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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple M5 chip

#921

Post by tim333 »

Noaidi wrote: post #51

I am wondering if Apple's focus is off lately with this drive for AI. So far all they are showing in that presentation is that I can have "the ability to transform 2D photos into spatial scenes in the Photos app, or generating a Persona — operate with greater speed and efficiency." And by making Apple AI (which is something I do not use for many reasons, but mainly because of Climate Change) their focus, I am afraid…

Running AI on the macbook or phone is probably really energy efficient compared to data centers. I think AI hardware makes sense. Dunno about recent software though - glass and apple intelligence both seem useless.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#922

Post by stingraycharles »

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…

That’s a bit silly though, that implies that the MacBook Pro M5 will not be compatible with Apple’s lossless wireless codec introduced in the iPhone 17 and AirPods Pro 3?

That really is a reason for me to skip this upgrade and wait for the next release.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#923

Post by tim333 »

port3000 wrote: post #448
reacharavindh wrote: post #240

One that’s be a nice quality of life improvement in MacBook(Air/Pro) is built-in 5G connectivity. I’d spring for that convenience not needing to connect to a hotspot draining precious battery on my phone. I thought we were closer given Apple started making their own modems, but it is still a miss.

They want you to buy the Apple phone and pair it, so they sell more

You used to be able to get a sim thing in IBM thinkpads but it didn't sell well. I think people don't want two data contracts. It might be better now with esims and stuff though.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#924

Post by justatdotin »

jeffbee wrote: post #254
Noaidi wrote: post #51

I am wondering if Apple's focus is off lately with this drive for AI. So far all they are showing in that presentation is that I can have "the ability to transform 2D photos into spatial scenes in the Photos app, or generating a Persona — operate with greater speed and efficiency." And by making Apple AI (which is something I do not use for many reasons, but mainly because of Climate Change) their focus, I am afraid…

I'm interested in reading about your low-carbon lifestyle that is so efficient you got to the point of giving up machine inference.

oh grow up. people can make cuts wherever the choose and no cut is a bad cut. These decisions are so complicated, personal and nuanced it is ridiculous to try to police someone else's best efforts.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#925

Post by kokada »

Schiendelman wrote: post #787
tempaccount420 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storage-gating is really disgusting considering how much Apple charges for storage.

Still? They really don't overcharge. The storage they sell is much, much, much faster than what everyone compares it to at lower prices.

Where are you getting this information? Curious because I can't find any evidence that Apple has "much, much, much faster" storage. If anything, Apple storage looks mediocre at best.

For example: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/m4-mbp-ssd-speeds.24422....

Compare with: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ssds/crucial-t710....

While it is not an Apple to Oranges comparison, T710 seems 80% faster for writing big files, and for $279.99 - $299.99 for 2TB this is still much cheaper than whatever Apple is offering.

If you have a better reference (specially if there is something that is cross platform), I would be interested.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#926

Post by a96 »

qwertytyyuu wrote: post #125
Hamuko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Back in the day you wouldn't buy a MacBook because it was powerful. Most likely it had a very shitty Intel CPU with not a lot of cores and with thermal challenges, and the reason you bought it was because macOS.

not just mac os, also the decent keyboard and actually good display, guarenteed.

Displays only got usable after Retina. Which is still very recent.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#927

Post by tim333 »

anteloper wrote: post #641

I can't find a single moore's law chart that includes 2025 data (they all seem to cut off around 2020 actually). Does anyone know if we're still on pace with Moore's law?

Things seem to have slacked off a bit on the transistors per chip thing. Eg

M1 16 billion transistors

M5 28 billion transistors

so that would be more like a 4/5 year doubling rather than two years.

That said there's a chart in Wikipedia showing it still going on https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/The_Moor...

but that's calculations per second per dollar rather than transistors per chip like Moore.

More came up with the law in 1965 and thought it would run 10 years till 1975 so it's had a good run if it's petering out now.

The compute per sec per dollar is a longer trend ~1900 that will likely keep on.

Gemini thinks: "The machine that began the long-term trend often cited as "128 years of Moore's Law" was Herman Hollerith's tabulating machine, created for the 1890 U.S. Census"

Re: Apple M5 chip

#928

Post by quitit »

Choco31415 wrote: post #495
quitit wrote: post #454

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.

Looks like you might be replying out of context. The parent comment had asked why their mac doesn't feel thousands of times faster than earlier models because they've misinterpreted the marketing claims.

However the marketing claims did not state an across the board weighted performance increase over M4 and certainly by reading the claims one would not assume one that large. Instead the claims state performance gains in specific benchmarks, which is relevant to common modern workflows such as inference. The closest benchmark stated to general purpose computing is the multicore CPU performance increase, which the marketing puts at 15% over M4.

As for that large leap in GPU-driven AI performance, this is on account of the inclusion of a "Neural Accelerator" in each GPU core, which is an M5 specific addition and is similar to changes introduced in the A19 SoC.

Re: Apple M5 chip

#929

Post by sho_hn »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #745
sho_hn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except community-developed open source software, which (slowly, perhaps) keeps getting better and has high resistance to enshittification.

Tell that to the people who run gimp development. Open source doesn’t protect from bad decisions and bad directions.

Gimp has generally been getting better and more capable for free, and hasn't launched any cloud-based subscription services, feature gates, ad-funded functionality or done price hikes like almost every one of its commercial competitors.

There's also Krita, which artists love.

That this comment keeps oscillating between upvoted and downvoted (with significant spikes in both directions) is an interesting insight into the span of opinions on HN between the hustler types who hate the idea of software that doesn't turn a quick buck, and the crafters :-)

Re: Apple M5 chip

#930

Post by 827a »

bigyabai wrote: post #825
jdiff wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair: They have the internal metrics on how many people are still on Intel-based Macs, and its very possible that this influences the types of comparisons they choose to make. There's still so many Intel macs out there.
Post reply on HN