691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want this hardware available for other systems.
Modern ARM C1 Ultra Core is only 10% slower than M5, likely even less when you factor in system level cache and memory. So the gap isn't as wide as most people think it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tahoe however makes my M1 Air feel sluggish doing the exact same tasks ive been last couple of years. I have a work provided M2 Pro with 32GB of RAM. After the Tahoe upgrade it feels like one of the sluggish PCs at the house. It is the only one that I can see the mouse teleporting sometimes when I move it fast. This is after disabling transparency in Accessibility settings mind you, it was even worse before.
Transparency disabling ads anothe draw layer that is opaque on top making it even worse than when it’s on
So how many hardware systems does Apple silicon have for doing matrix multiplies now? 1. CPU, via SIMD/NEON instructions (just dot products) 2. CPU, via AMX coprocessor (entire matrix multiplies, M1-M3) 3. CPU, via SME (M4) 4. GPU, via Metal (compute shaders + simdgroup-matrix + mps matrix kernels) 4. Neural Engine via CoreML (advisory) Apple also appears to be adding a “Neural Accelerator” to each core on the M5?
The "neural accelerator" is per GPU core, and is matmul. e.g. "Tensor cores".
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…
Serious questions. How is Asahi these days? Is it ready as a daily driver? Is it getting support from Apple or are they hostile to it? Are there missing features? And can I run KDE on it?
Much less active than it used to be when it was run by Hector Martin. The core development is a lot slower. Although the graphics stack, for instance, has reached a very mature state recently.
> Is it ready as a daily driver?
It depends. Only M1 and M2 devices are reasonably well-supported. There is no support for power-efficient sleep, Display Port, Thunderbolt, video decoding or encoding, touch ID. The speakers overheat and turn off momentarily when playing loud for a longer period of time. The audio stack in general had to be built from ground up and it seems to me like there are bits and pieces still missing or configured sub-optimally.
> Is it getting support from Apple?
Not that I am aware of.
> are they (Apple) hostile to it?
Not to my knowledge.
> Are there missing features?
Plenty, as described above. There has been some work done recently on Thunderbolt / Display Port. Quite a few other features are listed as WIP on their feature support page.
> Can I run KDE on it?
Of course. KDE Plasma on Fedora is Asahi Linux's "flagship" desktop environment.
A lot of Apple hardware is impressive on paper, but I will never buy a Mac that can't run Linux. I simply don't want to live in Apple's walled garden. Then there is the whole ARM vs x86 issue. Even if a compatible Linux distro were made, I expect to run all kinds of software on my desktop rig including games, and ARM is still a dead end for that. For laptops, it's probably a sensible choice now, but we're still far f…
I'm still looking for a decent ARM laptop that runs linux well. I have my eye on one from lenovo but linux support is still not the best
A lot of Apple hardware is impressive on paper, but I will never buy a Mac that can't run Linux. I simply don't want to live in Apple's walled garden. Then there is the whole ARM vs x86 issue. Even if a compatible Linux distro were made, I expect to run all kinds of software on my desktop rig including games, and ARM is still a dead end for that. For laptops, it's probably a sensible choice now, but we're still far f…
> A lot of Apple hardware is impressive on paper, but I will never buy a Mac that can't run Linux. They run Linux actually very well, have you ever tried Parallels or VMware Fusion? Especially Parallels ships with good softwaer drivers for 2d/3d/video acceleration, suspend, and integration into the host OS. If that is not your thing, the new native container solution in Tahoe can run container from dockerhub and co.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"iOS Settings search will flash “No Results” as you begin to type which is comically amateurish." I'd love to agree that comically amateurish, but apparently there's something about settings dialogs that make them incredibly difficult to search. It takes Android several seconds to search its settings, and the Microsoft start menu is also comically slow if you try to access control panels through it, although it's jus…
The parent isn't commenting about the speed of search, just that saying "No Results", when they really mean "we're still checking for results" is bad UI (which I agree with).
It should be searching, what, a few hundred strings? What is it doing? Is it making a network call? For what?
Anyway, barely related, but it does bring into question the quality of modern software.
A lot of Apple hardware is impressive on paper, but I will never buy a Mac that can't run Linux. I simply don't want to live in Apple's walled garden. Then there is the whole ARM vs x86 issue. Even if a compatible Linux distro were made, I expect to run all kinds of software on my desktop rig including games, and ARM is still a dead end for that. For laptops, it's probably a sensible choice now, but we're still far f…
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.
Apple is running planned obsolescence scam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wrote: >Looking at my Macbook though, I can say with utmost certainty that it isn't 4000x faster than the Intel one I had 5 years ago. So, where is the disconnect here? They wrote: > Together, they deliver up to 15 percent faster multithreaded performance over M4 The problem is comprehension, not marketing.
Not quite. The announcement mentions that: “M5 delivers over 4x the peak GPU compute performance for AI” In this situation, at least, it’s just referring to AI compute power.
Did they claim 4x peak GPU compute going from the M3 to M4? Or M2 to M3? Can you link to these claims? Are you sure they weren't boasting about other metrics being improved by some multiplier? Not every metric is the same, and different metrics don't necessarily stack with each other.