mazda 3s
About
- Username
- mazda 3s
- Joined
- Visits
- 137
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 662
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,613
Reactions
-
Apple 'M1X' chip specification prediction appears on benchmark site
xyzzy-xxx said:16 GB maximum memory for a 16" MBP ?
The source link says max 32GB of RAM, with a max of 16GB addressable by the GPU.hattig said:
This is why we know this 'leak' not based on real information.xyzzy-xxx said:16 GB maximum memory for a 16" MBP ?
The M1 had a trade-off to make, because of the integrated GPU being decent. GPUs need memory bandwidth. That meant the M1 had to use LPDDR4X memory, which is faster, but you cannot connect as much (and it's always soldered and non-expandable). You will see that Intel's TigerLake and AMD's Renoir (and Cezanne) will use LPDDR4X as well on the better performing systems (their memory controllers support DDR4 as well), but with limited memory as well (some go up to 32GB I believe, so there's room for Apple to improve).
It's likely the M1X will have to support higher amounts of memory (and not just 32GB, but up to 128GB or more, because of the Pro users), so it will have to use DDR4 or DDR5 (hopefully the latter). This means that the bandwidth will be reduced, and the GPU will need to compromise - either have its own pool of memory (so much for 'unified memory' but a HBM stack could be provided for it) or be less efficient (or have a wider bus, but there are physical limits). There were rumours that the M1X would be paired with a larger discrete Apple GPU, so the integrated GPU could actually be smaller (or a more exotic configuration).
Other rumours suggest 12 large cores and 4 small cores for the CPU side of things... so I think we have a lot to look forward to finding out in the next couple of months, assuming these devices are being released soon.
-
Apple Silicon M1 Macs do not support eGPUs
The 3x measurement is derived from the previous Intel IGPs used in their Macs. It really has nothing to do with the Radeon RX 590 AFAICT. None of the machines announced today -- 13-inch MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac mini -- have used discrete Radeon graphics. They've always used Intel's IGP, which is crap. So for Apple to claim that the GPU in M1 is 5x faster or 6x faster only shows how crap Intel's integrated graphics PREVIOUSLY was. It's a bit faster than the 12th generation Iris Xe found in Tiger Lake, which seems like a fair mark, but nothing earth shattering.Mike Wuerthele said:
Apple likes to make this simple, to our detriment sometimes. TFLOP is a weird measure, and you need to be sure that you're comparing like with like half, single, double-precision, and we have no idea what that was based on.mazda 3s said:
Huh? Apple said the onboard GPU in M1 is good for 2.6 TFLOPs. Intel Iris Xe in Tiger Lake is 2.1 TFLOPs. Radeon RX 590 is 7.1 TFLOPsMike Wuerthele said:
Given the (limited) data that we have now for performance, the integrated GPU in Apple Silicon with eight GPU cores is about the same as a RX 590.curtis hannah said:
Well one of the main concerns was for most MacBooks, anything close to high end AMD GPUs wasn’t an option, we’ll just have to see how these perform to see if an eGPU option is really necessary (again, most pro users would save the eGPUs for the MacBook Pro or iMac or something that’s not today’s introduced Macs, so it’s a low bar).22july2013 said:Maybe it was just an embarrassment to Apple to support external GPUs that had slower speeds than their internal one.
The 590 comparison is derived from other measures that they've used like "three times faster" and the like for other machines. We'll all see together.
And Apple's 2.6 TFLOP figure is FP32, just liked the other quoted figures. A Radeon Vega 8 in a Ryzen 4800U APU is around 1.8 TFLOPs.
-
Apple Silicon M1 Macs do not support eGPUs
Huh? Apple said the onboard GPU in M1 is good for 2.6 TFLOPs. Intel Iris Xe in Tiger Lake is 2.1 TFLOPs. Radeon RX 590 is 7.1 TFLOPsMike Wuerthele said:
Given the (limited) data that we have now for performance, the integrated GPU in Apple Silicon with eight GPU cores is about the same as a RX 590.curtis hannah said:
Well one of the main concerns was for most MacBooks, anything close to high end AMD GPUs wasn’t an option, we’ll just have to see how these perform to see if an eGPU option is really necessary (again, most pro users would save the eGPUs for the MacBook Pro or iMac or something that’s not today’s introduced Macs, so it’s a low bar).22july2013 said:Maybe it was just an embarrassment to Apple to support external GPUs that had slower speeds than their internal one.
-
MagSafe charging limited to 12W on the iPhone 12 mini
18W max with a USB-C PD charger IIRC.entropys said:How fast via the lightning port? -
MagSafe 15W fast charging reportedly restricted to Apple 20W adapter
Once I get my iPhone 12 mini (128GB), I'm not upgrading for at least two years. I'll have 5G, and I'll have my small form-factor. By then, maybe all of this BS will be straightened out.tshapi said:
It’s only a matter of time before Apple discontinued the lightning cable and we only have the option of wireless chargingmazda 3s said:I’ll stick with Lightning, thank you. Faster charging along with cheaper, longer cables available with less finicky restrictions about power output. And I still have a problem with calling it “wireless” when you have a big, metal pod attached to the back of your phone, plugged into the wall.To each his own. I’ll stick with my 18W Apple USB-C wall charger and 10-foot USB-C to lightning cable at my bedside.
Bingo!GeorgeBMac said:While that is likely true, don't forget that the lightening cable is mostly there for connecting to other devices -- like CarPlay and stereo equipment, not just for charging. All of those connected devices would, in some way, need to be upgraded to wireless if Apple abandons the port in favor of wireless charging.
