DuhSesame

About

Username
DuhSesame
Joined
Visits
117
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,260
Badges
1
Posts
1,278
  • Google's self-repair program for Pixel launches, Apple's program is nowhere to be seen

    I think it’s safe to say that Apple has terrible PR.  They don’t want to communicate for the most time.
    lkruppronnelijahgneoncatdarkvaderwatto_cobraindieshackgrandact73
  • Apple may not use mechanical switches in a future MacBook keyboard at all

    Reminds me of those optical switches used in some keyboards, this concept may be possible to go mass-production.


    https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.wooting.nl%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F02%2Fflaretechillustration.jpg&f=1
    Eric_WVGGcornchipdysamoria
  • Intel's Alder Lake chips are very powerful, and that's good for the entire industry

    This is gotta be fun.  I should throw some more facts to add some fuel /s

    1. The M1 Max by cinebench r23 is about 30% slower to 12700H;
    2. M2 by report only offer a modest performer boost.
    3. The 2-die Max Duo, supposedly used by the iMac Pro, is estimated to be ~26000, by comparison, the 12900K offers ~27000.

    The only advantage for Apple Silicon on paper seems to just be the power efficiency.  According to Anandtech, M1 uses roughly 17 watts when running cb23, slightly lower to the 20-24 watt maximum.

    Have fun, and remember, Think Different /s.
    elijahg9secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Mac Studio may never get updated, because new Mac Pro is coming

    Better wait and see what the Mac Pro looks like.  Also, I don’t expect a 4-die version, and the M2-series is pretty lame in performance.

    I’m betting all for the M3, though I was concerned that Apple might give up the performance on Macs.  I hope not.
    williamlondonlkrupp
  • Jony Ive is no longer consulting for Apple

    Just your daily golden comment from Goldvador.  I guess Apple make money for 15+ years by building junks.
    9secondkox2sconosciutoJapheyradarthekatroundaboutnow
  • Apple upgrades 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro with M2 Pro, M2 Max

    In Steam's own hardware survey, 92% of people are using CPUs with 8 or fewer cores, meaning most people are using Ryzen 7s. We can safely say that M2 Max will be more powerful than 92% of personal computers.

    However, 8-core is only considered as mid-tiers.

    Meanwhile, the best-selling chip from Intel is the Core i5, which is at least 10-core.
    jas99CluntBaby92watto_cobra
  • Why Apple uses integrated memory in Apple Silicon -- and why it's both good and bad

    mfryd said:
    melgross said:
    Ok, so the writer gets it wrong, as so many others have when it comes to the M series RAM packaging. One would think that’s this simple thing would be well understood by now. So let me make it very clear - the RAM is NOT on the chip. It is NOT “in the CPU itself”. As we should all know by now, it’s in two packages soldered to the substrate, which is the small board the the SoC is itself soldered to. The lines from Apple’s fabric, which everything on the chip is connected with, extend to that substrate, to the RAM chips. Therefore, the RAM chips are separate from the SoC, and certainly not in the CPU itself. As we also know, Apple offers several different levels of RAM for each M series they sell. That means that there is no limit to their ability to decide how much RAM they can offer, up to the number of memory lines that can be brought out. This is no different from any traditional computer. Every CPU and memory controller has a limit as to how much RAM can be used. So, it seems to me that Apple could, if it wanted to, have sockets for those RAM packages, which add no latency, and would allow exchangeable RAM packages. Apple would just have to extend the maximum number of memory lines out to the socket. How many would get used would depend on the amount of RAM in the package. That’s nothing new. That’s how it’s done. Yes, under that scheme you would have to remove a smaller RAM package when getting a larger one, but that's also normal. The iMac had limited RAM slots and we used to do that all the time. Apple could also add an extra two sockets, in addition to the RAM that comes with the machine. So possibly there would be two packages soldered to the substrate, and two more sockets for RAM expansion. Remember that Apple sometimes does something a specific way, not because that’s the way it has to be done, but because they decided that this was the way they were going to do it. We don’t know where Apple is going with this in the future. It’s possible that the M2, which is really just a bump from the M1, is something to fill in the time while we’re waiting for the M3, which with the 3nm process it’s being built on, is expected to be more than just another bump in performance. Perhaps an extended RAM capability is part of that.
    Actually, moving the memory further away from the CPU does add latency.  Every foot of wire adds about a nanosecond of delay.

