Apple ARM is superior?

[svmlegacy]

1 hour ago, Ashley xD said:

but it's lightyears ahead of competing ARM designs... 

No. It's just an ARM chip designed for a different purpose

[Roswell]

8 hours ago, igormp said:

Take a look at the replies to the thread, many people have gone over 5TB usage in less than 2 months.

Also, it's not due to the "establishment of the swap file", since at boot it usually starts at 1gb and increases dynamically as needed.

He is a dev working on asahi linux, a linux port to the M1, so that machine is meant to be just a test bed for his patches.

 

That has nothing to do with the amount of boots. Here's another proper example:

 

For comparison, here's the 2 month old NVMes in my desktop, where I heavily use Docker, an Android VM, and do tons of data processing:

 

Have a look at the above 

Did you read the tweet you posted though? He says 600GB. You say 1GB established swap at boot.

 

...he’s cold booted 256 times. That accounts for almost half of the writes he’s complaining about.

 

I will again reiterate that macOS and root processes will wonkily report some memory writes and weirdness with disk indexing as disk writes.

 

The above is even further compounded by a lack of SMART support on Apple SSDs, so there’s no way to know what’s actually happening unless you open terminal and look at I/O live.

[igormp]

1 hour ago, Vitamanic said:

Did you read the tweet you posted though? He says 600GB.

The one I posted is the answer to that lol The embed here somehow doesn't "focus" on it.

 

Also, his is only 600gb because he barely boots into MacOS since he is building a linux port for the M1, so your point is kinda moot.

 

2 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

I will again reiterate that macOS and root processes will wonkily report some memory writes and weirdness with disk indexing as disk writes.

 

The above is even further compounded by a lack of SMART support on Apple SSDs, so there’s no way to know what’s actually happening unless you open terminal and look at I/O live.

Well, that's still a bug nonetheless, and is worrying many costumers.

[saltycaramel]

How does it feel to go back to Intel after months of M1

 

 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

17 hours ago, svmlegacy said:

No. It's just an ARM chip designed for a different purpose

why then is it like 3 to 4 times faster than Microsoft's Surface with ARM?

[saltycaramel]

I guess every other ARM attempt in the laptop/desktop PC form factor was built with the purpose of being slow, whereas Apple Silicon was conceived with the purpose of being fast

[svmlegacy]

2 hours ago, Ashley xD said:

why then is it like 3 to 4 times faster than Microsoft's Surface with ARM?

That's the difference between an off-the-shelf tablet processor and a completely unoptimized platflorm, and purpose built silicon + fine tuning of an OS and interpreter. 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

58 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

That's the difference between an off-the-shelf tablet processor and a completely unoptimized platflorm, and purpose built silicon + fine tuning of an OS and interpreter. 

so it's not "just an arm chip" it's clearly superior to the competition... 

[Spindel]

6 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

How does it feel to go back to Intel after months of M1

 

 

I've always felt that Windows machines felt like slogs compared to MacOS, and I feel like intel macs feels like slogs compared to my M1 Mac. 

 

I'm not talking about benchmark numbers, just overall responsiveness of the system when working on it. 

 

I've said this in many threads regarding the M1 equipped machines, you can't describe the "snappiness" of the system and all benchmarks miss this. It's a workflow thing. 

 

Regarding Linux it's harder to compare and it is a long time since I hade a linux main machine (other than single purpose systems like my router, NAS etc). But from what I remember when I last ran Linux (before I switched to Mac) it didn't have the sloggines of Windows. 

[Roswell]

18 hours ago, igormp said:

The one I posted is the answer to that lol The embed here somehow doesn't "focus" on it.

 

Also, his is only 600gb because he barely boots into MacOS since he is building a linux port for the M1, so your point is kinda moot.

 

Well, that's still a bug nonetheless, and is worrying many costumers.

The drive data isn't exclusive to the OS install. It tracks across installations, including whatever Linux installation he's testing.

 

Again, cold booting 256 times establishing swap (and apparently installing and reinstalling Linux over and over) and seeing 600GB of written data is absolutely expected. Are other people having issues? Sure? I haven't really looked at the situation. But this specific guy you're quoting is definitely not an example of the issue you're describing

[igormp]

17 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

The drive data isn't exclusive to the OS install. It tracks across installations, including whatever Linux installation he's testing.

Sure, I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said.

 

17 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Again, cold booting 256 times establishing swap (and apparently installing and reinstalling Linux over and over)

He is not really reinstalling linux though. Also, there's no need to re-establish the swap everytime you boot, it only has to be created once (with that 1gb I mentioned) and then you can dynamically adjust it from there.

 

18 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

seeing 600GB of written data is absolutely expected.

Not really, but one could argue that it isn't that bad either.

 

19 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Are other people having issues? Sure? I haven't really looked at the situation. But this specific guy you're quoting is definitely not an example of the issue you're describing

That's the point, I told you to look into the answers where there are people with over 10tb written in 2 months.

