[HN Gopher] Apple's M4 Max chip is the fastest single-core perfo...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's M4 Max chip is the fastest single-core performer in
consumer computing
Author : retskrad
Score : 187 points
Date : 2024-11-01 13:53 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| Thaxll wrote:
| "in Geekbench 6."
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "8 too long", says HN.
| eigenspace wrote:
| I'll admit to some reflexive skepticism here. I know GeekBench at
| least used to be considered an entirely unserious indicator of
| performance and any discussion relating to its scores used to be
| drowned out by people explaining why it was so bad.
|
| Do those criticisms still hold? Are serious people nowadays
| taking Geekbench to be a reasonably okay (though obviously
| imperfect) performance metric?
| whynotminot wrote:
| You're not the only one -- but just curious where this
| skepticism comes from.
|
| This is M _4_ -- Apple has now made four generations of chips
| and each one were class leading upon release. What more do you
| need to see?
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| I don't think they are skeptical of the chip itself. Just
| asking about the benchmark used.
|
| If I was reviewing cars and used the number of doors as a
| benchmark for speed, surely I'd get laughed at.
| whynotminot wrote:
| Right but we keep repeating this cycle. A new M series chip
| comes, the geekbench leaks and its class leading.
|
| Immediately people "but geEk BeNcH"
|
| And then actual people get their hands on the machines for
| their real workloads and essentially confirm the geekbench
| results.
|
| If this was the first time, then fair enough. But it's a
| Groundhog Day style sketch comedy at this point with M4.
| philistine wrote:
| I blame it on the PC crowd being unconsciously salty the
| most prestigious CPU is not available to them. You heard
| the same stuff when talking about Android performance
| versus iPhone.
|
| There is a lot to criticize about Apple's silicon design,
| but they are leading the CPU market in terms of mindshare
| and attention. All the other chipmakers all feel like
| they're just trying to follow Apple's lead. It's wild.
| eigenspace wrote:
| If that's all we cared about we wouldn't be discussing a
| Geekbench score in the first place. The OP could have just
| posted the statement without ever mentioning a benchmark.
|
| I was just curious if people had experience with how reliable
| Geekbench has been at showing relative performance of CPUs
| lately.
| nabakin wrote:
| In power efficiency maybe, but not top performance
| whynotminot wrote:
| Literally yes top single core performance. (And
| incidentally also efficiency)
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Apple has now made four generations of chips and each one
| were class leading upon release.
|
| Buying up most of TSMC's latest node capacity certainly
| helps. Zen chips on the same node turn out to be _very_
| competitive, butAMD don 't get first dibs.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| As demonstrated by the M1-M3 series of chips, essentially all
| of that lead was due to being the _first_ chips on a smaller
| process, rather than to anything inherent to the chip design.
| Indeed, the Mx series of chips tend to be on the slower side
| of chips for their process sizes.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I'd be reflexively skeptical if I didn't have a M1 Mac. It
| really is something.
| eigenspace wrote:
| I'm not skeptical of Apple's M-series chips. They have proven
| themselves to be quite impressive and indeed quite
| competitive with traditional desktop CPUs even at very low
| wattages.
|
| I'm skeptical of Geekbench being able to indicate that this
| specific new processor is robustly faster than say a 9950x in
| single-core workloads.
| selectodude wrote:
| It's robustly faster at the things that Geekbench is
| measuring. You can find issue with the test criteria
| (measures meaningless things or is easy to game) but the
| tests themselves are certainly sound.
| hu3 wrote:
| > You can find issue with the test criteria (measures
| meaningless things or is easy to game).
|
| That's exactly their point.
| stouset wrote:
| On the other hand, I have yet to see any benchmark where
| people didn't crawl out of the woodwork to complain about
| it.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It's by no means a be all end all "read this number and know
| everything you need to know" benchmark but it tends to be good
| enough to give you a decent idea of how fast a device will be
| for a typical consumer.
|
| If I could pick 1 "generic" benchmark to base things off of I'd
| pick PassMark though. It tends to agree with Geekbench on Apple
| Silicon performance but it is a bit more useful when comparing
| non-typical corner cases (high core count CPUs and the like).
|
| Best of all is to look at a full test suite and compare for the
| specific workload types that matter to you... but that can
| often be overkill if all you want to know is "yep, Apple is
| pulling ahead on single thread performance".
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| You are thinking of AnTuTu.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Geekbench is an excellent benchmark, and has a pretty good
| correlation with the performance people see in the real world
| where there aren't other limitations like storage speed.
|
| There is a sort of whack-a-mole thing where adherents of
| particular makers or even instruction sets dismiss evidence
| that benefits their alternatives, and you find that at the root
| of almost all of the "my choice doesn't win in a given
| benchmark means the benchmark is bad" rhetoric. Then they
| demand you only respect some oddball benchmark where their
| favoured choice wins.
|
| AMD fans long claimed that Geekbench was in cahoots with Intel.
| Then when Apple started dominating, that it was in cahoots with
| ARM, or favoured ARM instruction sets. It's endless.
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| Any proprietary benchmark that's compiled with the mystery
| meat equivalent of compiler/flags isn't "excellent" in any
| way.
|
| SPECint compiled with either the vendor compiler (ICC, AOCC)
| or the latest gcc/clang would be a good neutral standard,
| though I'd also want to compare SIMD units more closely with
| x265 and Highway based stuff (vips, libjxl).
|
| And how do you handle the fact that you can't really (yet)
| use the same OS for both platforms? Scheduler and power
| management counts, even for dumb number crunching.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| It'll still be at the top of SPECint 2017 which is the real
| industry standard. Geekbench 6.3 slightly boosted Apple Silicon
| scores by adding SME - a very niche instruction set extension
| which is never used in SPECint workloads. So the gap may not be
| as wide as GB6.3 implies.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Does SPECint cover heavily memory bound pointer chasing
| stuff? Not up to date.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| Yes, yes it does.
|
| https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/overview.html#Q13
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| If it shows a good result for Apple then it's perfectly
| accurate, otherwise it's flawed.
| jwr wrote:
| I verified Geekbench results to be very tightly correlated with
| my use case and workloads (JVM, Clojure development and
| compilation) as measured by my wall times. So yes, I consider
| it to be a very reliable indicator of performance.
| carlgreene wrote:
| I have been out of the PC world for a long time, but in terms of
| performance efficiency, is Apple running away from the
| competition? Or are AMD and Intel producing similar performing
| chips at the same wattage?
| api wrote:
| There have always been higher performing x64 chips than the M
| series but they use several times more power to get that.
|
| Apple seems to be reliably annihilating everyone on performance
| per watt at the high end of the performance curve. It makes
| sense since the M series are mobile CPUs on 'roids.
| LorenDB wrote:
| AMD's latest Strix Point mobile chips are on par with M3
| silicon: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WKR0VHfJw
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I was looking into this recently as my M1 Max screen suddenly
| died out of the blue within warranty and Apple are complete
| crooks wrt honouring warranties.
|
| The AMD mobile chips are right there with M3 for battery life
| and have excellent performance only I couldn't find a
| complete system which shipped with the same size battery as
| the MBP16. They're either half or 66% of the capacity.
| matwood wrote:
| > and Apple are complete crooks wrt honouring warranties
|
| Huh? I've used AC for both MBP and iPhones a number of
| times over the years, and never had an issue. They are
| known for some of the highest customer ratings in the
| industry.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| They claimed that it wasn't covered because the machine
| was brought in Germany. I live in The Netherlands and
| brought it here. Also I contacted Apple Support to
| checked my serial number and then gave me the address to
| take it to. Which I did.
