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

MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

tomsguide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#121

Post by brokenmachine »

Shadonototro wrote: post #82

i love my mac, can't wait for this upgrade people like to hate on the OS, but i find it super beautiful and easy to use i don't know how to describe it, but i feel good when i use my mac in contrast, everytime i have to boot windows, i feel like i'm oppressed by some corporate, i feel closed, the whole experience is boring, windows needs a serious REBOOT, not a reskin, a whole reboot, including deleting NTFS

>including deleting NTFS

Imagine drinking so much kool-aid that you literally don't like a filesystem for no reason other than Apple good Microsoft bad.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#122

Post by jiofih »

EricE wrote: post #98
nobleach wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't even get above 16GB with the M1. You can with the i9. It took me MONTHS to receive my 16GB M1.

Three weeks ago I ordered a 1 TB/16GB MBA and picked it up the same day (!) It was a pleasant shock. I ended up returning it as it turns out I really do need at least 32GB of RAM, but it was VERY difficult to take it back. Even if this rumor is way overhyped, I still can't wait for a MBP that can take at least 32GB of RAM. I'll be there with bells on!

Benchmarks have shown negligible performance difference between 8 and 16GB models for editing multiple 4K video streams and other pretty intensive tasks. What kind of software do you run?

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#123

Post by coldtea »

nobleach wrote: post #74
coldtea wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I got mine in 2 days, so...

Ordered mine end of December, got it last Thursday. Glad you had a better experience!

I'm not even in the US, we usually have worse delivery dates for everything, Apple or not. And the 16MB Pro is considered a "modification", but it was readily available in several resellers.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#124

Post by kevstev »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #120
totalZero wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Pro" is just a branding, not a class of machines designed for specific tasks with any specific guarantees. I agree, and to be fair, there are plenty of professional use cases that are totally serviceable with one external monitor and 16GB of RAM. Not every professional is a YouTuber or big data engineer. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do like it when the name of a product actually means something, because it…

Memory latency often has a bigger impact on performance than capacity. Your CPU spends a lot more time waiting around than you'd expect. With NVMe, I'd rather have 16GB LPDDR4X than 64GB low-JEDEC, high latency DDR3 memory. More RAM is still good in many cases, but it's not vital like it was 15 years ago when you'd end up in swap hell or OOMing constantly over a GB or two.

When I first got a laptop with 8gb of ram 10 years ago, I thought it was an absurd amount, and to be honest it was- ever since I have never wanted for ram on my personal computers.

I'm not quite sure where why people seem to be clamoring for more RAM, it seems like a non issue these days. I don't really game these days, and when I do it's on older "steam sale" titles so maybe gamers need it, but even for dev stuff, I just don't see the issue.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#125

Post by rasz »

ksec wrote: post #60
loceng wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's considerate that they realized they shouldn't compromise the quality of the one site?

Yes it is one of those thing Tomshardware and Anandtech had problems with in their early days. They dont report rumours, only Facts and in-depth reviews. But rumours gets the click and ads revenue.

>only Facts and in-depth reviews.

and manufacturer propaganda. Tomshardware made somewhat famous burning Athlon video (later revealed they used board with disabled/non functioning thermal cutout) during prime Intel pentium 4 payola timeframe.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-4.html "AMD did not bless the Thunderbird core with ANY thermal protection whatsoever."

In reality AMD socket certification required thermal cutout, same as Intel for Pentium 3. AMD processors do include thermal diode just like Intel ones.

"Intel's older processor is also equipped with a thermal diode and a thermal monitoring unit"

is a lie. Pentium 3 thermal throttling is performed by the Bios just like in Athlon case. Serendipitously tomshardware picked broken Siemens motherboard for AMD system as recommended by Intel, imagine that.

They published a non-retraction catching Siemens in a lie and showing proper AMD setup safely shutting down. Of course you cant read it because its burried down, excluded from wayback machine and deadlinked http://www.tomshardware.com/column/01q4/011029/index.html

Anandtech wasnt better 20 years ago. They used to publish rave Pentium 3 SSE reviews https://images.anandtech.com/old/cpu/intel-pentium3/Image94.... using a piece of Intel commissioned software as an independent test. https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=65247&start=20#p...

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#126

Post by cromwellian »

faeriechangling wrote: post #119
cromwellian wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s great and all but for people who are gamers or doing heavy work with the GPU they’re going to be plugged into power most of the time. I’d rather have a chip that scales to high performance when plugged in and lower GPU performance when I’m on say an airplane or in a cafe, then one whose GPU performance is a half decade behind.

You're bringing up a limitation of the current tech, that it tethers you to a wall, to speak against this new tech. Does a student who has a gap between classes always want to find an outlet somewhere and deal with their computer sounding like it's about to liftoff? Does the video editor offloading some of their workload to GPU always want to find an outlet? Apple is selling super quiet hypermobile performance here,…

A lot of those students are using Chromebooks, which will get nothing but not cheaper. Video editors almost always want large monitors and top performance. Show me someone who works as a professional video editor who does it on a laptop screen.

