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

Nvidia Grace CPU

nvidia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 197 posts

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#171

Post by ribit »

bullen wrote: post #170
zerohp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are completely wrong. The claim of 2.6 Tflops for the M1 was independently verified. https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=197759&curpost...

There is not a single page on the whole internet that states Gflops and Watt on the same page, I did 2 googlings: "apple g13 gflops" and "apple g13 watt"... the results where completely disturbing seen this info should be clearly available. Like when you google 1030 gflops and watt you get all links on google linking to pages stating both figures and they are the same... M1 comes is MANY flavours with different watt…

“Official sources” in this case is testing done by me personally. I am the author of the post on RWT linked previously. I would be happy to share my benchmarking code for your scrutiny if you want. The M1 variant tested was base M1 in a 13” MacBook Pro.

I don’t know what your friends have tested but the results make zero sense. Firestorm reaches 1700 points in GB5 at 5W. Pi 4 is under 300 at similar wattage.

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#172

Post by bullen »

ribit wrote: post #171
bullen wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not a single page on the whole internet that states Gflops and Watt on the same page, I did 2 googlings: "apple g13 gflops" and "apple g13 watt"... the results where completely disturbing seen this info should be clearly available. Like when you google 1030 gflops and watt you get all links on google linking to pages stating both figures and they are the same... M1 comes is MANY flavours with different watt…

“Official sources” in this case is testing done by me personally. I am the author of the post on RWT linked previously. I would be happy to share my benchmarking code for your scrutiny if you want. The M1 variant tested was base M1 in a 13” MacBook Pro. I don’t know what your friends have tested but the results make zero sense. Firestorm reaches 1700 points in GB5 at 5W. Pi 4 is under 300 at similar wattage.

How do you measure watts?

First answer on google: "maximal power consumption is around 50 watts"

Firestorm is GPU (again google has little info) I'm talking CPU for the Raspberry.

The Raspberry 4 GPU uses 1W. You are conflating because of sunk cost.

You need to compare the same things, apples to apples (no pun) one CPU core on Raspberry consumes 1W on the M1 they are 4W

GPU is 1W vs 5W (if you are correct which I HIGHLY doubt, I suspect 20W for the GPU alone, wikipedia states 39 watts at maximum load so yes 20W for the GPU)!

You need to start looking at the world objectively and understand how it really works, because peak energy is not going to be forgiving if you don't.

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#173

Post by ribit »

bullen wrote: post #170
zerohp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are completely wrong. The claim of 2.6 Tflops for the M1 was independently verified. https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=197759&curpost...

There is not a single page on the whole internet that states Gflops and Watt on the same page, I did 2 googlings: "apple g13 gflops" and "apple g13 watt"... the results where completely disturbing seen this info should be clearly available. Like when you google 1030 gflops and watt you get all links on google linking to pages stating both figures and they are the same... M1 comes is MANY flavours with different watt…

Well, it seems like you made up your mind without doing any testing or educating yourself, so I am not quite sure what I can do to help you. Already your entirely nonsensical comment of “needing to sign the executable” speaks volumes. Why did I never need to sign anything despite building software on M1 machines daily for the last year? I wonder…

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#174

Post by ribit »

bullen wrote: post #172
ribit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Official sources” in this case is testing done by me personally. I am the author of the post on RWT linked previously. I would be happy to share my benchmarking code for your scrutiny if you want. The M1 variant tested was base M1 in a 13” MacBook Pro. I don’t know what your friends have tested but the results make zero sense. Firestorm reaches 1700 points in GB5 at 5W. Pi 4 is under 300 at similar wattage.

How do you measure watts? First answer on google: "maximal power consumption is around 50 watts" Firestorm is GPU (again google has little info) I'm talking CPU for the Raspberry. The Raspberry 4 GPU uses 1W. You are conflating because of sunk cost. You need to compare the same things, apples to apples (no pun) one CPU core on Raspberry consumes 1W on the M1 they are 4W GPU is 1W vs 5W (if you are correct which I HIG…

By using the provided system tools that report power usage of the GPU cluster? Also, I am telling you the system diagnostics output if an actual physical machine. What are you quoting Wikipedia for? You can literally go measure these things. Should I go edit Wikipedia so that you get correct information?

Anyway, power usage of M1 variants has been studied in detail. It’s 5 watts peak for a single performance core, 20W peak for a CPU cluster of four cores, 10W for a 8-core GPU (128 FP32 ALUs per core). Bigger M1 variants have respectively higher power consumption because of the larger interconnects/caches etc. DRAM is also a factor. Running at full bandwidth is can consume over 10W of power.

