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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple M5 chip

#821

Post by cgh »

thewebguyd wrote: post #303
kobalsky wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my tinfoil-hat theory is that on each OS iteration Apple adds a new feature that leverages the latest chips hardware acceleration features and for older chips they do software-only implementations. they ship-of-thesseus the crap out of their OS but replacing with parts that need these new hardware features that run slow on older chips due to software-only implementations. I got the first generation iPad Pro, which is…

I have the 4th gen (2020) iPad Pro with the A12X Bionic, the same chip they put in the Apple Silicon transition dev kits. With iPadOS 26 it's become barely usable, despite still being performant as ever on iPadOS 18. I'm talking huge drop in performance, stutters and slow downs everywhere. I was considering just replacing the battery and keeping it for several more years but now I feel forced to upgrade which has me…

I have a 3rd Gen iPad Pro from 2018 and iPadOS 26 runs fine.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#822

Post by ksec »

MrAlex94 wrote: post #170
ksec wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Broadcom WiFi support 320Mhz while N1 is stuck with 160Mhz. There were report of N1 not supporting 4096 QAM as well but I didn't check.

Does it? If it’s the same WiFi chip used in other M4 Mac’s then it’s still limited to 160MHz: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/dep268652e6...

My word I thought the Broadcom ones were better. Thanks for checking.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#824

Post by tpowell »

jacobolus wrote: post #723
runjake wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see if I can turn this into an ASCII table and have it survive HN's reformatting. +------+------------------+--------------+----------+----------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+ | Chip | Process | CPU Cores | GPU | Neural Engine | Memory Bandwidth | Unified Memory | Geekbench6 (Single/Multi) | +------+------------------+--------------+----------+----------------+------…

Or to fit in a narrower window: Chip | Process | CPU | GPU | Neural | Memory | Unified | Geekbench6 | | Cores | | Engine | Bandwidth | Memory | Single / Multi -----|---------|-----------|------|---------|-------------|---------|---------------------- M1 | 5 nm G1 | 8: 4P+4E | 7–8 | 16-core | 68.25 GB/s | 16 GB | 2346 / 8346 M2 | 5 nm G2 | 8: 4P+4E | 8–10 | 16-core | 100 GB/s | 24 GB | 2586 / 9672 M3 | 3 nm G1 | 8: 4P…

Can I get YoY % improvements to the geekbench scores in another column I double-dog dare you

Re: Apple M5 chip

#825

Post by bigyabai »

jdiff wrote: post #820
eth0ws wrote: post #791

"When compared to Intel-based systems, it delivers up to 86x faster AI performance" I'm imagining the engineers responsible for running the tests finely tuning the test suite for days and days so they could get that number into the press release, lol. There's no way that's a coincidence and someone definitely advocated for that line being the way it is. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/10/apple-unveils-new-14-...

I'm quite upset I have nobody I know in real life who will appreciate this line.

We've come a long ways from insidious-but-clear "I'm a Mac" ads, to groanworthy-and-confusing "86x faster performance" promotional metrics.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#826

Post by behnamoh »

osn9363739 wrote: post #748
kobalsky wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my tinfoil-hat theory is that on each OS iteration Apple adds a new feature that leverages the latest chips hardware acceleration features and for older chips they do software-only implementations. they ship-of-thesseus the crap out of their OS but replacing with parts that need these new hardware features that run slow on older chips due to software-only implementations. I got the first generation iPad Pro, which is…

At some point you have to use the new features available to you. That's not really tinfoil, just progress, and how all tech works no.

this couldn't be farther from the truth. people still use vim and it's better than most new tech that was made post 2000s.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#827

Post by flakes »

What does “4x the peak GPU compute performance” mean here? No latency difference, but higher throughput? The footnote was not at all helpful

> Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#828

Post by aidenn0 »

chrsig wrote: post #816
jacobolus wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or to fit in a narrower window: Chip | Process | CPU | GPU | Neural | Memory | Unified | Geekbench6 | | Cores | | Engine | Bandwidth | Memory | Single / Multi -----|---------|-----------|------|---------|-------------|---------|---------------------- M1 | 5 nm G1 | 8: 4P+4E | 7–8 | 16-core | 68.25 GB/s | 16 GB | 2346 / 8346 M2 | 5 nm G2 | 8: 4P+4E | 8–10 | 16-core | 100 GB/s | 24 GB | 2586 / 9672 M3 | 3 nm G1 | 8: 4P…

the narrow window view is appreciated given the increased indent level of your comment

You can go to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45598632 to have zero indent level.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#829

Post by visionscaper »

drnick1 wrote: post #614

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…

Isn’t to core of MacOS derived from Unix?

Re: Apple M5 chip

#830

Post by gffrd »

jokoon wrote: post #737
gffrd wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

My point was: we don’t need to list all the reasons we won’t buy apple products on any post about apple, even if it has nothing to do with the article.

We’ve beaten the horse many times over.

Post reply on HN