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

M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

eclecticlight.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 419 posts

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#321

Post by baz00 »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #313
baz00 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel support 4 displays on a bottom end i5-1235U. Even my crappy little Lenovo M600 with an N-series Celeron supports 3 displays. Two 4k ones fine. I didn't have a third to test it with. It's either an architectural fuck up or intentional segmentation.

> It's either an architectural fuck up or intentional segmentation. Do you think there is any chance that Apple would have had to make some engineering compromise (cost, performance, efficiency) for a feature that very few people would use?

No

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#322

Post by musha68k »

user_7832 wrote: post #317
marmaduke wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, I had a 2020 SE daily and never had a OOM, how do you do it?

I still use a 2020SE and experience apps reloading all the time. I cannot keep more than 2 apps reliably in memory at any point. This includes Safari, youtube, reddit (honestly a poorly made app), spotify etc - fairly "common" ones.

Reddit is an especially appalling platform and the only thing more appalling than that is their doubling down on “app vs web” all the while having terrible UX and performance as you say. Something something about Conway’s Law I’m guessing :P

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#323

Post by AnthonyMouse »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #312
rfoo wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. Wow, I don't know this before. Good job FSF! This, should, be, a, basic, right.

You can of course sign your own binaries. You can’t alter them sign a system binary. I’m good with that.

> You can of course sign your own binaries.

I don't believe the license allows them to charge an extra fee for this, and for good reason. It deters hobbyists from doing it.

> You can’t alter them sign a system binary.

What's a "system binary"? The bash executable runs entirely in user mode.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#324

Post by cududa »

unlikelytomato wrote: post #284
corbezzoli wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really you’re complaining you can’t plug in a 4th display into your computer? The fraction of the population who does can afford the Max, together with the 3 extra monitors. I’m not trying to justify Apple here, but this usage seems quite niche and it’s understandable to me to need a non-base setup. It doesn’t sound ridiculous at all. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of notebook users never even plug a single m…

I might argue that what you are describing is exactly why it's a bit absurd. It would be surprising to me as a user to discover such a limitation. If I didn't read about it here, I would probably find out after the return window and then be pissed that they took a stand on this particular artificial market segmentation.

The vast majority of people wouldn't return something because it doesn't have a feature they weren't even aware in the first place that it didn't have, because they don't need it. That's just weird.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#325

Post by slaymaker1907 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #195
pretzel5297 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

400 watts is on a desktop chip where there is no concept of battery life. 20% increase on performance is compared to M1 not, M2 - which also had 20% increase in performance on M1.

> 20% increase on performance is compared to M1 not, M2 Nope. > The M3 chip has single-core and multi-core scores of about 3,000 and 11,700, respectively, in the Geekbench 6 database. When you compare these scores to those of the M2's single-core and multi-core scores (around 2,600 and 9,700, respectively), the M3 chip is indeed up to 20% faster like Apple claims. https://www.laptopmag.com/laptops/macbooks/apple-m3-b…

I wonder how much thermal throttling is going on with these benchmarks? 400W seems ridiculously difficult to cool. The 13900 was difficult if not impossible to cool for throughput without water cooling.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#326

Post by wubrr »

BigJ1211 wrote: post #234
wubrr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong disagree. UI is very buggy and inconsistent. CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's standard on windows/linux and most other operating systems. Not sure what people mean when they say completely vague…

As someone who uses Windows, Arch with Hyperland and MacOS almost daily. I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? In my experience that’s been the least buggy and inconsistent of the three. My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones. For the most used ones it’s CMD + whatever the standard key is for that shortcut, instead of Control. Overal I prefer…

> I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS?

I posted a list of recent issues I've run into elsewhere in the thread, but there are many bugs and inconsistencies in macos:

  - Doc breaking/becoming inaccessible.

  - Running app windows disappearing/becoming inaccessible.

  - Cursor/caret disappearing when editing text.

  - Can't move windows between workspaces.

  - Constant issues with external monitors.
  
  - Switching between windows via command-tab regularly breaks.
These are all well-known issues that have existed for years. If you google them you will find threads and workaround from 5+ years ago.

> My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones

Because.. you changed your linux shortcuts to match macos? The most obvious example is that ctrl+c/s/v etc are instead command+c/s/v on macos.

> I hope you realise that saying “very buggy and inconsistent” without naming anything specific isn’t any less vague and ambiguous than “usability and comfort”.

There are literally dozens of examples of issues listed in this thread. I hope you realize that saying 'give me examples' when there are many many examples all around the post your replying too is a bit disingenuous. I can't keep repeat ing what I've already posted in the thread in every single comment.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#327

Post by wubrr »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #204
wubrr wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs speci…

Because the newer tools changed the licensing terms, and the corporate lawyers won’t let anything under GPL3 anywhere near anything if they can help it. GPL2 was viral, but the terms were easier to stomach. Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. This is a…

> Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles.

Apple can be fine with whatever they want and choose whatever principles they want. Doesn't mean it leads to good software or that I need to like it.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#328

Post by Tool_of_Society »

matwood wrote: post #294
willseth wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe is only considered by a vanishingly small number of their customers. The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. You could be right about range confusion, but I doubt it simply because, like everything else, Apple is so disciplined about market research. Time will tell

> The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. Or more than 1 external display. The vast majority own none or a single. Few people have multiples, and those people are generally enthusiasts who will also tend to pay more.

I'm curious where people are getting this data point?

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#329

Post by pier25 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #319
pier25 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPU is increasing a lot though. Another point is the CPU improvements are constant. In about two years the base M3 is now on par with the M1 Max.

> The GPU is increasing a lot though. Is it? Does it matter? Unified RAM is cool. But I’d rather have an Nvidia 4090.

In a laptop?

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#330

Post by mmcnl »

quitit wrote: post #285
asylteltine wrote: post #67

And yet the air can’t support more than one monitor. I know Apple is a small company with only a few engineers so it must have been too hard. Sarcasm obviously. As an Apple enthusiast it’s so annoying how they sniff farts.

The answer is pretty straight forward: it has no fan and limited ram. It supports a 6K screen in addition to the built-in screen. It's reasonable to say that if you need 3 screens to get your job done, then that is not representative of the market for apple's lowest-end laptop.

The basic office setup in most companies is two screens with a dock (lid closed). That's a super common way of working.

RAM and fan has nothing to do with it, the cheapest low-end Windows laptops can do this with ease, it doesn't stress the RAM, CPU or GPU at all.

Post reply on HN