211–220 of 917 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. If I bought one of these it would never actually move so I don't actually mind the comparison all that much for my personal use case, obviously it isn't apples to oranges but my point is that this performance is not free.
Then perhaps you may want to wait for Apple to release a desktop-class processor to make the comparison, perhaps early next year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are probably going to be reading your comparison as an objective comparison rather than an opportunistic one. For example, if you are choosing between upgrading AM4 processors on your desktop versus buying a new Macbook Pro, then of course it makes sense to compare the cost in those terms. However, the price of the M1 chip is obviously probably not that bad. Since you can’t meaningfully buy it on its own, I gu…
The M1 chip is actually probably extremely expensive. The top of the line one is literally 60 BILLION transistors! My current machine has like 10 billion (GPU + CPU)
I suppose it’s not likely we’ll know the actual price of the M1, but it would suffice to say it’s probably a fair bit less than the full laptop.
I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this kinda makes sense to me — the M1 Max has the same cores as the M1, just more of them and more of the performant ones, if I understand it right. The fastest work on the fastest core, when only working on a single core, is probably very similar.
I thought I remembered that in the presentation they had souped up the individual cores too. Must be I'm misremembering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand I've been running 16GB of ram for a while and I can't conceive of a reason why I would need more. 32GB seems like overkill. What would you do with all of that ram? Open more tabs?
Looking at activity monitor, I'm currently using ~19GB, doing nothing special (IntelliJ, 15 chrome tabs, Spotify, Slack). Docker Desktop was using 8GB before I killed it. And this is on an Intel Mac so it doesn't include GPU memory usage I believe, which is shared in M1 Macs. This likely isn't a perfect metric, if I were closer to the limit I think MacOS would get more aggressive about compression and offloading stuf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sorted by single core performance, then compared multi core performance. Sort by multi core performance, and you will see that the i9-11900K is nowhere near the top spot. For example, the Ryzen 9 5950X has single/multi core scores of 1,688/16,645 - which is higher in multi core score than the M1 Max, but lower in the single core.
Perhaps they were referencing the highest 8C chip. Certainly, a 5950X is faster, but it also has double the number of cores (counting only performance on the M1; I don't know if the 2 efficiency cores do anything on the multi-core benchmark). Not to mention the power consumption differences - one is in a laptop and the other is a desktop CPU. Looking at a 1783/12693 on an 8-core CPU shows about a 10% scaling penalty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they were referencing the highest 8C chip. Certainly, a 5950X is faster, but it also has double the number of cores (counting only performance on the M1; I don't know if the 2 efficiency cores do anything on the multi-core benchmark). Not to mention the power consumption differences - one is in a laptop and the other is a desktop CPU. Looking at a 1783/12693 on an 8-core CPU shows about a 10% scaling penalty…
M1 Max has 10 cores.
I'm in the situation where I really want to pre-order a 14", but I have no idea if going with the base model would be a mistake. Would upgrading to 32GB RAM make Xcode faster? Or would it be a waste of $400?
The integrated nature of the M1 Macs gives them a much better ability to predictively swap unused content to SSD and make the most of the available RAM when things get tight while multitasking, but if you have a single task that needs 17GB and you have 16GB it's going to suffer a lot compared to if you had 32GB.
I wish Apple (and everyone else) would give up on the ultra-thin crap and make a real Pro machine that returns to upgradability at the cost of a few extra millimeters, but for now since you're stuck with what you start with I'd recommend always going at least one level above what you think you might ever need during its expected useful life.