|
| They charged me $100 to get my machine back without
| repair.
|
| Also bear in mind that the EU is a single market,
| warranties etc are, by law, required to be honoured over
| the ENTIRE single market. Not just one country.
|
| Especially when the closest Apple Store to me is IN
| GERMANY.
|
| I have since returned it to Amazon who will refund it
| (they're taking their sweet time though, I need to call
| them next week as they should have transferred already).
| bartekrutkowski wrote:
| So you haven't purchased it from Apple but instead you've
| purchased it from Amazon. This may change things. In
| Europe you have two ways of dealing with it, either by
| manufacturer warranty (completely good will and on terms
| set by the manufacturer) or by consumer rights (warranted
| you by law, overruling any warranty restrictions).
|
| Sellers often will try to steer you to use warranty as it
| removes their responsibility, Amazon is certainly shady
| here. Apple will often straight on give you a full refund
| or a new device (often newer model), that happened to me
| with quite few iPhones and MacBooks.
|
| Know your rights.
| lancesells wrote:
| I would go multiple routes with Apple if you're able. They
| tend to be pretty good with in warranty and even out of
| warranty.
| ttul wrote:
| My assessment is that ARM is running away from the competition.
| Apple is indeed designing the chip, but without the ARM
| architecture, Apple would have nothing to work with. This is
| not to diminish the incredible work of Apple's VLSI team who
| put the chip architecture together and deftly navigated the
| Wild West of the fabrication landscape, but if you look at the
| specialized server chip side, it's now dominated by ARM IP. I
| think ARM is the real winner here.
| torginus wrote:
| Even compared to other ARM cores, Apple is in a league of its
| own.
| jsheard wrote:
| They have a good silicon design team, but having so much
| money that they can just buy out exclusive access to TSMCs
| most advanced processes doesn't hurt either. The closest
| ARM competitor to the M4, the Snapdragon X Elite, is a full
| node behind on 4nm while Apple is already using 2nd
| generation 3nm.
| nottorp wrote:
| So then it should be comparable to the M1 or M2? Which
| isn't bad at all, if true.
|
| But is it, for the same power consumption?
| philistine wrote:
| For some benchmarks the Snapdragon is on par with the M3.
| But the weirdo tests I found online did not say which
| device they compared, since the M3 is available in fan-
| less machines, which limits its potential.
| tempest_ wrote:
| Outside of Ampere(who are really more server focused) who
| else is designing desktop/laptop ARM cpus?
| ttul wrote:
| That's a really fair point. I think it's tough for anyone
| else to break into the consumer / desktop segment with
| ARM chips. Apple can do it because they control the whole
| stack.
| IshKebab wrote:
| They also have the advantage that they could break software
| compatibility with the M1, e.g. using 16 kB pages and 128
| byte cache blocks.
| tempest_ wrote:
| Their margins tend to allow them to always use the latest TSMC
| process so they will often be pretty good just based on that.
| They are also ARM chips which obviously have been more focused
| on efficiency historically.
| philistine wrote:
| Oh how the mighty have fallen. For decades, when comparing
| Mac versus PCs, it was always about performance, with any
| other consideration always derided.
|
| Yet here we are, with the excuses of margins and silicon
| processes generations. But you haven't answered the question.
| Is Apple pulling ahead or is the x86 cabal able to keep up?
| omikun wrote:
| They actually work with TSMC to develop the latest nodes.
| They also fund the bulk of the development. It's not as if
| without Apple's funds someone else will get the same leading
| edge node.
| juancn wrote:
| The M1 was a complete surprise, it was so far ahead that it was
| ridiculous.
|
| The M2-4 are still ahead (in their niche), but since the M1,
| Intel and AMD have been playing catchup.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Or more accurately AMD is playing catch up with the Strix
| series, while Intel seems too busy shooting themselves in the
| foot to bother.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| Apple is slightly pulling away. AMD's top desktop chips were on
| par with M1/M2/M3 1T but now they cannot match even M4 despite
| releasing a new design (Zen 5) this year.
|
| It's partially because AMD is on a two year cadence while Apple
| is on approximately a yearly cadence. And AMD has no plans to
| increase the cadence of their Zen releases.
|
| 2020 - M1, Zen 3
|
| 2021 - ...
|
| 2022 - M2, Zen 4
|
| 2023 - M3
|
| 2024 - M4, Zen 5
|
| Edit: I am looking at peak 1T performance, not efficiency. In
| that regard I don't think anyone has been close.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Edit: I am looking at peak 1T performance, not efficiency.
| In that regard I don't think anyone has been close.
|
| Indeed. Anything that approaches Apple performance does so at
| a much higher power consumption. Which is no biggie for a
| large-ish desktop (I often recommend getting middle-of-the-
| road tower servers for workstations).
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| TSMC is running away from the competition
| spockz wrote:
| For many workloads I think they are pulling definitely ahead.
| However, I think there is still much to gain in software. For
| example, my Linux/Fedora desktop with 5900X is many times more
| responsive than my 16" M1 Pro.
|
| Java runs faster. GraalVM native generated native images run
| way waster. Golang runs faster. X86_64 has seen more love from
| optimalisations than aarch64 has. One of the things I hit was
| different GC/memory performance due to different page sizes.
| Moreover, docker runs natively on Linux, and the network stack
| itself is faster.
|
| But even given all of that, the 16" M1 PRO edges close to the
| desktop. (When it is not constrained by anti virus.) And it
| does this in a portable form factor, with way less power
| consumption. My 5900X tops out at about 180W.
|
| So yes, I would definitely say they are pulling ahead.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Good enough to be used for gaming? Really want Apple to get into
| that because dealing with Windows sucks.
| whynotminot wrote:
| They've always been good enough for gaming. The problem has
| just been whether or not publishers would bother releasing the
| games. It's unfortunate that Apple can't seem to really build
| enough momentum here to become a gaming destination.
| yalogin wrote:
| I think they will get there in time. They like to focus on
| things and not spread themselves thin. They always wanted to
| get the gaming market share but AI is taking all their time
| now.
| macintux wrote:
| I'm not sure how many chances they'll get to persuade
| developers that this time they really mean it. It sounds
| like Apple Arcade is a flop.
| rswail wrote:
| Given that a Mac mini with an M4 is basically the same size
| and shape as an Apple TV, they could make a new Apple TV
| that was a gaming console as well.
|
| Why is the Apple TV only focused on passive entertainment?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Apple TV _is_ a gaming console.
|
| https://www.apple.com/apple-arcade/
| crazygringo wrote:
| It has always baffled me why Apple doesn't take gaming
| seriously. It's another revenue stream, it would sell more
| Macs. It's profit.
|
| Is it just some weird cultural thing? Or is there some kind
| of genuine technical reason for it, like it would involve
| some kind of tradeoffs around security or limiting
| architecture changes or something?
|
| _Especially_ with the M-series chips, it feels like they had
| the opportunity to make a major gaming push and bring
| publishers on board... but just nothing, at least with AAA
| games. They 're content with cartoony content in Apple Arcade
| solely on mobile.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > It has always baffled me why Apple doesn't take gaming
| seriously.
|
| They aren't really the ones that have to.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But they are. They need to subsidize porting AAA games to
| solve the chicken-and-egg problem.
|
| Gaming platforms don't just arise organically. They
| require partnership between platform and publishers,
| organized by the platform and with financial investment
| by the platform.
| talldayo wrote:
| > They need to subsidize porting AAA games to solve the
| chicken-and-egg problem.
|
| _glances at the Steam Machine_
|
| And how long do they have to fail at _that_ before trying
| a new approach?
