161–170 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since M5 will be on the new (smaller) 2nm node AFAIK the M5 is still 3nm being produced at the TSMC N3P node.
I frequently forget that the 2 nm naming has nothing to do with the physical size anymore. I hate that naming system. From Wikipedia: Node name Gate pitch Metal pitch Year 5 nm 51 nm 30 nm 2020 3 nm 48 nm 24 nm 2022 2 nm 45 nm 20 nm 2025 1 nm 40 nm 16 nm 2027
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAICT, lots of "AI" related stuff runs slow on M1,M2,M3,M4 I don't know if this already exists but it would be nice to see these added to benchmarks. Maybe it's possible to get Apple devices to do stable diffusion and related tech faster and just needs some incentives (winning benchmarks) for people to spend some effort. Otherwise though, my Apple Silicon is way slower than my consumer level NVidia Silicon
No, iPad Pro won't be faster than 4090s or 4070s (or even 5% of the speed of 4090). But newer chips might contain Neural Accelerator to close the gap a little bit (i.e. 10%??). (I maintain https://apps.apple.com/us/app/draw-things-ai-generation/id64... )
I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..
Look at glassy UIs. Worth it.
Where's the M4 Ultra/M4 Extreme? M5 Ultra/M5 Extreme/M5 Super?
There won't be an M4 Ultra as the chip was not designed with a fusion connector. The Extreme versions were only rumors. But maybe Apple will finally make one with the M5 and release a proper Apple Silicon Mac Pro.
which is the same thing that people said about the m3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. It's a nice problem to have, since for most of computing history it's been the other way around. (Meaning the hardware was the constraint, not the OS.)
I don't think hardware has been a real constraint since the Pentium era. We've been living in a world of CPU surplus for close to 2 and a half decades, now.
Nice. The iPads generally measure around ~8% slower than the MacBooks, I guess for cooling reasons. So we should see approximately a 4400 single core Geekbench score for the MacBook series. This is nice. Single thread MacBook progression on Geekbench: M1: 2350 M2: 2600 M3: 3100 M4: 3850 M5: 4400 (estimated) https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s surprising to me MacBooks have such low market share. I got my first Mac after using Windows all my life and I’m stunned. The laptop: 1. Lasts all day on battery 2. Doesn’t get hot 3. Compiles code twice as fast as my new Windows desktop I really don’t like macOS but I’ve shifted to recommending Mac to all my friends and family given the battery, portability and, and speed.
I won't buy or recommend one just on principle. I've spent way too much of my life advocating for open firmware and user-customizable systems to throw it all in the trash for a few hours of battery. I absolutely tell everyone they're the best, and why, but my daily driver has been a Linux box of some form (OK fine I have a windows rig for gaming too) for decades, and that's not changing. Also, again, most folks just…
>That's because MS's filesystem layer has been garbage since NT was launched decades ago [...]
I confess that this kind of excuse drives me batty. End users don't buy CPUs and buy filesystems. They buy entire systems. "Well, it's not really that much faster, it's just that part of the system is junk. The rest is comparable!" That may be, but the end result for the person you're talking to is that their Windows PC compiles code at half the speed of their Mac. It's not like they bought it and selected the glacial filesystem, or even had a choice in the matter.
That's right up there with "my Intel integrated graphics gets lower FPS than my Nvidia card." "But the CPU is faster!" Possibly true, but still totally irrelevant if the rest of the system can't keep up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I buy the higher end Apple products not because I plan to use all their power immediately, but because I keep my devices a very long time and want them to retain usability right to the end.
Same here. My launch-day M1 MBP is starting to show its age finally, M5 with twice the perf will be a nice upgrade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind that a big part of the huge jump in recent chips was that GB6 added support for SME, and to my knowledge, no app uses SME as of yet. GB5 is a better benchmark for all these chips for this reason. The actual IPC increase and perf/clock of these chips excluding SME specific acceleration is MUCH smaller.
SME is just the AMX coprocessor that’s been in Apple chips since 2019. SME made it easier to target the AMX. But it’s been in use and available to developers since 2019.
I own an M4 iPad Pro and can't figure out what to do with even a fraction of the horsepower, given iPadOS's limitations. The rumors about an upcoming touchscreen Mac are interesting, perhaps Apple will deign to make their ridiculously overpowered SOCs usable for general purpose computing. A man can dream..
There are a number of interesting creative apps for iPad that can make full use of its capabilities. A good example is Nomad Sculpt. There's also CAD software, many DAWs. I haven't tested Numbers yet but I would assume its fairly well optimized. This really reminds me of the 80/20 articles that made the frontpage yesterday. Just because a lot of HN users lament the fact that their 20% needs (can't run an LLM or compi…