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

M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 882 posts

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#281

Post by gonehome »

alwillis wrote: post #122
II2II wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand the comparison to the iphone and android situation. Because articles like that are pure nonsense. Take the initial paragraphs. We already knew that faster processors don't necessarily run hotter. People are simply conflating higher clock speeds with higher performance, while ignoring all of the ways CPU design optimizes computation. Likewise, we already knew that "emulation" doesn't imply that pe…

Likewise, we already knew that "emulation" doesn't imply that performance will be unbearably slow. Apple’s Rosetta 2 doesn't do emulation ; it translates the x86 code into ARM code on the fly and runs it, which is why most apps run faster on M1 Macs than they do on Intel Macs--and comparably priced PCs. Now that it has happened, we will likely see more from the PC industry. Probably not. If Intel and AMD were capable…

Agreed - this is also why markets are inefficient and it can be easy to make money buying stocks.

M1 is a clear example of something a lot better where competitors are unable to keep up or adapt.

Yet tons of people in this thread still make up (bad) reasons why Intel/AMD have nothing to worry about.

I remember similarly dumb arguments about the iPhone too in 2007. Some people are just unable to recognize major change even when it's blindingly obvious.

Status quo bias is strong.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#282

Post by ianhowson »

zionic wrote: post #126
nix23 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those machines are just standing around in their underwear now because the M1 stole all their pants. Not sure what shitty machine hes talking about, but my threadripper's are not impressed with some 4 core M1.

Wait for an 8-core (or the rumored 12 core) variants. Those will embarrass your threadripper.

They might embarrass today's Threadripper. They don't exist yet, at least not outside an Apple lab. AMD's not sitting on their hands, either.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#283

Post by free2OSS »

nix23 wrote: post #119
simias wrote: post #100

I've never owned a Mac and don't intend to own one but I'm very happy with this M1 move, mainly for the reasons highlighted in the introduction to the article: >M1 Macs embarrass all other PCs — all Intel-based Macs, including automobile-priced Mac Pros, and every single machine running Windows or Linux. Those machines are just standing around in their underwear now because the M1 stole all their pants. I think it's…

>Those machines are just standing around in their underwear now because the M1 stole all their pants. Not sure what shitty machine hes talking about, but my threadripper's are not impressed with some 4 core M1.

I'm completely with you.

The hardest programs to run will not benefit here.

I don't need chrome to open up 0.1s faster.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#284

Post by adkadskhj »

spijdar wrote: post #272
adkadskhj wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? Because i have yet to see any numbers that aren't clearly the result of a massively streamlined SoC. Yes the ARM chip is great, but the RAM is blazing, tiny, and more close to the ARM chip than anything out there for x86, right? I'll be interested to see if Apple can keep this up with 128GiB of RAM and a beefy GPU. So far to me M1 is great, ARM is great, but comparing a tiny amount of RAM soldered onto the C…

Architectural analysis of the chip [0] suggests it is a massive improvement as a general purpose CPU, not just because of Apple's vertical integration and streamlining. The magnitude of extra ROB entries, having an 8x wide instruction decoder, that massive L1I cache, and such fat cores with lots of ALU and other op units while simultaneously keeping over a 3GHz clock is a phenomenal architectural improvement overall.…

Yea and to be clear i'm not saying it's not awesome. I'm just saying that a lot of things - like real world benchmarks of programs/etc - massively benefit from the proximity and speed of the RAM. Proximity seems to be a very difficult beast to scale. Works great in small scale, horrible in large scale.

Sidenote, even if Apple rolled out 128GiB tomorrow i probably couldn't afford it. As the OP says:

> including automobile-priced Mac Pros

That's rough.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#285

Post by zepto »

nix23 wrote: post #221
zepto wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point about being able to upgrade ram or upgrade to whatever you want doesn’t make sense. A ram upgrade will never compensate for a less efficient memory architecture. There is no CPU architecture other than Apple’s that will make your laptop faster because AMD and Intel are thermally limited, so there is nothing to upgrade to. The only situation in which you are right, is if you are talking about a high end desk…

>The point about being able to upgrade ram or upgrade to whatever you want doesn’t make sense. If my program needs 64GB of ram, your 8GB highly efficient "memory architecture" can do nothing about it...you have to know that even my gpu has 16GB alone. But i have to say that 8GB are probably enough for your Chrome Browser.

