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

Apple M5 chip

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple M5 chip

#581

Post by wartywhoa23 »

mumber_typhoon wrote: post #44

The M5 MacBook Pro still gets the Broadcom WiFi chip but the M5 iPad Pros get the N1 and C1X (Sweet). All in all, apple is doing some incredible things with hardware. Software teams at apple really need to get their act together. The M1 itself is so powerful that nobody really needs to upgrade that for most things most people do on their computers. Tahoe however makes my M1 Air feel sluggish doing the exact same task…

> ...The is so powerful that nobody really needs to upgrade...

I keep hearing this since the Intel 486DX times, and

> Nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM!

Re: Apple M5 chip

#582

Post by ajross »

kotaKat wrote: post #178

Surprised they aren’t beating the “performance per watt” drum they normally would be on Mx releases. I’m assuming this will be a bit of a snoozer until the M5X/M5 Ultra or an M6 hits the pipeline. If anything, these refreshes let them get rid of the last old crap on the line for M1 and M2, tie up loose ends with Walmart for the $599 M1 Air they still make for ‘em, and start shipping out the A18 Pro-based Macbooks in…

They don't have a new process to launch on, so one wouldn't expect a power metric to improve at all.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#583

Post by [deleted] »

makeramen wrote: post #579
nu11ptr wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The step down from 32GB to 24GB of unified memory is interesting. Theories? Perhaps they decided M4 allowed too much memory in the standard chip and they want to create a larger differential with Pro/Max chips? Update: I am thinking the 24GB for M5 is a typo. I see on Apple's site the 14 inch MBP can be configured optionally with 32GB of RAM.

That seems like a typo or incorrect info, the M5 MBP definitely can be configured up to 32 GB, and the Apple page mentions 32 GB explicitly as well.

[deleted]

Re: Apple M5 chip

#584

Post by eftychis »

nu11ptr wrote: post #573
hereme888 wrote: post #563

Base models only: - M1 | 5 nm | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 7–8 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 68.25 GB/s | Unified Memory: 16 GB | Geekbench6 ~2346 / 8346 - M2 | 5 nm (G2) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~2586 / 9672 - M3 | 3 nm (first-gen) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~296…

The step down from 32GB to 24GB of unified memory is interesting. Theories? Perhaps they decided M4 allowed too much memory in the standard chip and they want to create a larger differential with Pro/Max chips? Update: I am thinking the 24GB for M5 is a typo. I see on Apple's site the 14 inch MBP can be configured optionally with 32GB of RAM.

I had the same question, but I can only speculate at the moment. The cynical part of me thinks in a similar line: create an artificial differentiation and push people to upgrade.

If anyone has any real clues that they can share pseudonymously, that would be great. Not sure which department drove that change.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#585

Post by bombcar »

gigatexal wrote: post #569
hereme888 wrote: post #563

Base models only: - M1 | 5 nm | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 7–8 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 68.25 GB/s | Unified Memory: 16 GB | Geekbench6 ~2346 / 8346 - M2 | 5 nm (G2) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~2586 / 9672 - M3 | 3 nm (first-gen) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~296…

Amazing. My M3Max is going to look like a paper-weight very soon. And that's fine by me. When I get an M6 or M7Max to replace it it'll be amazing.

I’m trying to find any reason I can that my M1 Max needs replacement; it’s hard. How do you justify it?

Re: Apple M5 chip

#586

Post by prewett »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #385
unsupp0rted wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't sell my MacBook Pro because the speakers are so insanely good. Air can't compare. The speakers are worth the extra kilos.

I have never once used my laptop speakers. Not saying youre wrong but its crazy how different priorities for products can be

I shocked when I tried out the 2019 MBP speakers, they were almost as good as my (low-end) studio headphones. I was even more shocked with the M2 speakers, which are arguably better (although not as flat frequency response, I think, there definitely is something a little artificial, but it sounds really good). I really could not imagine laptop speakers being even close to par to decent headphones. Perhaps they aren't on par with $400 headphones, I've never had any of those. But now by preference I listen on the laptop speakers. It's not a priority--I'm totally happy to go back to the headphones--more like an unexpected perk.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#587

Post by ElijahLynn »

hereme888 wrote: post #563

Base models only: - M1 | 5 nm | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 7–8 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 68.25 GB/s | Unified Memory: 16 GB | Geekbench6 ~2346 / 8346 - M2 | 5 nm (G2) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~2586 / 9672 - M3 | 3 nm (first-gen) | 8 (4P+4E) | GPU 8–10 | 16-core Neural | Memory Bandwidth: 100 GB/s | Unified Memory: 24 GB | Geekbench6 ~296…

Thank you! Since this is the top rated comment, can you also add M1 and M2 as well?

Re: Apple M5 chip

#590

Post by adastra22 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #373
czbond wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am interested to learn why models move so much data per second. Where could I learn more that is not a ChatGPT session?

Models are made of "parameters" which are really weights in a large neural network. For each token generated, each parameter needs to take its turn inside the CPU/GPU to be calculated. So if you have a 7B parameter model with 16-bit quantization, that means you'll have 14 GB/s of data coming in. If you only have 153 GB/sec of memory bandwidth, that means you'll cap out ~11 tokens/sec, regardless of how my processing…

I think you mean GB/token
Post reply on HN