Apple Silicon Mac Announcement - Slow Motion Dumpster Fire

[Uttamattamakin]

6 hours ago, Luscious said:

Now imagine the shock/horror when Apple places TWO M1 chips in the bigger 16 inch laptop and FOUR go into their cheese grater LOL

 

Because... you know... Apple. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Intel may be beat by AMD on the desktop ATM but they still make decent mobile SKU's. And Apple sure as hell won't have anything to compete with a 64-core Threadripper or overclocked W3175X as far as performance is concerned.

 

No, this new silicon paired with the NEW OS needed to run on it just screams MORE CONTROL by Apple and LESS OPTIONS for the end user. Never mind giving x86 software the finger. Their "ecosystem" is basically a walled garden, except if you look past the greenery, is showing more of the traits of a maximum security prison. Hardly the pleasant experience one would expect.

 

No thanks!

PRECISELY! 

 

Because historically that is Apples basic instinct.  Under jobs he made sure to remind people that Apple Computers were just easy to user Personal Computers.  So the Macs made during his time were somewhat user serviceable and upgradeable.    Under anyone but jobs they always tend towards being different for the sake of being different and then end up sucking.  

[petor123]

terrible title cmon, just plays into the 13 year old apple haters on pcmr

[Guest]

This was a bad video. Feels like it was just made for click bait and to get the Apple clicks in. 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Long life ultrabook is the perfect use case for an ARM core. Those devices need to do little more than browse the internet and execute office applications.

With dedicated accelerators for encoding and decoding video they can also do some light editing on the go, and may run natively some smartphone and tablet games as time wasters. Given the small screens, you can't do those jobs very efficiently, but the point of an ultrabook is to be able to do stuffs on the field or during commute, when you don't have access to a workstation so I think Apple released very good products here!

 

The 1650 leaked geekbench 5 score seems bogous to be honest. ARM instructions are so much weaker than X86 instructions. ARM cores are lower power because they don't do all the fancy stuff an Intel or AMD core can do to keep the execution units fed. Their decoders and graduation queues have become ungodly complex to handle the stupidly complicated X86 instruction set. The M1 processor would require a 3X to 5X IPC of a Zen 3 to achieve performance parity at equal clock. Streaming this many instructions would require an ungodly instruction bandwidth. The instruction bandwidth hold back all RISC architectures for general purpose compute.

 

A smarter idea is to use the small weak ARM general cores for general instructions and couple them with super specialized accelerators for specific tasks. There are supercomputers that use this approach and this works great because you use few transistors for 'housekeeping' like OS and dedicate all transistors to your specialized execution units. The problem is that this approach is terrible for general purpose compute.

 

The M1 achieves its efficiency by using small weak general purpose cores and by using dedicated accelerators and highly optimized software that can take advantage of those accelerator. For non highly optimized software, the M1 is never ever going to fight back on par with an X86. Apple blessed applications would run great, maybe even exceed their X86 versions thanks to the tailored accelerators. Every non highly optimized application will run in slow motion.

 

I can't say I'm a fan of this approach for a personal computer, which is supposed to be a device that can do everything. It relies heavily on your required application being optimized heavily for the device you are using. Most CADs I use are barely optimized for X86 begin with and have memory leaks that require restart... Developers focus more on the end goal and tell you to buy a workstation if you want to run their software smoothly.

[Orange1]

7 hours ago, petor123 said:

terrible title cmon, just plays into the 13 year old apple haters on pcmr

What else would you expect from czar Linus?

[Video Beagle]

20 hours ago, mekintos said:

aye, many people here see the footnotes lol, as nobody on YT talked about footnotes on Apple website that stated the baseline test for the M1 benchmark is a full-spec MacBook Air i7 CTO model.

 

FWIW, Snazzy Labs did cover the footnotes (while wearing a LTT hoodie)

 

18 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The truth.  Apple does  not get to redefine basic terms of computing. 

 

Hate to break this to you, Apple's been doing that since the 1970's.

 

7 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Because historically that is Apples basic instinct.  Under jobs he made sure to remind people that Apple Computers were just easy to user Personal Computers.  So the Macs made during his time were somewhat user serviceable and upgradeable.    Under anyone but jobs they always tend towards being different for the sake of being different and then end up sucking.  

Yes, notable control freak Steve Jobs was all about other people messing with his hardware and software.  That must be why he killed the Mac Clone programs the second he was back at the company, because he was all about user options.  And yeah, I'm sure he'd be against the way his hand picked, hand groomed successor has taken Apple.

 

 

4 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

This was a bad video. Feels like it was just made for click bait and to get the Apple clicks in. 

 

It was surprisingly not as bad as I assumed it would be, which i attribute to @GabenJr being the writer, but it's a shame this, and the new techlinked, are SO leaning into the "say something bad about Apple in the title and people will watch us" cliche.  There are times Linus just comes across as so thirsty for Apple's attention in any way, it's depressing.

[MartinTheActor]

 

15 hours ago, Spindel said:

Why do you need info on clock speeds when you in the next sentance ask for real world performance? 
 

As it was back in the day when I built my computer with an Athlon XP 2500+ clock speed says nothing about real world performance when comparing different CPU brands. And in this case it means even less since we are comparing different architectures. 
 

And why is it bad that Apple compares performance with their own old systems? Info about the performance of their old systems is plentiful whitch means we actually get an idea about how the M1 will perform. And actually if you read the comparisons at least some of them lists actual real world workloads. 

