Live data from Hacker News

M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

daringfireball.net

501–510 of 882 posts

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#501
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 64GB of ram cost Not all RAM is equivalent. If one wants 64GB of the kind of RAM M1 uses, which is very high performance, it will cost more than 300 euros.

M1 is using standard LPDDRx. It's not "very high performance". It uses a different interconnect -- that's it. I guarantee that 64GB does not cost anything near EUR300. You might be thinking of HBM[2] which has a wider I/O path and costs more.

>M1 is using standard LPDDRx. >It's not "very high performance".

AnandTech disagrees with you: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...

Besides the additional cores on the part of the CPUs and GPU, one main performance factor of the M1 that differs from the A14 is the fact that’s it’s running on a 128-bit memory bus rather than the mobile 64-bit bus. Across 8x 16-bit memory channels and at LPDDR4X-4266-class memory, this means the M1 hits a peak of 68.25GB/s memory bandwidth.

Later in the article:

Most importantly, memory copies land in at 60 to 62GB/s depending if you’re using scalar or vector instructions. The fact that a single Firestorm core can almost saturate the memory controllers is astounding and something we’ve never seen in a design before.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#502
post #343
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have demonstrated exactly why I don't care how fast the M1 runs, I'm not buying Apple hardware. Not until I start hearing that they have done something about their long quality slide. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25238688 for the last time that I expressed this opinion on HN.

Comments like these always make me wonder if I'm the only person in the world still delighted by Apple products. I mean I alone can not be responsible for their sales volume. And then I start to wonder if I should be more critical of Apple, so I fire up my Windows machine and think silently "No, this is still a worse experience". So I fire up my Ubuntu and have the same reaction. I just don't understand the vitriol s…

You're not the only person. I have my share of complaints, to be sure, and I do genuinely think their software QA has dropped over the last five or six years -- and their tendency to provide little to no diagnostic information when anything goes wrong is an occasional source of frustration. (I think their hardware is still pretty good, but the utter failure of the butterfly keyboard -- with some of the "why is this thing here" reaction the market has had to the Touch Bar thrown in -- has overshadowed that.) But I still like Apple products, by and large. I like the software that I'm using that's Mac-only. I still find a lot of small little things about the UX to be nicer, for me, than even recent experiences with Windows and various flavors of Linux. I could certainly move to Linux if I felt that I had to, but I suspect I'd spend literally years hitting what I considered to be rough edges.

And, to the OP's point, I've used Migration Assistant a fair amount over the years and it's always worked fine for me, and I don't think I've come across many, if any, stories of it seriously failing before.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#503
post #333
post #297

The author is bashing another author for not doing measurements, yet himself declares that m1 beats all the other CPUs, without providing any measurements. With regards to the M1, I'm grateful for a good competition. As this will likely push premium laptop manufactures (Razer, Dell) towards ryzen CPUs, as opposed to using them in cheaper models. Loosening the grip that intel has on them. With Zen3 on mobile, giving a…

> With regards to the M1, I'm grateful for a good competition. As this will likely push premium laptop manufactures (Razer, Dell) towards ryzen CPUs, as opposed to using them in cheaper models. Loosening the grip that intel has on them. In the past this has not been the case due to Intel's anticompetitive practices and while I think it's good to be cautiously optimistic, I would also not be surprised to not see no-co…

> As this will likely push premium laptop manufactures (Razer, Dell) towards ryzen CPUs, as opposed to using them in cheaper models.

For that to happen, AMD needs to be able to ship high volumes, and keep that promise. Right now, they can’t deliver, most of the volume booked at TSMC goes towards the console SoCs.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes M1 is great. But it's a closed system It doesn't matter. Sure, that might mean that an Apple system is not for you. But the crux of the matter is: Apple did something truly revolutionary. How is the rest of the market going to respond? Specifically, how are Intel, AMD and Microsoft going to respond? Microsoft, at least, has Windows running on ARM, but it doesn't have Rosetta. Intel and AMD have nothing remotely…

> " Microsoft, at least, has Windows running on ARM, but it doesn't have Rosetta " I thought that Microsoft's emulation efforts were hampered by Intel making threats, e.g. " Intel recently made an unprecedented public challenge to Microsoft and Qualcomm that basically told the latter two companies: if you ship an x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) emulator, we’re coming after you. ", from https://www.forbes.com/s…

Who knows what kind of weird deals Microsoft and Intel have.

Also, Microsoft historically is awful at transitions. Look at the 64 but print driver transition - complete shitshow.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#505

Gruber notes midway: "Perversely, developers, who by nature of their profession best understand exactly what an architecture transition like this entails, might be among the few professions who can’t yet move their primary computing to an Apple Silicon device by nature of the software tools they depend upon. (Some developers can move now, and — because Xcode running on the M1 compiles code so much faster than any Int…

This XCode benchmark disagrees: https://github.com/devMEremenko/XcodeBenchmark

The only machine currently beating M1 for compile times is a 28-core Xeon CPU.

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#506
post #489

Gruber notes midway: "Perversely, developers, who by nature of their profession best understand exactly what an architecture transition like this entails, might be among the few professions who can’t yet move their primary computing to an Apple Silicon device by nature of the software tools they depend upon. (Some developers can move now, and — because Xcode running on the M1 compiles code so much faster than any Int…

I'm interested to see what Apple comes out with for the higher-end MacBook Pros, iMac Pro, and Mac Pro. I expect to see the M1 used in the iMacs, although ... That could be a single higher-end chip, with possible multi-socket support for the Mac Pro? Or it could be two chips: one for the iMac and laptops, and a beefier one for the Pro desktops? Either way, they absolutely need to compete with Zen3 on highly parallel…

Laptops are almost always going to weight CPU/Watt fairly strongly.

