281–290 of 551 posts
This is almost certainly a dumb question, but has anybody tried using these for scientific computing/HPC type stuff? I mean no Infiniband of course, but how bad would a cluster of these guys using Thunderbolt 5 for networking be? 80Gbps is not terrible…
I have a M1 MacBook Air that I use for Docker, VSCode, etc. And it still runs very smoothly. Interestingly, the only times it slows down is when opening Microsoft Excel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, don’t forget the 10 dark years between the Butterfly Keyboard Macbook Pro 2016, the Emoji Macbook Air, until the restoration of the USB ports… around 2022. That was truely the dark age of Apple.
Those were the Ive Unleashed years. Unbridled control over all design in one hyper opinionated guy was an error well resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any source on this?
It might be different post-Intel? I'm too lazy to dig up sources for Apple's past lost class action lawsuits, etc. That Rossman guy, the internet-famous repairman, built his youtube channel on videos about Apple's inadequate thermal management. They're probably still archived on his channel. Hell, I haven't owned a Mac post the year 2000 that didn't regularly hit temperatures above 90 celsius.
Like even with Intel chips that actually died early en masse (13th and 14th gen), the issue wasn't temperature.
Am I missing something? I don't know where this informations came from, but you can check out GeekBench v6 single-core benchmarks here. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/singlecore
So what is the role of the Mac Studio now? It only has: - faster memory and up to 192 GB. - 1 ekstra Thunderbolt port. That is not much for such a large price difference: Mac Mini (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $2500 Mac Studio (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $5000
> Mac Mini (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $2500 > Mac Studio (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $5000 In those configurations, the Studio would have roughly 2x the GPU power of the Mini, with equivalent CPU power. It also has twice as many Thunderbolt ports (albeit TB4 instead of TB5), and can support more monitors.
Am I missing something? I don't know where this informations came from, but you can check out GeekBench v6 single-core benchmarks here. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/singlecore
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've got a coworker who still has an Intel MacBook Pro, 8-core i9 and all that, and I've been on M chips since they launched. The other day he was building some Docker images while we were screensharing and I was dumbfounded at how long it took. I don't think I can even remember a recent time when building images, even ones pushed to CDK etc., takes more than a minute or so. We waited and waited and finally after 8 m…
Sounds like they were building an aarch64 image, building an x86_64 image on Apple Silicon will also be slow - unless you are saying the M* builds x86_64 faster than an i9?
I have been out of the PC world for a long time, but in terms of performance efficiency, is Apple running away from the competition? Or are AMD and Intel producing similar performing chips at the same wattage?
Their margins tend to allow them to always use the latest TSMC process so they will often be pretty good just based on that. They are also ARM chips which obviously have been more focused on efficiency historically.
Anybody got a Speedometer 3.0 result from the M4 Max? It seems more relevant to "consumer computing".
It has to be at least 50 times the speed of a fast m68030 ;)