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

Apple M5 chip

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple M5 chip

#391

Post by bigyabai »

astrange wrote: post #367
shantara wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main roadblock for porting the games to Mac has never been the hardware, but Apple themselves. Their entire attitude is that they can do whatever they please with their platforms, and expect the developers to adjust to the changes, no matter how breaking. It’s a constant support treadmill, fixing the stuff that Apple broke in your previously perfectly functioning product after every update. If said fixing is even…

> If said fixing is even possible, like when Apple removed support for 32-bit binaries altogether, rendering 3/4 of macOS Steam libraries non-functional. IIRC developers literally got 15 years of warning about that one.

IIRC that didn't convince many developers to revisit their software. I still have hard drives full of Pro Tools projects that open on Mojave but error on Catalina. Not to mention all the Steam games that launch fine on Windows/Linux but error on macOS...

Re: Apple M5 chip

#392

Post by paxys »

M5 is 4-6x more powerful than M4, which was 5x more powerful than M3, which was 4x more powerful than M2, which was 4x more powerful than M1, which itself was 6x faster than an equivalent Intel processor. Great!

Looking at my Macbook though, I can say with utmost certainty that it isn't 4000x faster than the Intel one I had 5 years ago.

So, where is the disconnect here? Why is actual user experience not able to keep up with benchmarks and marketing?

Re: Apple M5 chip

#393

Post by yieldcrv »

ironman1478 wrote: post #325

It's surprising to me macs aren't a more popular target for games. They're extremely capable machines and they're console-like in that there isn't very much variation in hardware, as opposed to traditional PC gaming. I would think that it's easier to develop a game for a MacBook than a Windows machine where you never know what hardware setup the user will have.

It's kind of a myth though, Mac has many flagship games and everything in between

If you identify as a "gamer" and are in those communities, then you'll see communities talking about things you can't natively play

but if you leave niches you already have everything

and with microtransactions, Apple ecosystem users are the whales. again, not something that people who identify as "gamers" wants to admit being actually okay with, but those people are not the revenue of game production.

so I would say it is a missed opportunity for developers that are operating on antiquated calculations of MacOS deployment

Re: Apple M5 chip

#394

Post by zdw »

ksec wrote: post #103
mumber_typhoon wrote: post #44

The M5 MacBook Pro still gets the Broadcom WiFi chip but the M5 iPad Pros get the N1 and C1X (Sweet). All in all, apple is doing some incredible things with hardware. Software teams at apple really need to get their act together. The M1 itself is so powerful that nobody really needs to upgrade that for most things most people do on their computers. Tahoe however makes my M1 Air feel sluggish doing the exact same task…

The Broadcom WiFi support 320Mhz while N1 is stuck with 160Mhz. There were report of N1 not supporting 4096 QAM as well but I didn't check.

From Apple's support docs:

https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/wi-fi-ethernet-sp...

No devices support 320Mhz bandwidths, and only supports 160Mhz on 6GHz band on MacBooks and iPads. Some iPhones support 160Mhz on 5GHz as well.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#395

Post by oofbey »

toddmorey wrote: post #6

The modern Apple feels like their hardware teams way outperforming the software teams.

In a sense, hardware's job is easier, because the goals are more clear. Make it faster, and more power efficient. Vast amounts of complexity within those goals. But try to summarize the north-star vision for a complex software project like an OS in terms anywhere close as simply as this.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#396

Post by Rohansi »

nik736 wrote: post #16
quest88 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by properly? What’s the behavior one would observe if they did run an llm?

If you have enough memory to load a model, but not enough bandwidth to handle it, you will get a very low token/s output.

You can also have enough bandwidth but be compute limited and get lower performance than expected. This is more likely to be the case for Apple Silicon vs. high power GPUs.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#397

Post by mproud »

toddmorey wrote: post #6

The modern Apple feels like their hardware teams way outperforming the software teams.

The hardware team has always shined, but how about one example of this:

The PowerBook from the mid 1990’s were hugely successful, especially the first ones, which were notable for what we now take for granted: pushing the keyboard back allowing space for palm rests. Wikipedia says at one time Apple had captured 40% of the laptop market. All the while the ’90s roared on, Apple was languishing, looking for a modern OS.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#398

Post by vintagedave »

paxys wrote: post #392

M5 is 4-6x more powerful than M4, which was 5x more powerful than M3, which was 4x more powerful than M2, which was 4x more powerful than M1, which itself was 6x faster than an equivalent Intel processor. Great! Looking at my Macbook though, I can say with utmost certainty that it isn't 4000x faster than the Intel one I had 5 years ago. So, where is the disconnect here? Why is actual user experience not able to keep…

What scares me is that my M2 started seeing performance issues in macOS recently. Safari is sometimes slow (I admit I stress it with many tabs, but it wasn't like this a year ago.) Somehow the graphics in general seems slower on Tahoe, eg the effects when minimising a window.

I am deeply concerned all the performance benefits of the new chips will get eaten away.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#399

Post by tmountain »

paxys wrote: post #392

M5 is 4-6x more powerful than M4, which was 5x more powerful than M3, which was 4x more powerful than M2, which was 4x more powerful than M1, which itself was 6x faster than an equivalent Intel processor. Great! Looking at my Macbook though, I can say with utmost certainty that it isn't 4000x faster than the Intel one I had 5 years ago. So, where is the disconnect here? Why is actual user experience not able to keep…

Probably synthetic benchmarks that don't represent actual bottlenecks in application usage. How much of what you are doing is actually CPU bound? Your machine still has to do I/O, and even though that's "very fast" these days, it's not happening inside your CPU, so you'll only see the actual improvements when running workloads that benefit from the performance improvements (i.e., complex calculations that can live in the CPU and its cache).

Re: Apple M5 chip

#400

Post by monocasa »

paxys wrote: post #392

M5 is 4-6x more powerful than M4, which was 5x more powerful than M3, which was 4x more powerful than M2, which was 4x more powerful than M1, which itself was 6x faster than an equivalent Intel processor. Great! Looking at my Macbook though, I can say with utmost certainty that it isn't 4000x faster than the Intel one I had 5 years ago. So, where is the disconnect here? Why is actual user experience not able to keep…

Each is a different specific benchmark, so they don't stack the way you're doing.

This is 4-6x faster in AI for instance.

Post reply on HN