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

2020 Mac Mini – Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 767 posts

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

#751

Post by m4rtink »

igneo676 wrote: post #376
m4rtink wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually quite a depressing look - while the community can often get undocumented & closed user hostile hardware run their OS of choice, it's hardly ever as seamless as installing a modern Linux distro on about anything x86, usually without issues - mostly thanks to standards such as BIOS/UEFI, ACPI & others. Also even if you liberate a single device, it does not mean all your hack will work on the next one -…

Sure, the lockdown situation is worse than things are currently. You're likely to need per-device hacks that unlock it and enable freedom for users. Even in that scenario though, ARM devices use standards too. There's a reason I can generally pick up any Android device and know what needs to be done to build my own OS for it. We just lack tooling that makes that incredibly easy and lack maintainers who want to make t…

Yeah, postmarketOS is really trying, see the list of devices it can run on in some capability: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices

Still I don't see this scaling unless more of the ARM stuff is standardized or upstreamed by manufacturers - IMHO there is simply not enough OSS developers being both willing and able to do the often menial yet necessary platform adaptation work.

For that reason I'm morehopeful about built-to-be-open hardware like the Pine Phone, as that could help reducing or removing the device support treadmill, so useful features can be actually developed. :)

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

#752

Post by heavyset_go »

coldtea wrote: post #734
heavyset_go wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

> 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.

Because ARM SoCs are fundamentally different than 32-bit and 64-bit x86 machines. The prime difference is the lack of an enumerable bus that even some ARM servers have, but are missing in ARM SoCs.

I bought an x86 Mac when they were first released and I was able to boot an Ubuntu live CD when I got it. No work was needed to get a mainline kernel running on a x86 Mac, but work was needed to support things like Apple's SMC and cameras etc.

> 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.

This is not true. Given the lack of an enumerable bus, someone will need to either fork the kernel and hardcode addresses for hardware, or someone will need documents to build out the DeviceTree. If hardware doesn't conform to existing standards, which nearly every ARM SoC follows their own, someone will need to do further work port the kernel to the machine. All the special deviations from standards that Apple baked into their hardware either needs to be documented accurately, or Apple needs to put the work in to get mainline Linux running on their SoCs.

This is a general problem in the ARM SoC and Linux space, and is not unique to Apple's SoCs. There are millions of ARM SoCs that are either stuck on old kernel forks because vendors never put the work in to get mainline Linux to support their SoCs, or they will never run Linux at all, ever. I don't even think all of the Raspberry Pi models have mainline support yet, and those that do only have it because of the work put in by the RPi Foundation, which has access to some vendor documentation, but I don't believe all.

To get an idea of the scope of the problem concerning Linux support on ARM SoCs, check out this presentation[1].

[1] https://elinux.org/images/a/ad/Arm-soc-checklist.pdf

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

#753

Post by heavyset_go »

saagarjha wrote: post #717
heavyset_go wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are quite literally millions of ARM devices out there that will never have Linux support, and millions more are being produced each year. When it comes to ARM SoCs, Linux requires vendor support to get it running. If you want mainline kernel support, that requires even more work that many vendors just aren't providing. A locked bootloader is just one issue to overcome for Linux support. A lot of the real issues…

Millions of iPhones and iPads that don’t do what now? https://projectsandcastle.org/

There's a gulf between getting a kernel fork to run on an ARM SoC and getting mainline Linux support for it.

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

#754

Post by cehrlich »

goatinaboat wrote: post #75

1) Can I run VirtualBox on M1 (yet)? 2) What is the overhead of doing so with Rosetta2 vs native on Intel? 3) What is the situation with VT-X?

There currently isn't any kind of useful virtualization available for Apple Silicon, and my hunch is that there won't be until ARM becomes more relevant in the Windows/Linux space.

The way Apple Silicon runs x86 apps through translation makes virtualising x86 systems either impossible or at least extremely difficult.

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

#755

Post by postalrat »

kingnothing wrote: post #677
postalrat wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish apple or some company would make a computer stick that plugs into a usb c hub for power and peripherals. No battery and no buttons other than power. I don't see why it couldn't about the size of a wallet and offer at least as good thermals as a macbook air.

The Mac Mini is only 7 inches x 7 inches x 1.5 inches. It's not a stick but you could certainly mount it on the back of your monitor or under your desk and never see it.