| whynotminot wrote:
| If you look at things like Game Porting Toolkit, Apple
| actually is investing resources here.
|
| It just feels like they came along so late to really trying
| that it's going to be a minute for things to actually
| happen.
|
| I would love to buy the new Mac Mini and sit it under my TV
| as a mini console. But it just feels like we're not quite
| there yet for that purpose, even though the horse power is
| there.
| fastball wrote:
| Apple does take gaming seriously. They've built out
| comprehensive Graphics APIs and things like the GPTK to
| make migrating games to Apple's ecosystem actually not too
| bad for developers. The problem is that a lot of game devs
| just target Windows because every "serious" gamer has a
| windows PC. It's a chicken-and-egg problem that results
| from Apple always having a serious minority share of the
| desktop market. So historically Apple has focused on the
| segments of the market that they can more easily break
| into.
| have_faith wrote:
| I always assumed it was the nature of the gaming workload
| on the hardware for why they don't ever promote it. AAA
| games pegging the CPU/GPU at near max for long periods of
| time goes against what they optimise their machines for. I
| just think they don't want to promote that sort of stress
| on the system. On top Apple taking themselves very
| seriously and seeing gaming as below them.
| nottorp wrote:
| > Is it just some weird cultural thing?
|
| I think so. I think no one in apple management has ever
| played computer games for fun so they simply do not
| understand what customers would want.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| They do take gaming seriously, that's likely the bulk of
| their AppStore revenue after all.
|
| They just don't care about desktop gaming, which is
| somewhat understandable. While the m-series chips have a
| GPU, it's about as performant for games as a dedicated GPU
| from 10-14 years ago (It only needs a fraction of the
| electricity though, but very few desktop gamers care about
| that).
|
| The games you can play have to run at silly low resolution
| (fullHD at most) and rarely even reach 60fps.
| matwood wrote:
| > They do take gaming seriously
|
| They do take _gambling_ seriously.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Apple has one of the, if not the biggest gaming platforms
| in existence (the iphone and ipad), but everyone seems to
| have a blind spot for that and disregards it. Sure, the Mac
| isn't a big gaming platform for them because their systems
| are mostly used professionally (assumption), but there too,
| the Mac represents only 1/10th of the sales they get from
| the iPhone, and that's only on the hardware.
|
| Mac gaming is a nice-to-have; it's possible, there's tools,
| there's Steam for Mac there's toolkits to port PC games to
| Mac, there's a games category in the Mac app store, but it
| isn't a major point in their marketing / development.
|
| But don't claim that Apple doesn't take gaming seriously,
| gaming for them it's a market worth tens of billions,
| they're embroiled in a huge lawsuit with Epic about it,
| etc. Finally, AAA games get ported to mobile as well and
| once again earn hundreds of millions in revenue (e.g. CoD
| mobile).
| goosedragons wrote:
| I feel like for myself at least, mobile gaming is more
| akin to casino gaming than video gaming. Sure, iOS has
| loads of gaming revenue but the games just ain't fun and
| are centred way too heavily on getting microtransactions
| out of people.
| sunshowers wrote:
| The iPhone gaming market is abusive and predatory,
| essentially a mass exploit on human psychology. Certainly
| not something to be proud of.
| philistine wrote:
| Apple owns the second largest gaming platform by users and
| games, and first by profit: iPhone.
|
| In terms of _gaming that 's only on PC and consoles_, I
| didn't understand Apple's blaze attitude until I discovered
| this eye-opening fact: there are around 300 million people
| who are _PC and console gamers_ , and that number is NOT
| growing. It's stagnant.
|
| Turns out Apple is uninterested by a stagnant market, and
| dedicates all its gaming effort where growth is: mobile.
| jsheard wrote:
| Apple's aggressive deprecation policies haven't done them any
| favors when it comes to games, they expect software to be
| updated to their latest ISAs and APIs in perpetuity but games
| are rarely supported forever. In many cases the developers
| don't even exist anymore. A lot of native Mac game ports got
| wiped out by 32bit being EOL'ed, and it'll probably happen
| again when they inevitably phase out Rosetta 2 and OpenGL
| support.
| goosedragons wrote:
| No they haven't. For years the best you could get was "meh"
| to terrible GPUs at high price points. Like $2000+ was where
| getting a discrete GPU began. The M series stuff finally
| allows the entry level to have decent GPUs but they have less
| storage out of the box than a $300 Xbox Series S. Apple's
| priorities just don't align well with gamers. They prioritize
| resolution over refresh rate and response time, make mice
| unusable for basically any FPS made in the past 20 years and
| way overcharge for storage and RAM.
| evilduck wrote:
| That depends on what you want to play and what other things
| that suck that you're willing to tolerate.
|
| The GPUs in previous M chips aren't beating AMD or NVidia's top
| offerings on anything except VRAM but you can definitely play
| games with them. Apple has released their Game Porting Toolkit
| a couple years ago which is basically like Wine/Proton in Linux
| and if you're comfortable with Wine and approximately what a
| Steam Deck can run then that's about what you can expect to run
| on a newer Mac.
|
| Installing Steam or GOG Galaxy with something like Whiskey.app
| (which leverages the game porting toolkit) opens up a large
| number of games on macOS. Games that need Windows root kits are
| probably a pain point, and you're probably not going to push
| all those video setting sliders to the far right for Ultra
| graphics on a 4K screen, but there's a lot of games that are
| very playable on macOS and M chips.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Wow, had no idea this worked as well as it does. I remember
| the initial hype when this showed up but didn't follow along.
| Looks like I don't have to regard my Steam library as
| entirely gone.
|
| Steam Deck-level performance is quite fine, I mainly just
| want to replay the older FromSoft games and my favorite
| indies every now and then.
| evilduck wrote:
| Fair warning, I haven't dug that deep into compatibility
| issues or 32 bit gaming compatibility but it's definitely
| something to experiment with and for the most part you can
| find out for free before making a purchasing decision.
|
| First and foremost, it's just worth checking if your game
| has a native port: https://store.steampowered.com/macos
| People might be surprised what's already available.
|
| With Wine syscall and Rosetta x86 code translation, issues
| do pop up from time to time though, like games that have
| cutscenes that are encoded as Windows Media Player specific
| formats, or any other media codecs which aren't immediately
| available since it's not like games advertise those
| technology requirements anywhere and you may encounter
| video stuttering or artifacts since the hardware is
| obviously dramatically different than what the game
| developers were originally developing against and there's
| things happening in the background that an x86 Windows
| system never does. This isn't stuff that's overly Mac
| specific since it usually impacts Linux equally but it's a
| hurdle to jump that you don't have to deal with in native
| Windows. Like I said, playing Windows games outside of
| Windows is just a different set of pain points and you have
| to be able to tolerate it. Some people think it's worth it
| and some people would rather have higher game availability
| and keep the pain of Windows. Kudos to Valve with creating
| a linux based handheld and the Wine and Proton projects for
| improving this situation dramatically though.
|
| Besides the Game Porting Toolkit (which was originally
| intended for game developers to create native application
| bundles that could be put on the App Store), there's also
| Crossover for Mac that does their own work towards
| resolving a lot of these issues and they have a
| compatibility list you can view on their site:
| https://www.codeweavers.com/ and alternatively, some games
| run acceptably inside virtualization if you're willing to
| still deal with Windows in a sandboxed way. Parallels is
| able to run many games with better compatibility since
| you're actually running Windows, though last I checked DX12
| was a problem.
| fioan89 wrote:
| With Thunderbolt 5 it should be fairly reasonable to use an
| external GPU for more power.
| evilduck wrote:
| Apple Silicon Macs don't have support for eGPUs:
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/102363
|
| Maybe with future TB5 support they will include that
| feature.
