251–260 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you just compare the $700 Mini to a $140 ECS Liva or some $200 HP or Asus Chromebox?
If you think either of those computers holds a candle to an M1 Mac mini I don’t know what to tell you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The generations start with USB 3.0. But for bonus confusion they don't refer to connection speed. They refer to single lane speed, and a connection can have 1 or 2 lanes. Gen 1 is 5Gbps, gen 2 is 10Gbps. Gen 2x2, sigh , is 20Gbps total. If they weren't trying to obfuscate things, those would simply be 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2. There's also Gen 1x2 in theory, but I've never seen mention of anything using it. And then after US…
So it's basically like PCIe now.
Quoted post unavailable.
> But Apple's M1 based computers are terrible console-like things that can't do what's expected of a computer. I understand that in an abstract context, and I guess it depends on your day-to-day needs. For me, I was incredibly excited to get an M1, and that lasted about a day until I realized that it was just doing everything I was doing on my Intel Mac and lot faster. It doesn't even occur to me that I'm using an M1…
Pretty much. There were exceptions, things like early image edition programs that were slow on PPC Macs because of 68k emulation, but for most people it wasn’t an issue and anything advertised as Mac-compatible ran just fine. Again, in the worst case emulation corresponded more or less to the performance of a high-end 68040 CPU (without its maths coprocessor, which was an issue sometimes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even software that is directly ported has trouble because M1 tile memory cache is designed for minimal tasks, not heavy computing, and computationally heavy software has to be re-written from scratch to optimize it for the platform. Huh? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Tile based memory refers to the GPU, and you don't have to rewrite your GPU software from scratch, that's insane? That's what Metal is…
I think they mean that GPU applications that are not optimized for TBDR may experience reduced performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've hung around some of the previous M1 threads, I really don't think he is trolling. That's actually how some people feel about it. I gotta say it's been really wild watching "epistemic closure" in action. There are clearly two different sets of facts and two different realities based on them that have emerged at this point, one where M1 is slower than x86 and requires everything to be emulated and USB doesn't…
I don't think those final two things are necessarily contradictory. It's very possible to have high theoretical IPC that applications cannot exploit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still don't support DP MST, so you have to use multiple TB ports or use a monitor that supports TB daisy-chaining.
Or a dock. Not disputing the DP MST, just noting there are docks that can drive 2 x 6K. CalDigit's new dock takes a single TB4 cable to drive, and can do: - 2x TB4 - 1x DP 1.4 - supporting - 2x 5K60 OR - 1x 8K60 OR - 1x 4K144 OR - 1x 1440p240 According to https://dancharblog.wordpress.com/2021/02/05/usb4-tb4-docks/ Or, as CalDigit puts it (see final paragraph): Single 8K or Dual 6K Monitors Users on Windows can conne…
I work on Displays at Microsoft :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, USB 3.1 was an update to the spec to allow USB Type C connectors. USB 3.0 specified the old type-a connector on one end and one of the weird oversized type-b connectors on the other end. Maybe not relevant as a consumer to have a difference in the spec version for that, but if you’re a manufacturer trying to implement it, it’s worth a bump to the minor version number.
I have some Android phones that have a USB-C port but only support 2.0 speeds (as per the macOS system info USB tree thing). Which version is that then? I've always assumed that the physical layer of the protocol and the connectors themselves were separate specs and you could have USB protocol running over any kind of arbitrarily shaped connector. And no protocol over a USB(-A) connector, because those are de-facto l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the guy was just trolling. Esp that TLB stuff thats quite speculative and if true means memory hopping, write heavy, gpu bound apps can't squeeze all of the fastest, niche version of m1 ultra. I mean, thats just ridiculous. Its obvious to any programmer that squeezing all from a processor requires optimizations, usually for rapidly diminishing returns. My m1 max laptop is so good that if it broke today, I'd l…
If you've hung around some of the previous M1 threads, I really don't think he is trolling. That's actually how some people feel about it. I gotta say it's been really wild watching "epistemic closure" in action. There are clearly two different sets of facts and two different realities based on them that have emerged at this point, one where M1 is slower than x86 and requires everything to be emulated and USB doesn't…
As for usb3 speeds, I mean, oh well. I probably wouldn't notice if the ssd runs at 400 vs. 500mb/s. Minor speed differences are less noticeable than quality of life things like noise, battery life, screen quality, stuff like that. To each their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you just compare a $200 HP or Asus Chromebox to a $0 free 15 year old Dell tower from your local Freegeek? We can do this all day.
