Last Active
  • Apple's claims about M1 Mac speed 'shocking,' but 'extremely plausible'

    h4y3s said:
    Don’t overlook the unified memory architecture that Apple can deploy, (as they own the whole stack) this will save 2x on a lot of common functions! 
    How so?
    2 ways - Firstly, it's a much wider and deeper memory bus due to not have to following the narrow ISA interface constraints. Secondly, it is clear that Apple has some "magic" in it's chips with regards to memory.  Anandtech thinks it's some sort of really smart pre-fetch, but the reality is that memory intensive benchmarks (429.mcf and 471.omnetpp) on Apple's existing (mobile) chips show huge performance advantage against other Arm chips when using the same LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 memory.  

    The same is true (same or better scores) when benchmarked against "desktop" processors *Ryzen 5950X, and Intel 1185G7.  Note this testing is for the mobile A14 part, the M1 is a different beast, particularly with regards to its wattage.  The A14 mobile part has a device power consumption of 5W, whereas the Intel 1185G7 is over 20w, and the Ryzen 5 almost 50w.  The launch graphic that Apple showed with the M1, had a peak wattage of around 18 watts.

  • Compared: New Apple Silicon Mac mini versus Intel Mac Mini

    k2kw said:
    beeble42 said:
    I'd like to see actual benchmark results, especially for graphics performance, including against a mac mini with an egpu with a reasonable card in it, like a vega64 or something. Saying the integrated graphics are 6 times faster than the previous intel one is fine, but that isn't a particularly high bar when you're removing any option of more powerful gpu technology which the previous one had. The new integrated gpu is competing (from a performance perspective) against the fastest gpu you could get in an egpu box that was supported by the previous model. I doubt the new model is actually faster than that, but it may well be fast enough to beat a moderate egpu setup, and without the expense, meaning a win for Apple. Or maybe it isn't and people will wait longer to upgrade until performance catches up to what they're leaving behind. Or switch platforms.
    Without the eGPU support this feels unfinished.   More like 0.8 version.   And why can’t they have 32 or 64 GB RAM .   Step backwards.   Are they trying for it to be no so successful.
    You're overthinking it.  And you are stuck with your ISA glasses on.  Unified memory is just a buzzword, but what it actually means is the the memory interface is not nearly as constrained as with the ISA, both in width and depth.  Ditto the GPU.

    This is a deeply impressive piece of silicon. Granted it's an 8th-generation design (since the 64 bit Cyclone), but the Firestorm microarchitecture is extremely impressive compared to those of AMD and Intel.  A few examples:
    1) 8-wide decode block (2x AMD, Intel a 1-4); 
    2) 192KB L1 cache (6x Intel , 3x AMD), with a 3-cycle latency (Intel 5-cycle, AMD, 4-cycle);
    3) Re-order Buffer; 600+ instructions (!!!) = Intel Sunny Cove 320, AMD Zen 3 - 256;
    4) 4x FADDs and 4x FMULs per cycle with 3 and 4 cycles latency. 4x Intel, 2x Zen 3.

    There is a bunch of other stuff that the tech sites are unpicking, but as I said, Apple would not BS the numbers, as they have WAY too much to lose.  I expect that you will find the opposite in actual fact, that the chip performers better than expected.  Yes, really.

    Note to the author of the article, you need to make clear that the M1 chip is NOT the same in the MBA as the Mini.  The use of the fan in the MBP and Mini speaks to a different implementation philosophy so you would expect that the M1 is engineered in the MBP and Mini to have higher wattage, 
    which means that the performance will be better on the cooled platforms.