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

Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

lemire.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#41

Post by climb_stealth »

cpressland wrote: post #19
rckoepke wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instant wake for me. However any time I come across a password field in a website the computer freezes for a painfully long 10 seconds or so while it presumably decrypts my password vault. Sometimes this will happen multiple times per page load if I deselect and reselect the password field.

This happens to me too, I’m using 1Password. I have a suspicion the plug-in is involved with this but I’ve not had time to collect evidence yet. Seems to be rare though, I’ve not spotted anybody else with this issue.

I am seeing lots of spinning balls with 1Password on my 2015 Macbook Pro. Even just switching between fields with the keyboard brings up a spinner for two seconds or so. It's a recent thing I think. No other app has any issues.

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#42

Post by singhkays »

mwint wrote: post #5
thefourthchime wrote: post #2

I love my M1, but does anyone else have horrific performance when resuming from wake? It’s like it swaps everything to disk and takes a full minute to come back to life.

Haven’t seen this on my M1 Mac mini; my wake times are faster than my monitors can wake. No performance issues immediately after sleep. Maybe desktop platforms sleep differently than laptops?

Most likely. Same here with my Mini

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#43

Post by samatman »

kube-system wrote: post #31
tedyoung wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the next 10 years. Why would they? Fabs are extremely capital-intensive and take years to get up and running, when (like Taiwan Semi) knows how to do it. Intel has shown how hard it can be to do this right. Let TSM work on production (and hopefully get more/larger fabs in the USA up and running) and getting better at packing in the transistors, and let Apple improve the design (and software).

They’ve vertically integrated everything else, and they’ve had great success along the way. TSMC has other customers that compete with Apple for production capacity. And there’s geopolitical risk in the region where TSMC (currently) operates.

> They’ve vertically integrated everything else

What do you mean by this? Apple does very little manufacturing, they're famous for it.

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#45

Post by baryphonic »

titzer wrote: post #40

Did anyone actually look at the machine code generated here? 0.30ns per value? That is basically 1 cycle. Of course, there is no way that a processor can compute so many dependent instructions in one cycle, simply because they generate so many dependent micro-ops, and every micro-op is at least one cycle to go through an execution unit. So this must mean that either the compiler is unrolling the (benchmarking) loop,…

Totally agree. I was thinking he'd get there, and then the post abruptly ended.

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#46

Post by brigade »

titzer wrote: post #40

Did anyone actually look at the machine code generated here? 0.30ns per value? That is basically 1 cycle. Of course, there is no way that a processor can compute so many dependent instructions in one cycle, simply because they generate so many dependent micro-ops, and every micro-op is at least one cycle to go through an execution unit. So this must mean that either the compiler is unrolling the (benchmarking) loop,…

The dependency chain is state += 0x60bee2bee120fc15ull or (state += UINT64_C(0x9E3779B97F4A7C15)); the rest of the calculations are independent per iteration.

Anyway, the more important fact is that 64x64b -> 128b mul might be one instruction on x86, but it's broken into 2 µops. Because modern CPUs generally don't design around µops being able to write two registers in the same set.

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#47

Post by TheRealSteel »

thefourthchime wrote: post #2

I love my M1, but does anyone else have horrific performance when resuming from wake? It’s like it swaps everything to disk and takes a full minute to come back to life.

This is anecdotal and I don't have anything to prove it, but I really feel like my old spinning-hard-drive 2010 MacBook Pro woke faster from sleep running Snow Leopard, than the Retina models ever did (or the old ones did after a few software updates).

Of course for general tasks it was slower, but I really remember that thing waking up instantly when I raised the lid, every time.

Re: Apple’s M1 processor and the full 128-bit integer product

#50

Post by coldtea »

kube-system wrote: post #31
tedyoung wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the next 10 years. Why would they? Fabs are extremely capital-intensive and take years to get up and running, when (like Taiwan Semi) knows how to do it. Intel has shown how hard it can be to do this right. Let TSM work on production (and hopefully get more/larger fabs in the USA up and running) and getting better at packing in the transistors, and let Apple improve the design (and software).

They’ve vertically integrated everything else, and they’ve had great success along the way. TSMC has other customers that compete with Apple for production capacity. And there’s geopolitical risk in the region where TSMC (currently) operates.

>They’ve vertically integrated everything else

Only in that they design it, not in that they build it.

In that area they have "vertically integrated" nothing.

Post reply on HN