| kimixa wrote:
| Apple no longer has drivers for anything newer than AMD
| RDNA2 and have completely dismantled the driver team.
|
| Unless you're running bootcamp you're _extremely_ limited
| by driver support.
| paol wrote:
| Well we're about to find out now that CDPR have announced
| Cyberpunk 2077 will get a native Metal port. I for one am
| extremely curious with the result. Apple have made very lofty
| claims about their GPU performance, but without any high-end
| games running natively, it's been hard to evaluate those
| claims.
|
| That said, expectations should be kept at a realistic level.
| Even if the M4 has the fastest embedded GPU (it probably does),
| it's still an _embedded GPU_. They aren 't going to be topping
| any absolute performance charts.
| eigenspace wrote:
| Gaming isn't just about hardware, it's also about software,
| economics, trust and relationships.
|
| Apple has quite impressive hardware (though their GPUs are
| still not close to high-end discrete GPUs), but they're also
| fast enough. The problem now is that Apple systematically does
| not have a culture that respects gaming or is interested in
| courting gamers. Games also rely on OS stability, but Apple has
| famously short and severe deprecation periods.
|
| They ocassionally make pushes in that direction, but I think
| they lack the will to make a concerted effort, and I also think
| they lack the restraint to not try and force everything through
| their own payment processors and distribution systems causing
| sour relations with developers.
| braymundo wrote:
| Incidentally, CD Projekt announced Cyberpunk 2077 Ultimate
| Edition for Mac yesterday. There is hope! :)
|
| https://www.cyberpunk.net/en/news/50947/just-announced-cyber...
| Refusing23 wrote:
| you can game on linux though. almost all games work just fine.
| (well, almost)
| dogleash wrote:
| Valve has/continues to do way more to make Linux a viable
| gaming platform than Apple will likely ever do for mac
|
| I get it, you want to leave windows by way of mac. But your
| options are to either bite the bullet and expend a tiny bit of
| your professional skill on setting up a machine with linux, or
| stay on windows for the foreseeable future.
| post_break wrote:
| What's crazy is that the M4 Pro is in the Mac mini, something so
| tiny can handle that chip. The Mac Studio with the M4 Max will be
| awesome but the Mini is remarkable.
| carlgreene wrote:
| I am still astounded the huge change moving from an Intel Mac
| to an Apple Silicon Mac (M1) has had in terms of battery
| performance and heat. I don't think i've heard the fans a
| single time I've had this machine and it's been several years.
|
| Nor have I had any desire to upgrade.
| cloudking wrote:
| M3 Pro user here, agree with the same points. It's nice to be
| able to actually have your laptop on your lap, without
| burning your legs.
| mh- wrote:
| Hey, I can have my Intel MBP on my lap without burning my
| legs (or making me feel nauseated).
|
| As long as I don't open Chrome, Safari, Apple Notes, or
| really any other app...
| Etheryte wrote:
| Sometimes even not opening any apps is not enough if
| Spotlight decides that now is the time to update its
| index or something similar. Honestly nuts looking back at
| it.
| _hyn3 wrote:
| ARM processors have always been good at handling heat and
| low power (like AWS Graviton), but what laptop did you have
| before that would overheat that much during normal usage?
| That seems like a very poor design.
| ddingus wrote:
| My 2010 i7 MBP would do that under heavy loads. All
| aluminum body, with fans, and when that CPU really had to
| work it put out a lot of heat.
|
| Compiling gcc multi thread a few times would be enough.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| anything that pegged the CPU for extended periods of
| time, caused many Apple laptop models to overheat. There
| is some design tradeoff about power specs, cooling,
| "typical workloads" and other things.. A common and not-
| new example of heat-death-workload was video editing..
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'd place my top of the line Intel Mac on my feet to warm
| them and then bend over and write code while sitting on
| my chair.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I do wonder if PC desktops will eventually move to a similar
| design. I have a 7800x3d on my desktop, and the thing is a
| _beast_ but between it and the 3090 I basically have a space
| heater in my room
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It would make sense, but it depends heavily on Windows /
| Linux support, compatibility with nvidia / amd graphics
| cards, and exclusivity contracts with Intel / AMD. Apple is
| not likely to make their chips available to OEMs at any
| rate, and I haven't heard of any 4th party working on a
| powerful desktop ARM based CPU in recent years.
| jwells89 wrote:
| It would be nice. Similarly have a 5950X/3080Ti tower and
| it's a great machine, but if it were an option for it to be
| as small and low-noise as the new Mini (or even the
| previous mini or Studio), I'd happily take it.
| philistine wrote:
| I sincerely believe that the market for desktop PCs is
| completely coopted by the gaming machines. They do not care
| one whit about machine size or energy efficiency, with only
| one concern in mind: bare performance. This means they buy
| ginormous machines, incredibly inefficient CPUs and GPUs,
| with cavernous internals to chuck heat out with no care for
| decibels.
|
| But they spend voriously. And so the desktop PC market is
| theirs and theirs alone.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Desktop PCs have become the Big Block V8 Muscle Cars of
| the computing world. Inefficient dinosaur technology that
| you pour gasoline through and the output is heat and
| massive raw power.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Yeah. It's been the case for a while now that if someone
| just wants a general computer, they buy a laptop (even
| commonly a mac).
|
| That's why the default advice if you're looking for
| 'value' is to buy a gaming console to complement your
| laptop. Both will excel at their separate roles for a
| decade without requiring much in the way of upgrades.
|
| The desktop pc market these days is a luxury 'prosumer'
| market that doesn't really care about value as much. It
| feels like we're going back to the late 90's, early
| 2000's.
| Aurornis wrote:
| A game I play with friends introduced a Mac version. I
| thought it would be great to use my Apple Silicon MacBook
| Pro for some quiet, low-power gaming.
|
| The frame rate wasn't even close to my desktop (which is
| less powerful than yours). I switched back to the PC.
|
| Last time I looked, the energy efficiency of nVidia GPUs in
| the lower TDP regions wasn't actually that different from
| Apple's hardware. The main difference is that Apple
| hardware isn't scaled up to the level of big nVidia GPUs.
| mdasen wrote:
| > Nor have I had any desire to upgrade
|
| I never thought I'd see a processor that was 50% faster
| single-core and 80% faster multi-core and just shrug. My M1
| Pro still feels so magically fast.
|
| I'm really happy that Apple keeps pushing things and I'll be
| grateful when I do decide to upgrade, but my M1 Pro has just
| been such a magical machine. Every other laptop I've ever
| bought (Mac or PC) has run its fan regularly. I did finally
| get fan noise on my M1 Pro when pegging the CPU at 800% for a
| while (doing batch conversion of tons of PDFs to images) -
| and to be fair, it was sitting on a blanket which was
| insulating it. Still, it didn't get hot, unlike every other
| laptop I've ever owned did even under normal usage.
|
| It's just been such a joyful machine.
|
| I do look forward to an OLED MacBook Pro and I know how great
| a future Apple Silicon processor will be.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| My best Apple purchases in 20 years of being their
| customer: The Macbook M1 Pro 16 inch and the Pro Display
| XDR. When Steve Jobs died I really thought Apple was done,
| but their most flawless products (imho) came much later.
| eastbound wrote:
| Yeah, don't forget the 10 dark years between the
| Butterfly Keyboard Macbook Pro 2016, the Emoji Macbook
| Air, until the restoration of the USB ports... around
| 2022.
|
| That was truely the dark age of Apple.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Those were the Ive Unleashed years.
|
| Unbridled control over all design in one hyper
| opinionated guy was an error well resolved.
