Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

211–220 of 529 posts

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

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Satya Nadella just tweeted about their new Pluton processor. I have a feeling it won't get the same hype as the M1 but they are clearly already trying to defend.

Pluton is just playing catch-up with Apple's Secure Enclave.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the e-waste and the inability for users to upgrade their own devices. I wonder what the performance cost was of having standard memory modules. I suspect it wasn't significant and this is more of a move to prevent upgrade and increase consumption and waste. This is another reason I really don't ever want to own another Apple device. They want more and more control over the system and they keep moving t…

Even if you could boot other OSs, you forget that there are no drivers written for them. Windows and Linux both would be unusable for potentially years after launch.

It would certainly help if Apple would release specs, or even just liberally-licensed XNU driver sources, but Linux has certainly gotten drivers without manufacturer help before.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For some projects, linking non-stripped binaries can take huge amounts of virtual memory. At least on ELF/DWARF platforms with the Gnu linker. Not sure if that applies here, since I assume the Mac will be using the LLVM linker, and Mach-O != ELF.

Virtual memory, or real memory? You're never going to run out of virtual memory on a 64-bit platform.

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

#214
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, this is repeating the iPhone vs Android comparisons. iPhones with 4GB RAM feel faster and get more work done than Androids running Qualcomm ARM with double that amount of RAM. The faster IO becomes the cheaper paging becomes, and macOS and iOS have a lot of work done to handle paging well. Two, this is the entry level processor, made for the Air, which is what we get for students, non-technical family members an…

I may be wrong, but the ecosystem does not really change here right? I mean, memory management should be roughly the same between x86_64 and arm regarding the amount of ram used, so I guess 16gb of ram under old macbooks is the same as 16gb under the new ones

All else being equal, yes, but the memory is faster, closer to the chip, has less wiring to go through, and because of vertical integration they can pass by reference instead of copying values internally on the hardware. The last one is big - because all the parts of the SoC trust each other and work together they can share memory withing having to copy data over the bus. That coupled with superfast SSDs means that comparisons aren't Apples to oranges, excuse the pun.

16GB of memory on-die shared by all the components of an SoC is not the same as 16GB made available to separate system components, each of which will attempt to jealously manage their own copy of all data.

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

#215

I think Apple have screwed themselves over a bit here by sticking ARM-based Apple silicon in their lower-end/entry level devices first. I mean what's the point in spending £5k on a fully tricked out 16-inch MBP, as I'd been considering, when an entry level Macbook Air or Mac Mini is going to run rings around it? The reason I'm not going to buy one of these lower end Macs (the Mini would be the best fit) is that I can…

I think it could be a capabilities issue. An ARM equipped Mac is a non-starter for me because my workstation is driven with a dock that has 2x 4K displays connected to it, ethernet, USB hub, etc.

I'm not willing to part ways with my 2nd external display and I'm sure a lot of professionals with my setup would also consider that a deal breaker.

They probably wanted to get something public so developers could start cranking out compatible apps ASAP so when the bulk start buying this hardware for production use, everything is fully baked.

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

#216
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, this is repeating the iPhone vs Android comparisons. iPhones with 4GB RAM feel faster and get more work done than Androids running Qualcomm ARM with double that amount of RAM. The faster IO becomes the cheaper paging becomes, and macOS and iOS have a lot of work done to handle paging well. Two, this is the entry level processor, made for the Air, which is what we get for students, non-technical family members an…

I may be wrong, but the ecosystem does not really change here right? I mean, memory management should be roughly the same between x86_64 and arm regarding the amount of ram used, so I guess 16gb of ram under old macbooks is the same as 16gb under the new ones

"Controlling the ecosystem" and "integration" and such are just wishful-thinking rationalizations. Chrome and Electron will use however much RAM they use; Apple can't magically reduce it. If you need 32GB you need 32GB.

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

#217

I think Apple have screwed themselves over a bit here by sticking ARM-based Apple silicon in their lower-end/entry level devices first. I mean what's the point in spending £5k on a fully tricked out 16-inch MBP, as I'd been considering, when an entry level Macbook Air or Mac Mini is going to run rings around it? The reason I'm not going to buy one of these lower end Macs (the Mini would be the best fit) is that I can…

Apple’s ‘low end’ segment is the lion’s share of both revenue and profit.

A decade ago, the Intel Mac Pro also came out after the rest of the product line. For awhile you could only get a Powermac G5.

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

#219
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does that follow? 4 cores and 32GB makes fine sense.

It's actually 8 core, 4 big (Fire) and 4 small (Ice)

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

#220

I think Apple have screwed themselves over a bit here by sticking ARM-based Apple silicon in their lower-end/entry level devices first. I mean what's the point in spending £5k on a fully tricked out 16-inch MBP, as I'd been considering, when an entry level Macbook Air or Mac Mini is going to run rings around it? The reason I'm not going to buy one of these lower end Macs (the Mini would be the best fit) is that I can…

Ports, memory, SSD and of course x86-compatibility still speak for the 16" laptop.
Post reply on HN