 

Anyway, as pointed by others, there's a proper thread for that topic if you want to follow along: 

 

[just_dave]

23 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

The above is even further compounded by a lack of SMART support on Apple SSDs, so there’s no way to know what’s actually happening unless you open terminal and look at I/O live

What command does this? I'll try. From what I've been tracking, Activity Monitor reads/writes match the SMART diagnostic.

[Bombastinator]

I’m seeing massive price drops in m1 macs which does not compare to their excellent capacities

[svmlegacy]

10 hours ago, Ashley xD said:

so it's not "just an arm chip" it's clearly superior to the competition... 

Just like how multi-socket Xeon's are "superior" to modern i5's. Name another ARM chip designed for proper desktop use.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

26 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

Just like how multi-socket Xeon's are "superior" to modern i5's. Name another ARM chip designed for proper desktop use.

Quallcomm SQ2, used in the 2020 Surface Pro X. it still lags behind the M1 in lots of ways. 

[Bombastinator]

The impression I get is for some things, yes, for a lot more things it’s neck and neck, and for some things it’s a bit behind.  It’s less behind in those things though and much of the stuff that was neck and neck is unexpected.  There are a couple of limitations though.  There is NO pcie so no discrete video, Memory has a lower max (which will bother VERY few people) and there’s this possible weird SSD issue which may or may not turn out to be unimportant.  If an m1 had discrete video and a replacable SSD I would have zero excuse not to buy one.

[Roswell]

4 hours ago, just_dave said:

What command does this? I'll try. From what I've been tracking, Activity Monitor reads/writes match the SMART diagnostic.

fs_usage

 

It's an absolute shitstorm of data though to sift through. You can run something like...

 

sudo fs_usage -f filesys

 

And again, keep in mind that Mac drives do not support S.M.A.R.T. data. It's just not there. You need to rely on their own tools which misreport certain functions. I've literally opened activity monitor to see it drop write totals down from 200GB over a month's use to 50GB in a matter of seconds for no apparent reason.

 

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, svmlegacy said:

Just like how multi-socket Xeon's are "superior" to modern i5's. Name another ARM chip designed for proper desktop use.

Incorrect.
 

It’s closer akin to why a Pentium D gets walloped by a Core 2 Duo, even with a clock speed advantage. Both are x86 chips, but that’s all they have in common. The Core 2 Duo was a wider, shorter architecture that, properly fed (via a generous L2 cache, and fast memory), was able to crunch more numbers per clock cycle. 
 

Apple’s ARM cores are like that to the rest of the ARM competition. The only thing you’re likely to find in common is the ISA. With an architectural license (as opposed to licensing a core), you’re free to design a cpu from the ground up that happens to run adhere to the ARM ISA. 
 

Owing to the above, it would be more fair to say that the cores in the M1 are Apple cores. Not ARM cores. Apple’s cores are ARM64 compatible, but were otherwise not designed by ARM. 

[Spindel]

3 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Incorrect.
 

It’s closer akin to why a Pentium D gets walloped by a Core 2 Duo, even with a clock speed advantage. Both are x86 chips, but that’s all they have in common. The Core 2 Duo was a wider, shorter architecture that, properly fed (via a generous L2 cache, and fast memory), was able to crunch more numbers per clock cycle. 
 

Apple’s ARM cores are like that to the rest of the ARM competition. The only thing you’re likely to find in common is the ISA. With an architectural license (as opposed to licensing a core), you’re free to design a cpu from the ground up that happens to run adhere to the ARM ISA. 
 

Owing to the above, it would be more fair to say that the cores in the M1 are Apple cores. Not ARM cores. Apple’s cores are ARM64 compatible, but were otherwise not designed by ARM. 

And that is why it’s called Apple Silicon.

[saltycaramel]

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, saltycaramel said:

 

 

That’s sort of the whole issue. It apparently isn’t so true anymore.  M1 macs run x86 stuff through Rosetta so fast there isn’t much of a hit.  A little but not much.  You can run windows software without using windows at all.  As for that rocket thing, I rather doubt it was windows they were running. NASA runs BSD. Or at least it used to.

[just_dave]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That’s sort of the whole issue. It apparently isn’t so true anymore.  M1 macs run x86 stuff through Rosetta so fast there isn’t much of a hit.  A little but not much.  You can run windows software without using windows at all.  As for that rocket thing, I rather doubt it was windows they were running. NASA runs BSD. Or at least it used to.

This is what you call a bruh moment

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, just_dave said:

This is what you call a bruh moment

I don’t.  I find it to be a word short on useful meaning. You are pointing to a lot of MacBooks though.  MacOS is a BSD variant.

[just_dave]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t.  I find it to be a word short on useful meaning. You are pointing to a lot of MacBooks though.  MacOS is a BSD variant.

Its a bruh moment for intel lmao

[igormp]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

NASA runs BSD. Or at least it used to.

They actually used linux!

 

More info bellow:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/aerospace/robotic-exploration/nasa-designed-perseverance-helicopter-rover-fly-autonomously-mars

https://github.com/nasa/fprime

 

Most of their other space stuff uses VxWorks afaik.