| matwood wrote:
| Yeah, I have an M1 Max 64GB and don't feel any need to
| upgrade. I think I'll hit the need for more ram before a
| processor increase with my current workload.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Same for me, in a Mac Studio. It's only 2 years old so
| it's not like I would expect it to suck, but it's a
| rocket.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Folding/rolling screen would be awesome. 16" form factor
| that turns into 20" screen.
| dlachausse wrote:
| It still blows my mind how infrequently I have to charge my
| M3 Pro MacBook Pro. It is a complete game changer.
| JansjoFromIkea wrote:
| If it's a M1 Macbook Air there's a very good reason you've
| never heard a fan!
|
| Blows my mind how it doesn't even have a fan and is still
| rarely even anything above body temperature. My 2015 MBP was
| still going strong for work when I bailed on it late last
| year but the transition purely on the heat/sound emitted has
| been colossal.
| philistine wrote:
| Factorio: Space Age is the first piece of software that my
| M1 shows performance issues with. I'm not building xCode
| projects or anything, but it is a great Mac. Maybe even the
| greatest.
| perihelions wrote:
| TSMC's fabtory must grow.
| collinvandyck76 wrote:
| There's a known issue on arm macs with external monitors
| that messes with the framerates. Hopefully it gets fixed
| soon because pre-space age factorio was near flawless in
| performance on my m2.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| I've got a coworker who still has an Intel MacBook Pro,
| 8-core i9 and all that, and I've been on M chips since they
| launched. The other day he was building some Docker images
| while we were screensharing and I was dumbfounded at how long
| it took. I don't think I can even remember a recent time when
| building images, even ones pushed to CDK etc., takes more
| than a minute or so. We waited and waited and finally after 8
| minutes it was done.
|
| He told me his fans were going crazy and his entire desk was
| hot after that. Apple silicon is just a game changer.
| grahamj wrote:
| For sure. I had one of those for work when I got my
| personal M1 Air and I couldn't believe how much faster it
| was. A fanless ultraportable faster than an 8-core i9!
|
| I was so happy when I finally got an M1 MBP for work
| because as you say Docker is so much faster on it. I feel
| like I don't wait for anything anymore. Can't even imagine
| these new chips.
| rahkiin wrote:
| Oh I know the feeling... when using ict-managed windows
| laptops at work
| voisin wrote:
| Do you have an Air or Pro?
| huijzer wrote:
| > I don't think i've heard the fans a single time I've had
| this machine and it's been several years.
|
| Yes I agree. I sometimes compile LLVM just to check whether
| it all still works. (And of course to have the latest LLVM
| from main ready in case I need it. Obviously.)
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| 16" M1 still perfectly good machine for my work (web dev).
| Got a battery replacement which also replaced top cover and
| keyboard - it's basically new. Extended applecare for another
| year which will turn it into fully covered 4 year device.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I am still astounded the huge change moving from an Intel
| Mac to an Apple Silicon Mac (M1) has had in terms of battery
| performance and heat
|
| The battery life improvements are great. Apple really did a
| terrible job with the thermal management on their last few
| Intel laptops. My M1 Max can consume (and therefore
| dissipate) more power than my Intel MBP did, but the M1
| thermal solution handles it quietly.
|
| The thermal solution on those Intel MacBooks was really bad.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Those MacBooks were designed when Intel was promising new,
| more efficient chips and they didn't materialize. Apple was
| forced to use the older and hotter chips. It was not a good
| combination.
| microtherion wrote:
| Another factor might be that Intel MacBook Pros got
| thinner and thinner. The M1 MBP was quite a bit thicker
| than its Intel predecessors, and I think the form factor
| has remained the same since then.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > My M1 Max can consume (and therefore dissipate) more
| power than my Intel MBP did, but the M1 thermal solution
| handles it quietly.
|
| You have to really, REALLY put in effort to make it operate
| at rated power. My M2 MBA idles at around 5 watts, my work
| 2019 16-inch i9 is around 30 watts in idle.
| varispeed wrote:
| On extremely heavy workloads the fans do engage on my M1 Max,
| but I need to get my ear close to the machine to hear them.
|
| Recently my friend bought a laptop with Intel Ultra 9 185h.
| It roared fans even when opening Word. That was extraordinary
| and if it was me making the purchase I would have sent it
| back straight away.
|
| My friend did fiddle a lot with settings, had to update BIOS
| and eventually the fan situation was somewhat contained, but
| man I am never going to buy Intel / AMD laptop. You don't
| know how annoying fan noise is until you get a laptop that is
| fast and doesn't make any noise. With Intel is like having a
| drill pointed to your head that can goes off at any moment
| and let's not mention phantom fan noise, where it gets
| imprinted in your head that your brain makes you think the
| fans are on, but they are not.
|
| Apple has achieved something extraordinary. I don't like
| MacOS, but I am getting used to it. I hope one day this Asahi
| effort will let us replace it.
| jltsiren wrote:
| When I play Baldur's Gate 3 on my M2 Max, the fans get
| loud. You need a workload that is both CPU-heavy and GPU-
| heavy for that. When you are stressing only the CPU or the
| GPU but not both, the fans stay quiet.
| hhejrkrn wrote:
| Lol ... You were not around for the ppc -> Intel change ...
| Same thing happened then ... Remarkable performance uplift
| from the last instruction set ... And we had Rosetta which
| allowed compatibility... The m1 and arm took power efficiency
| to another level .... But yeah what has happened before will
| happen again
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Indeed, the $1599 M4 Pro Mac mini beats the current $3999 M2
| Ultra Mac Studio on GeekBench 6 multi-core:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2024/10/31/m4-pro-chip-benchmark-r...
| philistine wrote:
| Back in the early 90s, when Apple was literally building
| their first product line with the Mac, they would come out
| with their second big honking powerhouse Mac: the Macintosh
| IIx. It blew everything out of the water. Then they would
| come out with their next budget all-in-one machine. But
| computing was improving so fast, with prices for components
| dropping so quickly, that the Macintosh SE/30 ended up as
| impressive as the Macintosh IIx with a much lower price.
| That's how the legend of the SE/30 was born, turning it into
| the _best_ Mac ever for most people.
|
| With how fast and impressive the improvements are coming with
| the M-series processors, it often feels like we're back in
| the early 90s. I thought the M1 Macbook Air would be the
| epitome of Apple's processor renaissance, but it sure feels
| like that was only the beginning. When we look historically
| at these machines in 20 years, we'll think of a specific
| machine as _the best early Apple Silicon Mac_. I don 't think
| that machine is even out yet.
| drcongo wrote:
| I think that machine is this M1 Pro MBP I'm using right
| now, and will probably still be using in 20 years.
| nxobject wrote:
| I look forward to seeing you at a conference in 20 years'
| time where we'll both be running Fedora 100 on our M1
| MacBook Pros.
| grahamj wrote:
| Agreed. It might share the title with the M1 Air which
| was incredible for an ultraportable, but the M1MBP was
| just incredible period. Three generations later it's
| still more machine than most people need. M2/3/4 sped
| things up but the M1 set the bar.
| superb_dev wrote:
| The airs are incredible. I've been doing all my personal
| dev work on an M2 Air for years, it's the best laptop
| I've ever owned.
|
| I'm only compelled to upgrade for more ram, but I only
| feel the pressure of 8gb in rare cases. (I do wish I
| could swap the ram)
| Affric wrote:
| My only regret is getting base RAM.
|
| It's not a server so it's not a crime to not always be
| using all of it and it's not upgradable so it needs to be
| right the first time. I should have got 32GB to just be
| sure.
