anonconformist

Perhaps (maybe, being charitable) previous iPad processors/SoCs didn’t have aa efficient DMA to accelerate it, or as many DMA channels.  But to say they couldn’t do swapping more advanced than the on-demand paging used for memory-mapped files (which is also how executable files are loaded into a process) is BS.  From the first iPad, the processors have been more than capable of a full VM implementation.

That being said, as soon as you start swapping, the speed of the CPU computations will be in fits and starts as it stalls while waiting for new data and/or instructions to process, and the CPU speed means nothing while stalled.  There is no magic required, any processor with paging hardware and interrupts can readily support virtual memory.

lkrupp said:

crowley said:

lkrupp said:

flydog said:

keithw said:

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to spend the extra $1k for 64 GPU cores instead of 48.  I tend to keep machines for at least 5 years (or more,) and want to "future proof" as much as possible up front. Sure, I know there will probably be an M2 "Ultra" or M3 or M4 or M5 in the next 5 years, but the "studio" is the Mac I've always wanted.  My current 2017 iMac Pro was a compromise since the only thing available at the time was the "trashcan" Mac, and it was obsolete by then.  This thing is 2-1/2 times faster than my iMac Pro in multi-core CPU tests. Howerver, it's significantly slower in GPU performance then my AMD RX 6900 XT eGPU.

An Ultra is complete waste of money, as is adding cores.  Xcode does not use the extra cores, nor does anything made by Adobe, Blender, or even Final Cut Pro.  None of those apps are significantly faster on an Ultra vs Max (or even the most recent 27" iMac). Games may see a large improvement, but even the fastest Ultra is not a gaming PC replacement (nor is it intended to be).

In real world use, my Ultra is actually slower than my old iMac in some tasks, and the actual difference in performance across the average app is more like 15-20% (not the 300-400% that the benchmarks suggest).  Xcode builts are 30% faster, and exporting a 5 minute 4k video via Final Cut Pro is about 10% faster.  Anything that uses single core (safari, word, excel) will not be any faster than a Mac Mini.  On an average workday, that $4,000 Ultra saves maybe 3 minutes.  

Most people will do just fine with a Mac mini. 

And you don’t think the developers you mention won’t soon optimize their code to take advantage of the M1 Ultra cores and GPUs? Really? This was a topic on today’s MacBreak Weekly podcast. None of the benchmark software has been optimized yet either. Wait a couple of months and your might change your tune. 

Multi core CPUs and GPUs are not a new thing. If developers haven’t managed to utilise them before what makes you think they’re going to be able to now?  Parallel processing isn’t just something you can switch on in any given app.

So what’s your point? That the M1 Ultra’s potential will never be fully realized? That the M1 Ultra is a flop that will never live up to its promise? Apple should just admit the M1Ultra is a failed attempt, stop production and go back to Intel? All hail Nvidia?

Apple can add more GPU cores within reason related to how big they can make their chips and their packages, so that scales pretty well, for GPU-based processing, which tends to be reasonably described as “embarrassingly-parallel” in nature.  That’s the easy type of thing to make faster.

There are very few types of tasks you can do with regular CPUs that scales well, if at all, by throwing more cores at it: most applications aren’t possible to implement in a parallel-processing manner that can make use of more than one core: this is where faster single cores and fewer of them are far more valuable for the majority of tasks and users.  The sorts of uses for so many cores is amenable to server-level tasks more than all but a tiny few specialized client-level tasks.  As such, the M1 Ultra SoC absolutely will not be very effectively usable for a regular desktop machine for easily 99% of regular desktop users and their use-cases, as at a minimum, they’d not have a way to do much of anything to get to even 90% CPU usage in a useful manner.

For the record, that’s also true for the M1 Max as well.

MacPro said:

Talking of Apple and Pro Macs... It amazes me that macOS itself hasn't had its RAW capability updated to read Sony A7IV RAW files yet. I installed a new dev Beta 12.3 yesterday in a VM, and it can't read them yet either. LUCKILY, Adobe RAW and Capture One programmers were on the ball, and both can read the files.

If all you want out of the OS is an appliance that supports everything out of the box it could do, provided for you, you might even have a valid complaint.

Apple (like any OS design worth bothering with for such things) has implemented the OS as a platform with a certain more than reasonable amount of basic functionality, and it supports extension of that functionality by design, because it is, in fact, a platform designed to be extensible.  This is NOT unique to MacOS.  This also makes sure there are opportunities for third-party developers and advancements made by everyone in all the realms it is intended to be used.

Vendors that create codec implementations may choose to either make that available to all other applications that use the OS-provided Core Media and other frameworks, or keep that functionality only available within the context of their specific applications.  This is by design both for how the OS works as well as the third-party applications.

MacOS (and every OS I’ve used, which is quite a few throughout time and space) is NOT meant to provide all functionality you could ever want out of the box, by design: that’d invariably be derided as being “bloat” and anti-competitive.  It also has the nature, historically, of greatly limiting sales of machines where only the original seller determines what is released: ask about the TI 99/4 series computers and how well THAT worked out, where they removed all chances of a sane third-party ecosystem, as one example of what should have been a general-purpose computer.

All those high-end codecs cost money to license.  Most codecs cost money to license.  Most users don’t need to pay for the privilege of using pro-level codecs.  If you wait long enough, perhaps those pro-level codecs will be cheap or free to license, likely once something “better” comes along.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

And if you need to expand your internal fast SSD storage after you buy your Mac Studio, what then? How does that compare to the Mac Pro?

Unless you have too many TB4 ports used up for displays, remember they’re good for 40 Gb/s EACH.
Even assuming 10 bits per byte due to overhead, that’s still 4 GB/s, admittedly not as fast as built-in is advertised as, but you have more than one port, too, so if top SSD/storage speed is the focus, you can do that with RAID.