I carry my laptop to work and back with me. I want to ditch the laptop bag and just carry a stick to plug in anywhere.

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

#756

Post by sudosysgen »

totalZero wrote: post #750
sudosysgen wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China already has 14nm online, and should have 7nm in a year or two, so that means that we will probably see some real RISC-V chips from there soon, if sanctions continue. So I think that we will have a four way competition between Intel, AMD, Apple, and Chinese RISC-V chips. That being said, I don't see x86 dying, I think AMD and eventually Intel when they wake up will be competitive.

When you say they "should have 7nm in a year or two," are you just banking on them copying or stealing a European-made EUV machine? China cannot be competitive at the razor's edge if its semiconductor companies depend on promptly copying/stealing technology that European, Taiwanese, and American companies bring to market.

7nm doesn't require EUV. Intel has 10nm which is equivalent to TSMC 10nm without EUV, altough it's not that great.

SMIC has already produced some 7nm chips without EUV.

As for EUV for the further future, there has been quite a bit of research in that domain for many years in pre-emption of this, and while I think they will be a node or a node and a half behind for a while, they will almost certainly have one ready eventually. Of course, that will be accelerated by stealing data on EUV machines, or maybe buying a used EUV machine from someone and reverse-engineering it.

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

#757

Post by sudosysgen »

314 wrote: post #738
sudosysgen wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was just trying to say that that interpretation so off that it seemed to me that it came from a biased understanding, which I'm a bit tired off in these threads where people are acting like it's the best thing like sliced bread when it's obviously just another competitive chip.

That being said, I probably should've phrased it differently, I wasn't aware that word had such a connotation in English, in my mother's tongue it means that it's a narrow intepretation

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

#758

Post by mthoms »

nomel wrote: post #665
mthoms wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Apple (theoretically at least) should start increasing their market share. Don't assume that they only downside for Intel is losing Apple as a customer... That could end up being the least of their worries.

> Because Apple (theoretically at least) should start increasing their market share. Should that be a serious goal for Apple though? Is there that much more money for them if they jump into the race-to-the-bottom budget market, where I assume much of the remaining share is? It seems there is some added value in being a luxury product.

If Apple weren't constantly trying to increase their market share, I imagine their shareholders would like to have a word with them :-)

I get what you're saying though. I don't think they should go after the budget PC market. There's still lots of room for growth at the mid to high end. There's also servers.

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

#759

Post by nomel »

mthoms wrote: post #758
nomel wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because Apple (theoretically at least) should start increasing their market share. Should that be a serious goal for Apple though? Is there that much more money for them if they jump into the race-to-the-bottom budget market, where I assume much of the remaining share is? It seems there is some added value in being a luxury product.

If Apple weren't constantly trying to increase their market share, I imagine their shareholders would like to have a word with them :-) I get what you're saying though. I don't think they should go after the budget PC market. There's still lots of room for growth at the mid to high end. There's also servers.

The goal for the investors isn't to increase market share though, it's to increase profit. I'm questioning the assumption that market share and profit are directly, and linearly, related. The average smartphone price worldwide is around $300 [1]. I don't have access to the full report at that link, but with the graphs shown, some significant portion must be below that price. My naive assumption is that market share in the top end is the most important, with a movement into the lower end eventually leading to the destruction of the perception of quality that they seem to work hard for, and operating costs that would cut into profits. \shrug\

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/934471/smartphone-shipme...

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

#760

Post by sudosysgen »

StreamBright wrote: post #582
sudosysgen wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China already has 14nm online, and should have 7nm in a year or two, so that means that we will probably see some real RISC-V chips from there soon, if sanctions continue. So I think that we will have a four way competition between Intel, AMD, Apple, and Chinese RISC-V chips. That being said, I don't see x86 dying, I think AMD and eventually Intel when they wake up will be competitive.

I don't see X86 dying either, I think it will be dominant in the desktop/laptop segment for a long time. I am not sure why Longsoon uses Mips64 over RISC-V. Is RISC-V generally available and ready for prime times?

I think Longsoon still uses MIPS64 because of institutional knowledge. It's moreso Alibaba and HiSilicon that I think are promising, and they both seem to be getting on the RISC-V train.
Post reply on HN