| thfuran wrote:
| In the 90s, you probably wouldn't want to be using a
| desktop from 4 years ago, but the M1 is already 4 years old
| and will probably be fine for most people for years yet.
| zjp wrote:
| No kidding. The M1 MacBook Pro I got from work is the
| first time I've ever subjectively considered a computer
| to be just as fast as it was the day I got it.
| rconti wrote:
| I think by the time my work-provided M1 MacBook Pro
| arrived, the M2s were already out, but of course I simply
| didn't care. I actually wonder when it will be worth the
| hassle of transferring all my stuff over to a new
| machine. Could easily be another 4 years.
| cosmotic wrote:
| Yes, but I suspect the 64GB of memory in the studio compared
| to 24GB in the mini the is going to make that studio a lot
| faster in many real-world scenarios.
| losvedir wrote:
| In that case, you can get the mini with 64GB of memory for
| $1999.
| cosmotic wrote:
| It would be $2,199 for the highest end CPU and the 64GB
| of memory but I think you're point remains: the Studio is
| not a great buy until it receives the M4 upgrades.
| throwaway106382 wrote:
| this is crazy, i'm more than happy with the current
| performance of my M1 Max Studio but an M4 Max or Ultra might
| actually be too good to pass up
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Does anyone know if this Mac Mini can survive longer than a
| year? Apple's approach to hardware design doesn't prioritize
| thermal issues*.
|
| In fact, the form factor is why I'm leaning toward taking a
| pass - I don't want a Mac Mini I would have to replace every 12
| months.
|
| * or rather, Apple doesn't _target_ low enough temperatures to
| keep machines healthy beyond warranty
| ezfe wrote:
| I'm not sure why you think it would be worse than a MacBook
| Air which literally has no fan
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Are the new MacBook Airs the ones that have throttling
| issues due to heat?
| tiltowait wrote:
| Do you have any source on this?
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| It might be different post-Intel? I'm too lazy to dig up
| sources for Apple's past lost class action lawsuits, etc.
|
| That Rossman guy, the internet-famous repairman, built his
| youtube channel on videos about Apple's inadequate thermal
| management. They're probably still archived on his channel.
|
| Hell, I haven't owned a Mac post the year 2000 that didn't
| regularly hit temperatures above 90 celsius.
| johnklos wrote:
| Why would you, or anyone, ever compare a line of Intel
| machines with a line of machines that have a vastly
| different architecture and power usage? It'd be like
| comparing Lamborghini's tractors and cars and asking if
| the tractors will scrape on steep driveways because you
| know the cars do.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| On the other hand, it is comparing Apples to Apples.
|
| The Gods didn't deliver specs to Apple for Intel machines
| locking the company to
| placement/grades/design/brands/sizes of chassis, fans,
| logic board, paste etc. Apple, in the Intel years, just
| prioritized small form factor, at the expense of
| longevity.
|
| And Apple's priorities are likely _still_ the same.
|
| My concern is that, given cooler-running chips, Apple
| will decrease form factor until even the cooler-running
| chips overheat. The question, in my mind, is only whether
| the team at Apple who design chips can improve them to a
| point where the chips run _so_ coolly that the rest of
| Apple can 't screw it up (ie: with inadequate thermal
| design).
|
| If that has happened, then... fantastic, that's good for
| consumers.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Does anyone know if this Mac Mini can survive longer than a
| year? Apple 's approach to hardware design doesn't prioritize
| thermal issues._
|
| I've had an M1 Mac Mini inside a hot dresser drawer with a TV
| on top since 2020.
|
| It doesn't do much other than act as a media server. But it's
| jammed pretty tight in there with an eero wifi router, an OTA
| ATSC DVR, a box that records HDMI, a 4K AppleTV, a couple of
| external drives, and a full power strip. That's why it's hot.
|
| So far, no problems. Except for once when I moved, it's been
| completely hands-off. Software updates are done over VNC.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| Here's the geekbench link
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8593555
|
| How/where are they getting 128gb of ram? I don't see that as an
| option for any of the pre-orders pages.
|
| Still pretty impressive, I get 1217/10097 with dual xeon gold
| 6136 that doubles as a space heater in the winter.
| abhinavk wrote:
| Switch to M4 Max 16-core CPU, it will unlock 64 and 128GB
| options for memory.
| xbenjii wrote:
| I'm confused. They're claiming "Apple's M4 Max is the first
| production CPU to pass 4000 Single-Core score in Geekbench 6."
| yet I can see hundreds of other test results for single core
| performance above 4000 in the last 2 years?
| api wrote:
| Could those be overclockers? I often see strange results on
| there that looks like either overclockers or prototypes. Maybe
| they mean this is the fastest general purpose single core you
| can buy that is that fast off the shelf with no tinkering.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Are those production results?
|
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/1962935 says it was
| running at 13.54 GHz.
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/4913899 looks...
| questionable.
| xbenjii wrote:
| Yeah that's fair lol
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7531877 seems fine?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It seems to be a pretty large outlier.
| https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-
| core-i7-13700...
| wtallis wrote:
| 7614 MT/s on the RAM is a pretty large overclock for
| desktop DDR5.
| t-sauer wrote:
| As far as I can tell those are all scroes from overclocked
| CPUs.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7531877 doesn't seem to
| be
| t-sauer wrote:
| That result is completely different from pretty much every
| other 13700k result and it is definitely not reflective of
| how a 13700k performs out of the box.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Geekbench doesn't really give accurate information (or
| enough of it) in the summary report to make that kind of
| conclusion for an individual result. The one bit of
| information it does reliably give, memory frequency, says
| the CPU's memory controller was OC'd to 7600 MT/s from the
| stock 5600 MT/s so it feels safe to say that number with
| 42% more performance than the entry in the processor chart
| also had some other tweaks going on (if not actual
| frequency OCs/static frequency locks then exotic cooling or
| the like). The main processor chart
| https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks which
| will give you a solid idea of where stock CPUs rank - if a
| result has double digit differences from that number assume
| it's not a stock result.
|
| E.g. this is one of the top single core benchmark result
| for any Intel CPU
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/5568973 and it claims
| the maximum frequency was stock as well (actually 300 MHz
| less than thermal velocity boost limits if you count
| those).
| Refusing23 wrote:
| AMDs upcoming flagship desktop CPU (9800 X3D) reaches about
| 3300 points on singlecore (the previous X3D hit 2700ish)
| grecy wrote:
| Are you saying a product that has not been released yet will
| be faster than a product that is?
|
| And that a desktop part is going to outperform a laptop part?
| IshKebab wrote:
| I think he was backing up Apple's claim.
| grahamj wrote:
| So Ultra used to be the max but now Max is max... until Ultra
| goes past the max and Max is no longer the max.
|
| Until the next Max that goes beyond Ultra!
| fnikacevic wrote:
| Can't wait until there's an M4 Ultramax too!
| grahamj wrote:
| Will that me the maximum Ultra or the Ultimate Max?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Until there's an Ultramax+ Pro 2
| Keyframe wrote:
| Personally, I'm waiting for Panamax edition.
| allenrb wrote:
| And these CPUs will be available in... max!
| lancesells wrote:
| Apple has gotten into Windows and PC territory with their
| naming for chips and models. Kind of funny to see the evolution
| of a compact product line and naming convention slowly turn
| into spreadsheet worthy comparison charts.
|
| That all said, I only have an M1 and it's still impressive to
| me.
| piva00 wrote:
| I think they're still keeping it somewhat together, agree it
| got ever more confusing with the introduction of more
| performance tiers but after 3 generations it's been easy to
| keep track of: Mx (base) -> Pro -> Max -> Ultra.
|
| Think it's still quite far away from naming conventions of PC
| territory.
|
| Now I got curious on what naming scheme could be clearer for
| Apple's performance tiers.
| grahamj wrote:
| yeah, as I was jokingly implying the names themselves
| aren't what I would have went with, but overall sticking to
| generation + t-shirt size + 2 bins is about as simple as it
| gets.
| ddingus wrote:
| Same. I have an M1 Air and it is an amazing machine!