As a developer, I don't give a damn about CPU/Watt, I care only about maxCPU, for a given budget.

I don't know why any company would build a laptop that focused on maxCPU. Gaming laptops are perhaps the exception, but Apple has historically not really participated in this subset.

>for many devs, basic CPU core counts and high I/O speeds are the winner.

bingo!

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#507
One of my best friends was high up in the M1 project (don't want to get too specific, but he works at Apple).

I am not surprised about the M1 performance numbers at all. Granted, I have a degree in this area (silicon design) and many friends in the industry. But it's the sort of thing where if you're paying any attention, it's just inevitable.

(1) Intel has been a mess for a while. Multiple canceled high-profile projects (not announced publicly), some high-profile process technology missteps, and frankly...they just feel kind of rudderless. A lot of my more career-minded friends have jumped ship. There just doesn't seem to be a concrete goal they're pursuing. They've had what, three CEOs in the last few years?

(2) Apple's semiconductor team is really good. REALLY good. It was a Steve Jobs-level initiative that started with the acquisition of PA Semi and they've assembled a lot of the best people in the industry.

(3) Apple sells something like 10-100x as many phones as computers each year. This means there's much, much more scope for high-budget R&D on the phones. And in this case, they took a lot of what they learned about system-on-chips, which are used in phones, and brought it back to PCs.

(4) It's pretty obvious the architecture of PCs was overdue for a bit of a rethink. Just look at a PC mainboard. There's all kinds of shit on there, lots of clocked digital electronics, BIOS chips, memory controllers, real-time timers, a giant energy-eating PCI bus, etc. If you stop and think about it, we've probably reached the point where the whole thing needed to be repackaged into a single part. With the exception of overclockers and hardcore gamers, most people don't upgrade their CPU, or memory, so right there, you can remove a bunch of clunky edge connectors and all their bus logic. This means the whole thing can run on fewer synchronous clocks, which dramatically improves power efficiency and also (I'm not sure about this, but it stands to reason) performance. There's also a completely unified memory model--one giant flat RAM between CPU and GPU--so no schlepping all the things back and forth from GPU to CPU memory. Huge performance improvement right there, just by eliminating stupid legacy bullshit we don't need anymore.

As a software guy, it's like they just ripped out a bunch of legacy stuff and got rid of all the unnecessary and complex silicon.

No less important, there was a movement in academia about ten years ago toward using FPGAs (basically reprogrammable silicon) to do various special-purpose tasks like image processing, DSP, and GPU. Custom silicon is way more efficient (both power and performance) than general-purpose CPU silicon. If you look at the M1 design, they bundled a bunch of custom stuff into a single package, so that rather than having a CPU, you get a CPU, memory controller, GPU, image processor, etc. on a single piece of silicon.

(5) And finally, they did a bunch of sensible things with the ARM CPU that anyone with an undergraduate degree in computer engineering wouldn't be surprised by. I read something about large reodering buffers and a few other things.

I'm not in any way minimizing this achievement. It is a very big deal. But like a lot of what Apple does, it's just a realtively straightforward idea, executed to a very, very high level of excellence by a very good team. And it's interesting how all these little 5% improvements here, there, and everywhere culminated into a much larger, qualitative degree of excellence. It all feels very "Apple".

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I compile a lot. Every day. Almost daily in Java, Objective C, and C++ (Yes, I work actively on all three languages these months). 90% of the time I compile one file (the one I just changed) and then I link. Linking is not parallel and it takes about 4-15 seconds (dep. on the project/lang.). I use an i9 with 8 cores, but I suspect that a CPU with fewer cores, that go really fast for seconds before throttl…

It does depend on project scale, and what you're doing with it. A full compile of my project on my 2950X (16 core threadripper gen 1) takes 4m20s. If I'm messing around with a new GUI-visible feature, then yes, often it's 1 or 2 files to compile, then a link step (thank you, llc, for parallel linking). Anything can handle that, even if it is C++ :) But if I'm doing a change to the core headers, it typically means mul…

Yes. Agreed. Header files really kill productivity in C++ projects as they grow beyond 1-500.000 lines.

I admit, sometimes I work around or postpone a fix in a vital header file, because I know it will initiate a recompile and undesired wait.

I simply don't understand this isn't properly fixed after 30 or so years. It is so inefficient for developer time, cpu resources, and overall energy usage that it becomes ridiculous sometimes.

I remember moving from Turbo Pascal in the mid 90s over to C and C++ and wondering what the hell was going on...

Re: M1 Macs: Truth and Truthiness

#510
post #297

The author is bashing another author for not doing measurements, yet himself declares that m1 beats all the other CPUs, without providing any measurements. With regards to the M1, I'm grateful for a good competition. As this will likely push premium laptop manufactures (Razer, Dell) towards ryzen CPUs, as opposed to using them in cheaper models. Loosening the grip that intel has on them. With Zen3 on mobile, giving a…

Multiple rounds of 20% improvement will still not give you the performance jump brought by M1. It takes tasks that were simply unthinkable on a light laptop and not only makes them possible but manages to beat something like a 10-core i9 [1], in a machine without a fan. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/mac-mini-and-apple-s...

How quickly we forget... the 10-core i9 was being embarrassed by AMD's Zen 2 mobile processors this spring.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/10-core-Intel-Core-i9-10900F-d...

Looks like single core Zen 3 scores about 2100 on Geekbench 5. M1 scores about 1700.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q...

I'm confused why we feel like AMD Zen 3 has to "catch up" when it it's 29% ahead.

Yes I get it, per watt, battery life. The M1 is awesome for those metrics. But AMD chips have more "absolute" power. So you pick the one that is better for your needs - very powerful portability, or simply ultimate total performance (or something in between).

Post reply on HN