4%20Max/ - median score 475 Ryzen MAX+ PRO 395 shows median score 448 (can't link because the site does not seem to cope well with + or / in product names) Resulting in M4 winning by 6%
Weren't we comparing CPUs though? Those Blender benchmarks are for GPUs.
Blender CPU tasks are highly parallel. AMD's Ryzen Max 395 has great MT performance. It's generally 5-20% slower in CPU MT than the M4 Max depending on the application.
Honestly, I have serious FOMO about this. I am never going to run a Mac (or worse: Windows) I'm 100% on Linux, but I seriously hate it that I can't reliably work at a coffee shop for five hours. Not even doing that much other than some music, coding, and a few compiles of golang code. My Apple friends get 12+ hrs of battery life. I really wish Lenovo+Fedora or whoever would get together and make that possible.
I'm guessing you're well aware, but just in case you're not: Asahi Linux is working extremely well on M1/M2 devices and easily covers your "5 hours of work at a coffee shop" use case.
Change TDP, TDC, etc. and fan curves if you don't like the thermal behavior. Your Ryzen has low enough power draw that you could even just cool it passively. It has a lower power draw ceiling than your M1 Pro while exceeding it in raw performance.
Also comparing chips based on transistor density is mostly pointless if you don't also mention die size (or cost).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A huge reason for the low power usage is the iPhone. Apple spent years incrementally improving efficiency and performance of their chips for phones. Intel and AMD were more desktop based so power efficiency wasnt the goal. When Apple's chips got so good they could transition into laptops, x86 wasn't in the same ballpark. Also the iPhone is the most lucrative product of all time (I think) and Apple poured a tonne of t…
I don't think it is so much efficiency of their chips for their hardware (phones) so much as efficiency of their OS for their chips and hardware design (like unified memory).
See Lunar Lake on TSMC N3B, 4+4, on-package DRAM versus the M3 on TSMC N3B, 4+4, on-package DRAM: https://youtu.be/ymoiWv9BF7Q?t=531
The 258V (TSMC N3B) has a worse perf / W 1T curve than the Apple M1 (TSMC N5).