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42014791
| hyperjeff wrote:
| Different chips though, and different links. (Also, it'd be
| nice if we stopped linking directly to social media posts and
| instead used an intermediary that didn't require access or
| accounts just to follow discussions here.)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| whoops, Related:
|
| _Mac Mini with M4 Pro is the fastest Mac ever benchmarked_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42014791
| LorenDB wrote:
| How many people does this actually affect? Gamers are better off
| with AMD X3D chips, and most productivity workloads need good
| multicore performance. Obviously MR is great silicon and I don't
| want to downplay that, but I'm not sure that best singlecore
| performance is an overly useful metric for the people who need
| performance.
| smith7018 wrote:
| It affects the millions of people that buy the machine by way
| of longevity.
| Salgat wrote:
| Usually when I see advances, it's less about future proofing
| and more about obsoletion of old hardware. A more exaggerated
| case of this was in the 90s, people would upgrade to a 200
| MHz p1 thinking they were future proofing but in a couple
| years you had 500Mhz P2s.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Based on my limited knowledge. Most applications aren't great
| at using all cores, so single-core performance is really
| important most of the time.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| People who browse the web and want that fastest javascript
| performance they can get.
| nicce wrote:
| Or users of Slack, Spotify, Teams.. you name it. But I don't
| want to make an excuse that Electron-like frameworks should
| be encouraged to be used even more if we have super single
| core computers available.
| nottorp wrote:
| But for a javascript (browser or electron) workload the new
| 16 Gb as the starting ram _still_ isn 't enough :)
| nottorp wrote:
| > Gamers are better off with AMD X3D chips
|
| Yeah but then you'd have to use Windows. I'd rather just play
| whatever games can be emulated and take the performance
| penalty.
|
| It helps that most AAAs put me to sleep...
| layer8 wrote:
| The problem with the M chips is that you have to use macOS
| (or tinker with Asahi two generations behind). They are great
| hardware, but just not an option at all for me for that
| reason.
| LorenDB wrote:
| There's nothing stopping you from using Linux.
| hu3 wrote:
| > Yeah but then you'd have to use Windows.
|
| Why? Linux gaming has been great since Wine.
|
| Even better now with Valve investment.
|
| Surely leagues better than gaming with macOS.
| nottorp wrote:
| Sir, you are not a real gamer(tm) either. Use a puny
| alternative OS and lose 3 fps, Valve support or not?
| Unacceptable!
|
| As for Linux, I abandoned it as the main GUI OS for Macs
| about 10 years ago. I have linux and windows boxes but the
| only ones with displays/keyboards are the macs and it will
| stay that way.
| hu3 wrote:
| I have all 3 OSs each on their own hardware:)
|
| 4 if you count steamdeck.
|
| I do the real gaming, not some subpar emulated crap or
| anemic macOS steam library.
| lomase wrote:
| Mac OS is amazing, using a Mac for games is not a good idea.
| Most AAA, AA, and indie games don't run on Mac.
| jwr wrote:
| Single core performance is what I need as a developer for quick
| compilation or updates of Javascript in the browser, when
| working on a Clojure/ClojureScript app. This affects me _a
| lot_.
| asmvolatile wrote:
| All I want is a top of the line MBP, with all it's performance
| and insane battery life, but running a Linux distro of my choice
| :(
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Agreed, but probably getting a Lenovo Legion will be your best
| bet in the near term.
| _hyn3 wrote:
| I'm driving a 2022 XPS. Lots of people will (and should)
| disagree, but I've completely shifted over from Thinkpads to
| Dell XPS (or Precision) for my laptops.
| whalesalad wrote:
| asahi linux
| p_j_w wrote:
| Doesn't run on M3 or M4 yet.
| grahamj wrote:
| I'm guessing "of my choice" was key there. Though I suppose
| you could use asahi just as a virtualizer.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Anybody got a Speedometer 3.0 result from the M4 Max? It seems
| more relevant to "consumer computing".
| johnklos wrote:
| It has to be at least 50 times the speed of a fast m68030 ;)
| bhouston wrote:
| This confuses me because I thought all of the Mx series chips in
| the same generation ran at the same speed and has the same
| single-core capabilities?
|
| The main thing that caused differential single-core CPU
| performance was just throttling under load for the devices that
| didn't have active cooling, such as the MacBook Air and iPad
| Pros.
|
| Based on this reasoning, the M4, M4 Pro and M4 Max in active
| cooled devices, the MacBook Pro and Mac Mini, should have the
| same single-core performance ratings, no?
| jsheard wrote:
| It might be down to the memory latency, the base M4 uses
| LPDDR5X-7500 while the bigger models use LPDDR5X-8533. I think
| that split is new this generation, and the past gens used the
| same memory across the whole stack.
| bhouston wrote:
| Ah, interesting. I didn't catch that change.
| mattlondon wrote:
| For how long? There are a lot of superlatives ("simply
| incredible" etc) - when some new AMD or Intel CPU beats this
| score, will that be "simply incredible" too?
|
| New chips are slightly faster than previous ones. I am not
| incredulous about this. Were it a 2x or 3x or 4x improvement or
| something, sure. But it ain't - it's incremental. I note how even
| in the Apple marketing they compare it to generations 3 or 4
| chips ago (e.g. comparing increases against i7 performance from
| years ago etc, not against the M3 from a year or so ago because
| then it is "only" 12% - still good, but not "simply incredible"
| in my eyes).
| ssijak wrote:
| Why is so hard for people to understand why apple did that?
|
| They want the people who are still clinging to intel mac to
| convert finally. And as for m1 comparisons, people are not
| changing laptops every year and that is the cohort of m users
| that is the most likely to upgrade. It's smart to do what apple
| did.
| mattlondon wrote:
| I get that argument, but it comes across as hugely
| disingenuous to me especially when couched with so much glitz
| and glamour and showmanship. They're aim is to present these
| things as huge quantum leaps in performance and it's only if
| you look into the details that it's clear that they're not
| and they're fudging the figures to make them look better than
| they are.
|
| "New Car 2025 has a _simply incredible_ top speed 30x greater
| than previous forms of transport!* (* - previous form of
| transport slow walk at 4mph) "
|
| It's marketing bullshit really let's be honest. I don't
| accept that their highly-polished entire marketing spiel and
| song and dance is aimed 100% only at people who have 3 or 4
| generation old Mac already. They're not spending all this
| time and money and effort just to try and get people to
| upgrade. If you believe that, then you are in the distortion
| field.
| philistine wrote:
| Yet you do not propose an alternative theory that makes
| sense.
|
| Our point: Apple is laser-focused on comparing with laptops
| that are 4-5 year old. That's usually when Mac users start
| thinking about upgrading. They're building their marketing
| for them. It causes issues when directly trying to compare
| with the last generation.
|
| Your point: Apple shouldn't be glamorous and a good showman
| when _marketing their products_ because they know the only
| true marketing is comparing directly with your very last
| chip. Any other type of marketing is bullshit.
| mattlondon wrote:
| The alternative theory is they are trumping up the
| numbers in a disingenuous way to make it sound better
| than it is.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| But they're not "trumping" (which makes it sound as if
| they're making it up). They're just looking at
|
| - who is likely to upgrade.
