Live data from Hacker News

16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

twitter.com

111–120 of 529 posts

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#111

Is anyone else thinking, what the f*ck? Are we in a new era of computing? It certainly feels that way when looking at these desktop class ARM chips, where performance doubled every year or so, just like back in the 80s and 90s.

I suspect HP/Lenovo/Microsoft are squirming in their chairs right now.

I'm not so sure. Some people simply need Windows and now you can't Bootcamp on ARM Macs so people will take the best Windows laptop instead.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#112

I love everything about the move to Apple Silicon with the exception of the decision to put memory on-die or in-package (not sure how it is configured). They call it 'Unified Memory'. It makes a lot of sense but I don't know if they are going to be able to pack enough memory in there. A lot of folks are fixated on CPU performance lately (which is rad) but I think that there is a tendency to ignore memory. I have 32gb…

It's not magic memory, it's LPDDR4X-4266 or LPDDR5-5500. These work just fine without being in-package, so it's purely a cost cutting decision.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#113

I love everything about the move to Apple Silicon with the exception of the decision to put memory on-die or in-package (not sure how it is configured). They call it 'Unified Memory'. It makes a lot of sense but I don't know if they are going to be able to pack enough memory in there. A lot of folks are fixated on CPU performance lately (which is rad) but I think that there is a tendency to ignore memory. I have 32gb…

I actually feel like 16GB is pretty much the sweet spot. I've built a desktop PC recently and didn't bother with 32GB and haven't had any troubles. The only time I've run into limits is when I was doing things like running games and big IDEs at the same time which seems like a waste in any case regardless of how much RAM is available.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#114
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Air in the article is fanless.

Right, and I think some benchmarks I've seen this morning indicate that it throttles during more intensive tasks. The Pro benchmarks better, the only difference being the fan.

All CPUs throttle, all of the time. It's been years since anyone shipped a high-performance processor without a closed-loop dynamic thermal control system.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#115
post #18

Nearly universal praise for the M1 versus it's predecessor but I don't see how this really changes Apple's position the way he implies. Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows and can't use high-powered GPUs like AMD/Nvidia. The people who choose PC, still have the same incentives to do so. For most users, the faster performance will probably not be very noticeable. The reduced power consumption is t…

Given the build quality, screen, performance, and battery life- Apple isn't really premium pricing anymore.

The Dell XPS 13 starts at 999, the Lenovo X1 carbon starts at 949- at equivalent pricing- and the new Air outperforms both of those.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#116
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that they are releasing the M1 right now because it's the smallest SoC they're going to make and its yields are just barely enough to be viable. Once they get better yields on the 5nm process, they will start making the larger, more yield-sensitive SoCs with more RAM in them.

I don't think that makes any sense, considering that the RAM is not on the same die as the processor. It's on the module, yes, but they're not making it on the same process. I realize this image is a schematic representation rather than an actual photograph, but here it is. https://www.apple.com/v/mac/m1/a/images/overview/chip__fffqz...

The point being made is that the processors that they will package with more memory are going to exist on larger dies. When you increase die size you decrease yield so you need to have a mature process.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#117
post #18

Nearly universal praise for the M1 versus it's predecessor but I don't see how this really changes Apple's position the way he implies. Their machines are still far more expensive than Windows and can't use high-powered GPUs like AMD/Nvidia. The people who choose PC, still have the same incentives to do so. For most users, the faster performance will probably not be very noticeable. The reduced power consumption is t…

Far more expensive than Windows laptops? I haven’t looked in a year or so, but last I checked, to get a Windows laptop with a good screen and build quality, you would also need to spend close to (or likely more) than 1,000 USD.

Yeah that's the reality. It's true that Apple hardware is expensive, but the reality really is that you can buy less expensive and also cheaper products than Apple sells. But if you want to buy something of the same quality as an Apple product, you're paying Apple-like prices.

There are cheaper Android phones than the cheapest iPhone, but if you want iPhone-like specs and vendor support and build quality, you're paying $600-$1000 just like Apple charges. You can buy $200 Windows laptops or Chromebooks but if you want the MacBook-like performance and vendor support and build quality, you're paying $1000-$2000. Compare the excellent Galaxy S to an iPhone, or the excellent Dell XPS (or X1 Carbon or Surface etc) to a Macbook and you'll find similar excellent performance and similar excellent build quality for a similarly expensive price.

The reality is that Apple only competes in the higher end of the markets. There are cheaper options but anything that's directly comparable to an Apple product is going to be priced similarly to an Apple product.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#118
post #21

> ...I run compiles for 20 seconds max now. Not really enough time for throttling to kick in. Still, fantastic performance even if just in bursts. https://twitter.com/rikarends/status/1328703780167315456

Here is The Verge's test with 30 minute Cinebench loop.

It seems that from now on the only difference between Air and Pro is that Air throttles down to about 70 % in sustained mode while Pro's cooling keeps up.

(Also, even thermally throttled M1 destroys my current 4C/8T 4 GHz Haswell desktop, which is beyond powerful for everything I need.)

https://twitter.com/keff85/status/1328740865926459400

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#119
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Air in the article is fanless.

Right, and I think some benchmarks I've seen this morning indicate that it throttles during more intensive tasks. The Pro benchmarks better, the only difference being the fan.

But only after 10+ minutes of full load according to tests. And only after 30 minutes do you get noticeably performance drops (around 20% or so).

For developers, for instance, I really doubt you're going to commonly have 30 minutes of full load in your normal workflow.

Re: 16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What uses most of your ram when you need 16GB+?

You can never have enough ram!

Haha! I somehow became sated with 16GB on my laptop. Now any of my workloads which require more would simultaneously want higher cpu, so those loads get pushed to a different machine entirely. So I'm curious what is the use case for 16GB+ with a laptop cpu.
Post reply on HN