The best argument you could make for the MacBook in this regard is for developers who might be working as nomads, and musicians who often lug their machines to their gigs.

But for someone doing heavy 3D, video, or gaming? I just don't see it. The M1 can't even run Tomb Raider above 30 fps. It's a 2 year old game, and isn't even that impressive. A GTX 1080 will yield 2x-3x that performance: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9...

I'm just saying, they got a long way to go before that capture the hardcore gamer or 3D rendering market.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#127

Post by labby5 »

akmarinov wrote: post #9
windexh8er wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing is RAM. Apple still has delusions of gimping it's buyers into 16/32GB for "Pro" level machines. I'd probably buy a 16" MBP with this chip if I could get it with socketed 64/128GB. But Apple's going to solder it to the board and charge a premium even if they did.

Yeah, I'm calling it now - no chance of 128GB in a Macbook Pro. 64GB even is doubtful.

The M1x will almost certainly have 64 gb support, possibly 128. Apple has left Intel Macs in the lineup for customers who need features that the M1 has not replicated, like large RAM capacity and 10 gb Ethernet. The M1 macs are still better for 90% of customers, but the intention is to only fully phase out Intel Macs in a product line when Apple Silicon is better for 100% of customers, as they did with the Air. The M1x will fill out the remainder of the Macbook Pro and Mac Mini lineup, which requires 64 gb support. It is likely (though not a guarantee) that the M1x will also fill out the entire iMac line (excluding the education M1 iMac they have not yet released). That would require 128 gb support.

People seem to be under the mistaken impression that supporting higher memory capacities is hard. It's not. It's trivial. The only reason the M1 doesn't is because of how it's packaged, and they only chose to package it that way because the products they were intending to replace it with only need 2 memory chips. They did what made sense for the M1, and they will do what makes sense for the M1x.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#128

Post by timothyduong »

izacus wrote: post #35
snicksnak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that Apple ditched Intel for their own Apple Silicon chips it makes more sense comparing them (for now).

Why? The MacBooks aren't competing against their previous iterations (since you can't buy them anymore), but against their non-Apple competition. When you'll be buying a new laptop, you won't be choosing between a 2018 MacBook and a 2021 MacBook, but between 2021 MacBook and offerings from Lenovo, Dell, Microsoft and others.

There's a Macbook Pro 16" that you cannot get with a M1 Processor. That's the one I have.

So yes, you can compare to the current gen and would be choosing between that.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#129

Post by sudosysgen »

rbanffy wrote: post #116
sudosysgen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a much higher TDP because you are comparing PC parts that are not optimized for power consumption. Their uncore is made using power-inefficient lithographies to save on cost and contribute a ton to power usage. They also have a lot more cores. Per high-performance core, M1 macs are tied or less efficient depending on the workload.

> Per high-performance core, M1 macs are tied or less efficient depending on the workload. That's not what the benchmarks I see say. AMD's chips with 8 amd64 cores beat the M1, which has 4 big cores and 4 low-power ones. In some benchmarks, the x86 laptop CPUs record higher performance, but at a higher clock and with a higher TDP. I don't have the IPC numbers for either, but with a lot of execution ports, its huge re…

The low performance cores of the M1 go anywhere from useless to actively harmful in critical multi thread workloads.

When you are doing serious work, the M1 is really a four core CPU and nothing else.

M1 cores have higher IPC, yes. They are also bigger and slower. Larger reorder buffers and more flexible memory models mean bigger cores which mean slower clock speeds at the same power consumption.

The M1 also doesn't have SMT, which is an easy +20% IPC.

If you measure the performance per core and the power consumption per core, and of course I'm talking only high performance cores, then last gen x86 laptop CPUs are right there despite higher performance.

Re: MacBook Pro M1X benchmarks have leaked

#130

Post by 8fingerlouie »

sudosysgen wrote: post #111
8fingerlouie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has a maximum power consumption of 39W, with an idle consumption of 6.8W. Both measured “on wall”, so including ram, storage and everything else. Compare it to the previous (Intel) generation that uses 20W idle and 122W under load, while not matching the M1 in neither CPU nor GPU performance. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201897

This does not address wether the GPU throttles in high CPU usage scenarios. That being said, RAM and storage is pretty negligible. LPDDR4/X uses around 0.2-0.5w, and around 0.1-0.05w for storage. There is also no reason to compare to Intel. The competition for Macs aren't older macs - newer macs are always going to be better than older macs. The competition is to what they could have been if they went for AMD, and to…

With regards to performance and power consumption, AMD is not far ahead of Intel. Yes, they have better performance when you factor in all the Intel "bugs" like branch predition, but it's only about 10%-20%, and TDP is more or less the same.

Comparing it to a M1 will yield the same results. The lowest TDP i can could find was 65W for a Ryzen 3, which is still long way from M1 in both power consumption and performance.

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus

Post reply on HN