|
| - target advertising at those people.
|
| Seems eminently sensible to me.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| _shrug_ I just upgraded an M1-ultra studio to an M4-Max
| MBP. I 'm not going to splash that much cash every year on
| an upgrade, and I don't think that's uncommon.
|
| Just like the phone comparisons are from more than one year
| ago, the computer comparisons (which are even more
| expensive) make more sense to be from more than one year
| ago. I don't see why you wouldn't target _the exact people_
| you 're trying to get to upgrade...
| r00fus wrote:
| No one in the industry uses Apple's marketing in any real
| sense. The marketing is not for you - its sole purpose is
| to sell more Macs to their target market.
|
| That you are distracted by it is not Apple's problem - and
| most other industry players don't GAF about Apple's self-
| comparisons either.
| dogleash wrote:
| Incremental progress gonna increment.
|
| We're on a perpetual upgrade treadmill. Even if the latest
| increment means an uncharacteristically good performance or
| longevity improvements... I can't bring myself to care.
| dmix wrote:
| > I note how even in the Apple marketing they compare it to
| generations 3 or 4 chips ago
|
| Apple is just marketing to the biggest buyer group (2
| generation upgrades) in their marketing material?
|
| This isn't like iPhones where people buy them every 1-2 years
| (because they break or you lose it etc), laptops have a longer
| shelf life, you usually run to the ground over 2+ yrs and then
| begrudgingly upgrade.
| crazymoka wrote:
| unfortunately I could only afford the M4 Pro model MBP lol
| daft_pink wrote:
| Can't wait for the Mac Studio/Pro to be released.
| silvestrov wrote:
| So what is the role of the Mac Studio now?
|
| It only has:
|
| - faster memory and up to 192 GB.
|
| - 1 ekstra Thunderbolt port.
|
| That is not much for such a large price difference:
|
| Mac Mini (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $2500
|
| Mac Studio (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $5000
| 015a wrote:
| The GPU difference might be material.
|
| But it is obviously a bad time to invest in a Mac Studio.
| fckgw wrote:
| The Mac Studio hasn't been updated yet. The equation changes
| once it's also on the M4 Max and Ultra.
| eastbound wrote:
| Does it? What can it do better than M4 / 128GB...
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Well, judging by the M1 and M2, the M4 Ultra will support
| 256GB of memory, so there's that. And it will have 2x the
| GPU and 2x the CPU cores...
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > Mac Mini (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $2500
|
| > Mac Studio (fastest CPU, 64 GB ram, 1 TB SSD, 10 GbE): $5000
|
| In those configurations, the Studio would have roughly 2x the
| GPU power of the Mini, with equivalent CPU power. It also has
| twice as many Thunderbolt ports (albeit TB4 instead of TB5),
| and can support more monitors.
| bee_rider wrote:
| This is almost certainly a dumb question, but has anybody tried
| using these for scientific computing/HPC type stuff?
|
| I mean no Infiniband of course, but how bad would a cluster of
| these guys using Thunderbolt 5 for networking be? 80Gbps is not
| terrible...
| whalesalad wrote:
| Wild. It absolutely shits on my 13900K -
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7692643?baselin...
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Same, I have a Ryzen 9 7950X and it has 130-140% better
| performance (according to Geekbench)
|
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/8593555?baselin...
|
| Though a MacBook Pro 16" with M4 Max(that's what achieved this
| geekbench score), but the same amount of memory (64GB) and the
| same amount of storage (4TB) as my PC, would cost 6079EUR. That
| is roughly twice as much as my whole PC Build did cost, and I'm
| able to expand Storage and upgrade my CPU and GPU in the future
| (for way less than buying a new Mac in a few years)
| rubslopes wrote:
| I have a M1 MacBook Air that I use for Docker, VSCode, etc. And
| it still runs very smoothly. Interestingly, the only times it
| slows down is when opening Microsoft Excel.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| Excel performance on Mac is a disaster, and I dont understand
| why.
|
| Everytime I paste something it lags for 1-2 seconds... so
| infuriating!!
| Matheus28 wrote:
| Don't worry, it's bad on Windows too
| abhinavk wrote:
| Whenever it's open, system animations are very janky.
| QuiEgo wrote:
| It's so refreshing after the normal "here's today's
| enshitification of this thing you used to love" threads to read
| threads like this.
| hulitu wrote:
| > Apple's M4 Max chip is the fastest single-core performer in
| consumer computing
|
| Single taskink OSs are long gone. Single core performance is
| irrelevant in the world of multitasking/multithreading/
| preemtible threads.
| timbit42 wrote:
| There are lots of apps that only run in a single thread. If you
| want them to run fast, you need fast single-core performance.
| guhidalg wrote:
| If that were true, why isn't my GPU running my UI loop or
| running my JS event-loop?
|
| Single-core performance is still king for UI latency and CPU-
| bound tasks.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| Too bad it's still sluggish for latest tech game dev with engines
| like UE :( It'd be great to ditch the Windows ecosystem, at least
| at dev time.
| miohtama wrote:
| Game performance is often GPU bound, not CPU bound.
| jrockway wrote:
| It depends on the game. If there are a lot of game simulation
| calculations to do for every frame, then you're going to be
| CPU constrained. If it's a storybook that you're walking
| through and every pixel is raytraced using tons of 8000x8000
| texture maps, then it's going to be GPU constrained.
|
| Most games are combinations of the two, and so some people
| are going to be CPU limited and some people are going to be
| GPU limited. For games I play, I'm often CPU limited; I can
| set the graphics to low at 1280 x 720, or ultra at 3840 x
| 2160 and get the same FPS. That's CPU limiting.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > If there are a lot of game simulation calculations
|
| Why not move at least some of that into the GPU as well?
| Lots of different branchy code paths for the in-game
| objects?
| magicalhippo wrote:
| I recently swapped out my AMD 3800X with a 5900X as an
| alternative to a full platform upgrade. I got it mostly for
| non-gaming workloads, however I do enjoy games.
|
| Paired with my aging but still chugging 2080Ti, the max
| framerates in games I play did not significantly increase.
|
| However I did get a significant improvement in
| 99-percentile framerate, and the games feel much smoother.
| YMMV, but it surprised me a bit.
| loaph wrote:
| Do you have a source? My experience is the opposite is often
| true
| miohtama wrote:
| It's called Cyberpunk 2077
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| 1. parent is talking about Unreal Editor, not playing games
|
| 2. yes, different pieces of software have different
| bottlenecks under different configurations... what is the
| point of a comment like this?
| ggernov wrote:
| Can't wait to see if / when they release the m4 ultra.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I bet the Studio and the Pro will have that option. I'm hoping
| the Pro has more versatile PCIe slots as well.
| gigel82 wrote:
| Was this verified independently? Because people can submit all
| sorts of results for Geekbench scores. Look at all these top
| scorers (most of which are obviously fake or overclocked chips):
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/singlecore
| dwayne_dibley wrote:
| How impressed should I be. In terms of Apples history of
| manufacturing chips compared to, say, intel. This is their 4th
| generation of the M chip and it seems to be so far ahead of
| intel, a company with significant bigger history of chip
| production.
| quink wrote:
| They were in the PowerPC consortium starting in 1991, co-
| developed ARM6 starting in the late 80s and the M series chips
| are part of the Apple Silicon family that goes back to at least
| 2010's Apple A4 (with non-Apple branded chips before then).
|
| They've been in the chip designing business for a while.
| comboy wrote:
| > back to at least 2010's Apple A4
|
| basically Jim Keller happened, I think they are still riding
| on that architecture
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-01 23:00 UTC)