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#175

Post by Nursie »

eftychis wrote: post #104
p1necone wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pretty surprised by the low prices of m1 macbooks when even the lowest end models perform so much better than the high end of previous models. I'm sure Apple is spending less money on manufacturing them now that they're not going through Intel, but I would have expected them to just keep charging the same and eaten the profit margin themselves.

They are trying to establish the new architecture. Also you still need to shell out $2-3k to get something decent and practically start at $1.5k. I wouldn't call that cheap or even cheaper. What is the past difference you see?

> you still need to shell out $2-3k to get something decent

Honestly 16GB Air is pretty epic for $1200, though you probably want to spend the extra $200 for a storage bump as well. I'm very happy with the performance for dev tasks, and with my (displaylink) dock it runs multiple screens just fine too.

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#176

Post by mschuster91 »

Gigachad wrote: post #88
andrewstuart wrote: post #76

This leads me to wonder about the microprocessor shortage. So many computing devices such as Nvidia Jetson and Raspberry Pi are simply not available anywhere. I wonder what's he point of bringing out new products when existing products can't be purchased? Won't the new products also simply not be available?

The products don't get produced in order. The high value products get priority and continuously bump out low value chips like those on the RPI. Not sure what the cost of this Grace chip is but it looks to be targeting high value users so it gets priority. Notice how there is no shortage of chips for iPhones, because Apple just buys the capacity at whatever cost it takes.

> Notice how there is no shortage of chips for iPhones, because Apple just buys the capacity at whatever cost it takes.

Apple bought out the entire capacity of TSMC's 3nm node [1]. I would not be surprised if the deal actually was for Apple to fund the construction of the fab in exchange for this level of priority.

[1] https://www.heise.de/news/Bericht-Apple-schnappt-sich-komple...

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#177

Post by saagarjha »

anyfoo wrote: post #139
p1necone wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> still need to shell out $2-3k to get something decent and practically start at $1.5k They're all using the exact same CPU, in fact you can make the air perform (almost) just as well as the pro/mini by opening it up and adding a thermal pad: https://www.cultofmac.com/759693/thermal-mod-m1-macbook-air/

Current MacBook Pro 14"/16" use the M1 Pro/M1 Max instead of the M1 that the Air and 13" MacBook Pro have, so definitely a different (and later iteration) CPU: https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/

It's the same CPU with a different core distribution.

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#178

Post by saagarjha »

hughrr wrote: post #169
astrange wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like ARM has serious technical advantages over x86-64 as an ISA, although it is cleaner and has more security features which is good. Isn't the main advantage just that it's easier to license ARM? Once enough patents expire all ISAs are eventually equal, I'd think.

Spend some time looking at optimised compiler output on godbolt on both architectures. ARM has some really nice tricks up its sleeves. I’ve been using ARM since about 1992 though so I may be biased.

So does Intel ;)

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#179

Post by ksec »

simondotau wrote: post #158
messe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Apple also intends to introduce ECC LPDDR5 on the Mac Pro. Other than additional expansion, I’m struggling to see what else they can add to distinguish it from the Mac Studio.

In order for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro to make any sense whatsoever, its SOC will need have to have support for off-package memory and substantially more PCI-E lanes than the M1 Ultra. Therefore it seems all but certain to me that it will debut the M2 chip family. Apple isn't going to give up the substantial performance benefits of on-package unified memory in order to support DIMMs. Therefore I predict that we'll see…

I would love to be wrong but I dont think DIMM will be a thing on Mac any more. Not only does it not make economical sense for Apple with additional DDR5 memory controller support and testing, they can now also charge substantial premium for memory.

Re: Nvidia Grace CPU

#180

Post by saagarjha »

bullen wrote: post #172
ribit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Official sources” in this case is testing done by me personally. I am the author of the post on RWT linked previously. I would be happy to share my benchmarking code for your scrutiny if you want. The M1 variant tested was base M1 in a 13” MacBook Pro. I don’t know what your friends have tested but the results make zero sense. Firestorm reaches 1700 points in GB5 at 5W. Pi 4 is under 300 at similar wattage.

How do you measure watts? First answer on google: "maximal power consumption is around 50 watts" Firestorm is GPU (again google has little info) I'm talking CPU for the Raspberry. The Raspberry 4 GPU uses 1W. You are conflating because of sunk cost. You need to compare the same things, apples to apples (no pun) one CPU core on Raspberry consumes 1W on the M1 they are 4W GPU is 1W vs 5W (if you are correct which I HIG…

Firestorm is not a GPU, it's a microarchitecture for the large cores on M1.
Post reply on HN