Live data from Hacker News

2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

anandtech.com

731–740 of 767 posts

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#731
post #162

This is as much a ringing endorsement of AMD Ryzen as it is of the M1. The 15W 4800U is just as impressive as the M1, and the performance per watt gap seems small enough to bridge with AMDs upcoming 5nm switch.

AMD definitely is the best of the rest, but it doesn't seem quite as close as it may be held to. In single core tests the 4800u is running that core at 4.2Ghz. Yet it gets soundly bested by the M1 @ 3 - 3.2Ghz (running at a 50%+ advantage, 65%+ clock per clock). The M1 has an enormous IPC advantage. In a multicore test the 4800u has 8 performance cores with HT. It only marginally beats an M1 with 4 performance cores…

> In six months or whatever they'll unveil the 6+2 core device in the mid range, the 12+2 in the high range.

The current rumors are pointing to a single 8+4 chip for the higher end 13" Pro and a 16" Pro possibly with vastly improved graphics

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#732
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should quit HN for a day or two. The stuff echo-chamber of HN repeats often has very little to do with reality. Apple has many thousands of developers. It is not hostile to them in any way, shape or form. For some reason this cliche is most often repeated by the people who never wrote a single line of code for iOS or MacOS

>It is not hostile to them in any way, shape or form. For some reason this cliche is most often repeated by the people who never wrote a single line of code for iOS or MacOS. Maybe the word "hostile" is the wrong word. But I have apps on windows that ran on 95 that still work to this day without having to be "rewritten". It's no surprise it's often repeated by people who never wrote a single line code for an OS that…

> But I have apps on windows that ran on 95 that still work to this day without having to be "rewritten".

And that's the reason why Apple is reaping these benefits, while moving to ARM is completely at odds with what Microsoft stands for and promises i.e. long term software backwards compatibility.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#733
post #12

Is it safe to assume that future ASi CPUs for desktops will have just Firestorm cores and no Icestorm, which should further increase MT performance? I know Apple was trying to get to market quickly, but I fail to understand why we need Icestorm cores in a non-mobile CPU, especially with this already (really) low TDP.

More likely they will ship more Firestorm cores and keep the Icestorm. Their future chip designs will likely be cross desktop/mobile. Keeping Icestorm lowers the cost in whole by allowing them to ship more chips and gives about a 30% performance gain in multicore. Far more interesting to me is the idea that in heavy use, the Icestorm cores can run the OS, notifications and all that, allowing full uninterrupted use of…

> Far more interesting to me is the idea that in heavy use, the Icestorm cores can run the OS, notifications and all that, allowing full uninterrupted use of the firestorm cores. Also when the mac is in idle it uses far less power.

It's impressive what Apple has been able to do when they can fine tune macOS and ASi to work together.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the problem is, then. You have a device that does what you (or the GP) want, which is to install any operating system, tinker, etc. Is the worry that Apple and its practices will dominate the industry to the point that you literally will not be able to turn on your current machine and use it?

macOS deprecates support for Macs that are 5-7 years old with every release. I put Linux on them when new macOS releases no longer support them, and they're perfectly good machines afterwards. When macOS deprecates support for these ARM Macs in 5-7 years, Linux isn't an option for them unless Apple puts in a lot of work to support a mainline Linux kernel on their hardware. Apple has said they won't support running ot…

>When macOS deprecates support for these ARM Macs in 5-7 years, Linux isn't an option for them unless Apple puts in a lot of work to support a mainline Linux kernel on their hardware.

Why would Apple need to "put a lot of work in"? Apple doesn't support Linux on 86 either. Third parties did the Mac Linux ports for 86, and will do them for the ARM Macs.

The only thing Apple needs to do is to not lock the ARM Macs from booting another OS, which is very easy to do -- Apple doesn't need to invest lots of work to run Linux on ARM Macs, just needs not to prevent it.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Apple then. They ditched 32 bit applications and in 2 years they'll ditch 64 bit x86 applications. You want your old games to run forever, you sadly have to do that on x86 Windows (or maybe Linux with more or less of a headache setting them up).

Rosetta 1 was around for 5 years, so I expect Rosetta 2 to last at least that long, but that's still a good point. Thanks!

Rosetta 2 only runs 64 bit apps though. Or so they say. 32 bit apps were dropped with Catalina.

Incidentally, I'm still on Mojave because of that.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#736
post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point one wonders if Intel will just cede the desktop and enthusiast markets to AMD and/or Apple and just focus on server and high-end computing? As an IBMer this feels familiar for some reason...

Not a chance, the consumer market it massive. Even among PC enthusiasts, AMD is in the minority. It's not even close: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey I'd sooner expect Intel to start making their own ARM chips to compete with Apple.