It's a fair point. Personally, I still can't shake the idea that Apple are hiding information that they just don't need to hide. It just seems odd. I guess I just expect to see clock speed next to a processor. If I go to a shop here in the UK even android tablets and phones have processor clock speeds quoted on the displays. So, perfectly true it could be a bias of mine that in expecting to see that data I feel they're hiding something.

Also nothing wrong with comparing to their old systems. Seems perfectly fine and proper. I do take issue with the smoke and mirrors when it comes to 'best performing notebook processor'. You could define that and limit that in so many ways it's not even funny. With Apple being so anti-consumer, I can't help but assume shenanigans on that count.

As to their testing, that isn't even close to useful data. A graphic that looks like a graph but that has metrics and numeration removed is useless. Put that in a business or academic presentation and I'd expect to see the presentation be a failure. Yet, we accept this nonsense from marketing? Even so, my point was more about what Apple are hiding or obfuscating than anything else. 

[Spindel]

5 minutes ago, MartinTheActor said:

 

As to their testing, that isn't even close to useful data. A graphic that looks like a graph but that has metrics and numeration removed is useless. Put that in a business or academic presentation and I'd expect to see the presentation be a failure. Yet, we accept this nonsense from marketing? Even so, my point was more about what Apple are hiding or obfuscating than anything else. 

I was more referring to the footnotes listed in this post: 

 

[kting15]

11 hours ago, MartinTheActor said:

 

It's a fair point. Personally, I still can't shake the idea that Apple are hiding information that they just don't need to hide. It just seems odd. I guess I just expect to see clock speed next to a processor. If I go to a shop here in the UK even android tablets and phones have processor clock speeds quoted on the displays. So, perfectly true it could be a bias of mine that in expecting to see that data I feel they're hiding something.
 

I mean, you mention clockspeeds but to be honest, that's mostly just marketing too. The higher the number the better right? I mean right now Intel has the higher and more impressive looking clockspeed of 5+ GHz but AMD's boost clocks are stuck at 4.9 GHz, but because of AMD's IPC gains, they have the faster single and multicore performance when comparing similarly positioned chips, but now you look at the M1 chip and at that point you're comparing it to not just a different architecture like Zen 3 vs Rocketlake, but it is also x86 vs ARM and at that point, the clockspeed isn't really even relevant and benchmark numbers are what matter. Either way, the Intel i7 1060NG7 that could be specced in the Macbook Air had a base clock of 1.2 GHz and 3.8 GHz boost, which it almost never sees, but according to leaked GB results, the AS M1's base clock might be 3.2 GHz.

 

 

By the way, nothing against your sentiment. I get it. I wish Apple was more transparent with these things and actually tells us basic stuff rather than hiding it within paragraphs of footnotes or making people use software to dig for information. It really shouldn't be that hard.

[captain_to_fire]

22 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

This was a bad video. Feels like it was just made for click bait and to get the Apple clicks in. 

Linus Tech Tips is a clickbait <removed by Forum Staff> when they're reviewing Apple products. There, I said it.

Edited November 13, 2020 by SansVarnic
Removed inappropriate content.

[X-System]

No subtitle So I skip this video...

[molszanski]

> Personally, I still can't shake the idea that Apple are hiding information that they just don't need to hide.

> I mean, you mention clockspeeds but to be honest, that's mostly just marketing too. 

 

Providing clockspeeds is a misleading. There are some narrow use cases but mostly misleading. Narrow cases include same vendor same gen comparison, overclocking comparison etc., But they don't help if you hold two boxes side by side. 

 

And I am glad they are not playing into that tune. 

 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

Linus hit the  nail on the head on the WAN show.  Apples chip is not directly comparable to a X86 processor in a true general purpose PC.  

Not that an ARM chip can't be made to be mostly a general purpose computing platform.  That certainly is a thing.   This chip from Apple is emblematic of what lots of us knew would be wrong and very not "Personal Computer" like of these devices.  The CPU and GPU being on a chip is one thing.  The CPU GPU and RAM being on the chip with no way to upgrade or repair anything is another.  Plus there are fixed function hardware blocks for the things Apple thinks you need.  Which will certainly funnel users deeper into Apples ecosystem.  

Need something not in the ecosystem well  good luck.  

 

Like he said. For people who want to do general purpose computing work and who must use MacOS it would be wise to buy a Mac... then also get another for spare parts or something.    Better yet maybe folks should take a serious look at Linux.  IF the user base goes there the software will follow. 

[tbaymyhome]

On 11/11/2020 at 2:33 AM, GabenJr said:

Apple claims their new M1 processor is powerful enough for their new MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac Mini – But if you’re an Apple fan, should you be excited - Or very, very worried?

 

 

Apple Created M1 chip. Why and reason?

Sound like avoid thick wallet in the wallet.

 

Thinner hardware Apple want many wires into neat M1 inside like CPU with gold pins for wire connects data cycle motherboard.

 

Apply do always talk about design like candy look so good to stay profits for Cloud Server Upgrades and supplement.

 

For PC guy we pay Cloud for microsoft produces.

For Apple Guy we pay experience Apple produces.

 

It's a simple.

On 11/11/2020 at 2:33 AM, GabenJr said:

Apple claims their new M1 processor is powerful enough for their new MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac Mini – But if you’re an Apple fan, should you be excited - Or very, very worried?