501–510 of 917 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just running the tests in our Rails project (11k of them) can stress out a ton; we're regularly running it on 80+ cores to keep our test completion time ~3 minutes. M1 Max should let me run all tests locally much faster than I can today.
Wow, what is the system doing to have 11000 tests?
add(1, 1) = 2
add(1, 2) = 3
add(1, 3) = 4
add(1, 4) = 5
...Earlier quoted context omitted.
Docker for Mac Desktop supports the M1 and uses an Linux VM that is ARM. It is not using Rosetta 2 at all.
But if you run x86 images, it will use qemu’s software emulation inside the Linux VM (which is quite slow).
I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…
Has there been any research to OS response times between Macos, Windows and Linux? Ive wanted to switch to Mac many times, most recently to M1 Mac Mini, but cant get over the frustrating slowness. Every action, like opening Finder, feels like it takes so long compared to Windows even with reduce animation on. I always end up returning the mac.
I really don‘t know what the reason is but I feel that a lot of people simply ignore this. I use all 3 major systems and I cannot overlook it anymore.
Additionally, Docker is another real issue mentioned for the reasons already. Too bad that it is so common now and its slowness is a growing pain. I feel that WSL (WSLg) on Windows is huge, no comparison to run a traditional VM for the most part if you are not macOS only. Never thought I have to write this…
What am I missing here? The marketing presentations spoke about 200GB/sec and 400GB/sec parts. Existing CPU's generally have 10s of GB/sec. But I see these parts beating out existing parts by small margins - 100% at best. Where is all that bandwidth going? Are none of these synthetic benchmarks stressing memory IO that much? Surely compression should benefit from 400GB/sec bandwidth? This also raises the question how…
As people stated in the announcement post, a high memory bandwidth doesn't really benefit CPUs much. That's also why AMD and Intel don't have high memory bandwidth on their cores, because it doesn't really help performance. Where it is beneficial is the GPU; for comparison AMD and Nvidia cards often exceed 400GB/s. A desktop RTX 3090 has 900GB/s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of the perceivable speedup in M1 Macs is less to do with these benchmarks and more to do with optimizing the OS and Apple software for the M1 and the various accelerators on the SoC (video encoding and ML).
Don’t really understand this argument - Apple has had 13 years to optimise Mac OS for Intel and only a couple of years for M1 / can’t see how a video encoding accelerator affects responsiveness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GPU capabilities that blow everything away Compared to previous macs and igpus - an nvidia gpu will still run circles arounnd this thing
> an nvidia gpu will still run circles arounnd this thing Not for loading up models larger than 32GB it wouldn't. (They exist! That's what the "full-detail model of the starship Enterprise" thing in the keynote was about.) Remember that on any computer without unified memory, you can only load a scene the size of the GPU's VRAM. No matter how much main memory you have to swap against, no matter how many GPUs you thro…
The ML folks are finding ways to consume everything the HW folks can make and then some.
I just can't figure out what I'm missing on the "M1 is so fast" side of things. For years I worked* on an Ubuntu desktop machine I built myself. Early this year I switched to a brand new M1 mini and this this is slower and less reliable than the thing I built myself that runs Ubuntu. My Ubuntu machine had a few little issues every no and then. My Mini has weird bugs all the time. e.g. Green Screen Crashes when I have…
I share the same feeling, and I'm glad to learn I'm not alone: earlier this year I worked for a (really) sort time with a company who gave me a Macbook M1, which I was pretty excited about. Over the course of the two weeks I worked there, I faced: - frequent glitches when unplugging the HDMI adaptor (an Apple one, which costed an arm and a leg). - non-compatible software (Docker, Sublimetext) - and even a Kernel Pani…
What was the issue with Sublime? I use it on an M1 every day without issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1834 ST / 17370 MT [1] But that's also for something which has a TDP of 125W [2], unsure if that's the right number for a mobile chip? Also no clue what M1 Max's TDP is either. [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/9510991 [2] https://cpu-benchmark.org/cpu/intel-core-i9-12900k/
The Intel CPU is pretty underwhelming. It has twice the number of high performance cores (16 vs 8) but is only 37% faster for multi-core tasks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am one of those people. I bought an 8gb M1 Air last month for a project (while I waited for the new models to be released). It baffles me how well this little computer performs with less RAM than I've had in a computer since 2009. I'd love an explanation of how that works. Maybe the SSD is so fast that swapping isn't a big deal?
I looked into this angle recently. The SSDs in the new MBPs are roughly 3x as fast as the one in my 2015 MBP (7.4GB/s vs 2GB/s). To contextualize, the new MBPs have roughly half as much SSD bandwidth as my MBP does memory bandwidth. Which is to say the SSD is much closer to being as fast as RAM, which would explain why is subjectively can make better use of less memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alder lake is looking really good in leaked benchmarks. I definitely think Intel is down, but not out. Have to see if they can not only catch up, but keep up.
Where can I find these benchmarks?