Steam marketshare is slow to change because it includes a lot of people with older PCs. Look at new sales and the picture is very different: https://imgur.com/a/yEKDpd2

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about Photoshop 6 That's why I said "MacOS Sierra can't even run CS6" Technically in Italy if you bought a license and the manufacturer won't support it anymore, you can use it on another platform even downloading an illegal copy. As long as you have the original license. That's the same reason why you can listen to mp3s if you own the original record, you have the right to keep a copy and the right to us…

> I'm talking about Photoshop 6 I'll take your word for it, but it kind of changes the picture here. Photoshop 6 was released in 2000. That version wasn't released for OS X. In fact, Photoshop 6 was still compiled for PowerPC CPUs. The thing wasn't even fully "carbonized" until version 7, so it would have had to run in the "Classic" environment -- which hasn't been supported on Macs since OS X 10.4. Maybe you think i…

> In fact, Photoshop 6 was still compiled for PowerPC CPUs

It's the license that counts.

> Maybe you think it's unreasonable for Apple to not support a program made for an operating system

No, I don't think that.

Apple doesn't have good backward compatibility, especially compared to Windows.

That is my point.

But of course they are free to not support what they think it's not worth it.

It's not a something against Apple.

> the "Photoshop 6 is literally two decades old" is the issue

True, but why is it a problem?

Does the software need to be new to work?

I think that if something still works after 20 years the authors did a great job.

We need to start thinking of software like infrastructure.

We don't rebuild a bridge after 6 months because a new material or technique has been invented.

Or at least as tools, considering them something that lasts, potentially forever.

Most of the problem we'll be facing in the future will be about digital rot, we'll deal with data that we cannot read in any way.

Apple, Adobe, and their idea of disposable working tools are helping it, nor prevent it.

Of course one cannot support everything forever, Windows lost the ability to run DOS binaries years ago and virtualization can help, the problem is companies like Adobe not selling their licenses anymore.

Recently I had to work on a SOAP client after almost 15 years from the last one.

I remembered there was a good XML editor at the time, that did a good job.

One caveat is that it is Windows only and I run Linux, so I checked on WineHQ and found out that the version 2003 works perfectly.

I go to the software's web site, there is a "download older versions" button, I think "great!" and proceed to the download.

The software installs perfectly on Wine but when I launch it there is no option to start it in trial mode, you have to either use a pre-existing license or ask for a trial one.

I clicked the second and soon after an email warns me that that product is not supported anymore and even if I had a regular license, the servers that check the licenses are not online anymore.

So why put a download button there then?

These are the kind of things that software should avoid at any cost, in my opinion.

They've lost a customer, I would have bought an old license at the price of a new one if I could chck that everything that I needed to do worked as intended, instead I downloaded SopaUI which is inferior, but free and functioning.

In this case, the solution could have been virtualization, but you have to pay for a Windows license as well, which was not necessary in the first place.

In the case of macOS virtualization is not even an option, because you can't legally run it on a VM outside of Apple HW.

For some people, that is a big problem, not because they think Apple is bad, but because they don't care who supplies the infrastructure as long as it works.

There are people installing XP on new HW to keep using their old software.

It is doable, but on macOS you can't count on it, every time they change architecture something gets lost forever.

As I said before, nobody value backward compatibility until they need it.

And when you need it and it works it's much more satisfying than when you need it and you are asked to upgrade or be on your own.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#738
post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling me obtuse doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. I was pointing out the multithreaded benchmark in response to the claim that there were none. Read kllrnohj's response that is the sibling to your comment to see how to make a point effectively.

That's not the obtuse part. The obtuse part is ignoring all the other multicore tests in the same uArch and then saying that the 5950X is comparing unfavorably and ignoring the fact that single core perf on Geekbench for the 5950X doesn't scale like any of the other tests and is much lower relatively to the other tests, then taking this one test were a 105W TDP is actually used as significant to all the other compari…

You would be better at conveying your point if you could manage it without insults.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#739
post #675

I'm not surprised it's doing well. Apple has deeper pockets than anyone else on the planet, and they have considerable experience doing this kind of thing –literally, decades . Say what you will about Apple; this is a strong point for them. But I'm still waiting for the M2 before I upgrade. I'm also interested in new form factors. Right now, they are still relying on the currently-tooled production line for their she…

Do you have an example of what they could do differently? Shrink the Mini, but what could you do with a laptop where the form is largely influenced by size of screen, needing it to sit up, keyboard and so on.

The obvious example that springs to mind, is a Mini in a TV box.

Also, the iMac could lose that bulge in the back.

MacBook pros could become only as thick as required for the keyboard, with the logic engine in the display section.

Batteries could become much smaller. We probably have good enough runtime, now, so it would be about reducing battery size.

Re: 2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

#740
post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But renting implies you are continuing to pay money and will some day need to return it.

There's a direct parallel you can draw between software licensing and leasing.

But we’re not talking about software leases.
Post reply on HN