    Then there is the issue of how many wires you run.  When the memory is physically close to the CPU you can run more wires from the memory to the CPU, this allows you to get data to/from the CPU faster.   It's not practical to run a large number of wires to a socket that might be a foot or more of cable run away.  That means you transfer less data in each clock cycle.

    Generally socketed memory is on an external bus.  This lets various peripherals directly access memory.  The bus arbitration also adds overhead.


    Traditional CPUs try to overcome these memory bottlenecks by using multiple levels of cache.  This can provide a memory bandwidth performance boost for chunks of recently accessed memory.  However, tasks that use more memory than will fit in the cache, may not benefit from these techniques.

    Apples "System on a Chip" design really does allow much higher memory bandwidth.   Socketing the memory really would reduce performance.
    The real catch is that Apple’s CPU are really good at memory-intensive workloads, thus there’s a need for a high bandwidth design.

    read Anandtech’s article if anyone is interested.  The gcc performance of the M1 Max is comparable (not surpass, close) to the 12900K, and that’s 6 cores less.

    oh and of course, Apple is designing their chip with a strict thermal limit (no higher than 5W per core), whereas the 12900K is pretty much at its peak.

    I’d give up RAM sticks just for that performance.  If I want a module, I’ll build a PC.
    williamlondonbaconstangAlex1NFileMakerFellerkillroywatto_cobra
  • Why Apple uses integrated memory in Apple Silicon -- and why it's both good and bad

    The thing is, people are used to memory modules that they start to think it’s the only way.

    That’s far from the truth, and especially not when a soldered, proprietary system is required to give a huge performance boost.

    The biggest strength from wintel is they’re standardized, but for every standard, they’re limiting themselves.  Intel does want something like Apple’s UMA, but imagine building a PC like that.  No customer will be happy.
    jony0Alex1NFileMakerFellerkillroywatto_cobra
  • Apple 'M1X' chip specification prediction appears on benchmark site

    cloudguy said:
    saarek said:
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    With all due respect why do you believe that this is even possible? As I have stated numerous times, the idea that ARM is inherently superior to x86 was wishful thinking. If it were true, ARM would have more than 3% of the server market. As I have also stated, most of the benchmarking was skewed: it only compared the M1 to the Intel chips that it replaced in macOS devices. Those were mostly 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips. They were also outdated chips: 9th and 10th gen. There were already 11th gen Intel chips on the market when the M1 Macs were introduced.

     Yet all the M1 crushes Intel who is now doomed! "benchmarks" ignored them just as they ignored how comparing 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips to a chip with 4 performance + 4 efficiency cores never made any sense. They just took Apple's claim - unsubstantiated by any data - that the M1 was faster than "80% of Windows PCs" and ran with it. Also, 4Q this year we are going to see 10nm big.LITTLE chips from Intel followed by 5nm Zen 4 chips - Athlon architecture, not big.LITTLE - chips from AMD. Intel hasn't started hyping their 12th gen chips yet, but AMD is claiming that their Zen 4 chips will have up to 40% performance gains over their current chips. 

    Thinking that Apple was going to dominate Intel and AMD in PCs the way they dominate Qualcomm and Samsung in mobile never made any sense. Especially if it was based on the superiority of ARM because Qualcomm and Samsung make ARM chips too. Apple versus Qualcomm was "ARM CPU with laptop performance versus ARM CPU with embedded appliance performance." Fine. Apple versus Intel and AMD: ARM CPU with laptop performance versus x86 CPUs that power 97% of the world's servers. A totally different ballgame.
    Having a 40-ish watt "mobile" chips losing to a merely 24-watt "never made any sense" but it happens.

    8+4 @ 3.2GHz is still pretty low for what it is, don't tell me that this is where they'll stop.  You'd be as ignorant as Intel to believe that.
    tmayGG1techconcwatto_cobra
  • AMD trying to take on Apple Silicon with Ryzen 7040

    Well, duh, the M1 Pro is one year old, of course the latest and the greatest will be better in some ways.
    They don’t make a PowerPoint just to shame Apple…
    JaiOh81killroywatto_cobra