Are you using a desktop tower?

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#286

Post by rootusrootus »

adkadskhj wrote: post #253
zepto wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers say otherwise.

Do they? Because i have yet to see any numbers that aren't clearly the result of a massively streamlined SoC. Yes the ARM chip is great, but the RAM is blazing, tiny, and more close to the ARM chip than anything out there for x86, right? I'll be interested to see if Apple can keep this up with 128GiB of RAM and a beefy GPU. So far to me M1 is great, ARM is great, but comparing a tiny amount of RAM soldered onto the C…

> RAM soldered onto the CPU

It's just very close to the CPU, on the same package. It's not on the same die or anything. There are laptops that already have a shorter physical path to RAM than the M1 MacBooks, stacking the RAM right next to the CPU is common.

So it's just a matter of time before >16GB is available with an M1. These are just entry level machines in the first round.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#287

Post by free2OSS »

simonh wrote: post #130
nix23 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those machines are just standing around in their underwear now because the M1 stole all their pants. Not sure what shitty machine hes talking about, but my threadripper's are not impressed with some 4 core M1.

He's talking about the vast majority of PC chips sold today, who's power consumption / performance / thermal ratios just got marmalised. You're quite right, your machine and in fact everyone else's are still just as good as they were a few weeks ago. I got an Intel 5K iMac in the summer and I'm still very happy with it. I need to be able to run windows and Linux in VMs so M1 isn't for me right now. It's no for you ei…

I'm the other side. Vertical integration is a fast way to fall behind.

This move is very Nintendo-like. Gimmick then don't even attempt to compete with the big dogs.

The fanboys have their meat to chew on "it's not hot". And they will repeat it on command as Apple falls behind to a swath of competition. "It might be slow, but at least it doesn't warm my lap."

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#288

Post by free2OSS »

saagarjha wrote: post #222
pathartl wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all going to come down to user experience and versatility. Apple is doing some crazy stuff with the M1, but I personally would chock (most of it) it up more to being clever than true innovation. I think only Intel needs to be concerned right now because they're being outpaced by both AMD and Apple. Additionally if the acquisition of Arm by Nvidia results in what people expect, Intel will basically be losing out…

You don’t just go and make ever part of your chip architecture wider by being clever. Well, there was probably some cleverness involved, but it’s not like this has been a one-off trick.

This is Apple we are talking about. The last 20 years have been tricks.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#289

Post by cestith »

wmf wrote: post #252
mlyle wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualcomm, Samsung, Cavium/Marvell, and nVidia don't count? Not to mention ARM's own cores...

They don't count in the PC space. For desktop PCs there's just the Mac mini and various hacker boards. For laptops there's the new MacBooks and the mediocre Qualcomm 8cx/SQ2 and nothing else.

There's Exynos.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#290

Post by microtherion »

piokoch wrote: post #154
simias wrote: post #100

I've never owned a Mac and don't intend to own one but I'm very happy with this M1 move, mainly for the reasons highlighted in the introduction to the article: >M1 Macs embarrass all other PCs — all Intel-based Macs, including automobile-priced Mac Pros, and every single machine running Windows or Linux. Those machines are just standing around in their underwear now because the M1 stole all their pants. I think it's…

I am not sure if the derogatory tone is fair. This is just example how progress works. Not that long time ago Apple had to be saved by some pennies thrown by Microsoft. Not that long time ago Apple was moving from Motorola processors to Intel ones. There is nothing bad that someone stayed behind. Someone has to stay behind if we want progress. No reason to insult predecessors. Planc and Dirac weren't making fun of Ne…

> Not that long time ago Apple had to be saved by some pennies thrown by Microsoft.

Agree largely with the rest of your comment, but this particular event was more than 23 years ago. I'm sure a good number of readers of this thread is younger than that!

Post reply on HN