Do you think a 15 year old Dell is going to match the performance of any new machine? "Old" is not the same thing as "low end".
Well, yes? We aren't that much faster since 2010 if you had true top end then and true low end now.
But since talking Macs and Chromebooks, let pull up those:
- Geekbench MacBook Pro 2010 15": 2.66GHz Intel Core i7 (i7-620M): 457 single, 972 multi
- https://www.ebay.com/itm/304426589491?hash=item46e13d1d33:g:...
And a currently shipping Chromebook, when sorting price low to high:
- HP 4BS38UA HP Chromebook 14 IPS HD (1366x768) Intel Celeron N3350: 288 single, 523 multi
- https://www.amazon.com/HP-Chromebook-1366x768-Bluetooth-14-c...
In this case, the 2010 Mac smokes the Chromebook. To be fair, that model became available in 2018.
So, something current?
Acer Chromebooks w/ Intel Celeron N4020 have pretty bad benchmarks (~320-460 single, ~320-500 multi) but the CPU itself rates better:
- Celeron N4020 benchmark: 427 single, 750 multi
That's in currently shipping gear, like this HP introduced fall 2021:
https://www.amazon.com/HP-Chromebook-Micro-Edge-Portable-14a...
Given these scores are comparing 2010 laptops with 2021 laptops, and the 2010 laptop wins (and can be bought at around the same price!), certainly if comparing a 15 year old workstation with cheapest available machine today, yes, the 15 year old Dell will exceed the performance of at least some new machines.
Note:
- Xeon in Mac Pro in 2010 rated 611 single, 6280 multi
By comparison, in 2008 Mac Pro workstation:
- Intel Xeon E5462 2800 MHz (8 cores) rated 420 single and 2540 multi
Dell workstations at that time supported 5400 series Xeons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? The standard as a whole has a version number that increments with the entire standard document. Port layouts are named A, B, C (and deprecated Micro-A, Micro-B, and Mini-A). The transfer rates are now named: Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 1x2, and Gen 2x2. (These names are stupid, but they are names. Gen 1 is all the transport capabilities from USB 1.0 to USB 3.0 {in…
> I think you just recreated what the USB Forum is already doing? If they were doing this then there wouldn't be any ports described as "USB 3.1" (see point 4). The version of the standard is not just irrelevant but actively misleading to use in marketing material. > Marking the port type is redundant because USB has been good about giving every port type a very different physical silhouette. On the port itself, sure…
That gets to the edit I made at the end. The USB-IF Marketing group has never suggested marketing ports/cables as "USB 3.1". They've always preferred the "SuperSpeed {Bandwidth}" branding over "USB {SpecNumber}". There's a chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#USB_3.x_.E2.80.93_4.x_dat...
(Admittedly, they are mixing messages by using "USB4 SuperSpeed {Bandwidth}" as marketing names for "SuperSpeed 20" and "SuperSpeed 40".)
But the fact that just about no one uses the USB-IF Marketing Names and instead reverts to easily confused "USB {SpecNumber}" branding is an interesting marketing failure by USB. (Not necessarily a technical failure of their specs.)
> On the port itself, sure, but if I'm buying a laptop online then it's pretty important what type of port it has, so saying "USB C T2" is a lot more useful than just "USB T2". How would I even know what silhuette the port has?
That's a slight goal post move from your previous comment about what to mark Ports/Cables. Sure, if you need to mark online materials you need to include port types. But it's still redundant on a physical port or cable to mark the port type when you are staring right at the port type.