Apple M1 Ultra - 2nd highest multicore score, lost to 64-core AMD Threadripper.

[saltycaramel]

In his latest newsletter Mark Gurman proposes (among other things and general ad-libbing) a marketing loophole I had already thought of: just call the MacPro 4-chiplet configuration “Dual M1 Ultra”, so “technically” it would be still true that the “M1 Ultra” is the last member of the M1 family. You just can get two of those in the MacPro. If they go the “dual socket” route, I suppose the IRQ limitation would also be moot. 

[Spindel]

1 hour ago, saltycaramel said:

In his latest newsletter Mark Gurman proposes (among other things and general ad-libbing) a marketing loophole I had already thought of: just call the MacPro 4-chiplet configuration “Dual M1 Ultra”, so “technically” it would be still true that the “M1 Ultra” is the last member of the M1 family. You just can get two of those in the MacPro. If they go the “dual socket” route, I suppose the IRQ limitation would also be moot. 

Sure not impossible, but somehow I seriously doubt we will get a multi socket system.

[saltycaramel]

Just stumbled on this tweet (from a leaker that’s not necessarily super reliable)

 

 

I see people in the replies not taking into account that by the time the MacPro is out 64GB LPDDR5X Samsung modules will be available, so even forgoing half of the modules (because of that arrangement) could still mean a 512GB max RAM for the MacPro..plus whatever they come up with for the user-serviceable pool..

[alexike]

On 3/9/2022 at 8:33 PM, Imbadatnames said:

It’ll be more than that. The M1 Max can draw 110W at full load with a normal boost of around 60 in applications. Should be roughly double plus the iPSU and other components that draw power. Expect 250-300

He was talking about only the CPU part.

[igormp]

On 3/11/2022 at 7:39 PM, LAwLz said:

Source on this claim? I can't find any evidence that this is true. 

I suspect that it's one of those myths that has been repeated enough times to the point where it's "common knowledge" that doesn't get checked for validity. 

 

Ignore what I said, it seems to be true only for their ML and Compute benchmarks, not for GB5 (if this answer is still to be believed in 2022)

[Video Beagle]

I'm calling it.. Apple Silicone is headed to using a sticklebrick design!

[Obioban]

On 3/11/2022 at 12:07 PM, atxcyclist said:

Yes, really. Apple having a closed ecosystem and non-upgradable hardware will not fly in many industries. You as well as many of the other Apple fanboys here don’t understand the needs/wants of x86 power users.

 

I don’t have to watch my back, lol. You Apple fanboys are in the idle threats game now? You going to break my kneecaps if I don’t change?
 

My industry doesn’t use and isn’t supported by Apple hardware or software, You fanboys need to put the Kool Aid down and realize we don’t all live in your little ecosystem and don’t want to.
 

I am the IT at my office, we’re not switching to Apple ever because it doesn’t work for us. I know this better than you do, I’ve been in this business for two decades.

Amusingly, my wife's company recently fired 2/3 of their IT department because they wouldn't get onboard with moving from Windows to MacOS. IT has as much power as the company wants them to have.

 

She's now happily on a 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max, after a decade of hating her Lenovos.

[Paul Thexton]

45 minutes ago, Obioban said:

Amusingly, my wife's company recently fired 2/3 of their IT department because they wouldn't get onboard with moving from Windows to MacOS

That sounds rather extreme. I'm glad I live somewhere with employment rights.

[gjsman]

1 hour ago, Obioban said:

Amusingly, my wife's company recently fired 2/3 of their IT department because they wouldn't get onboard with moving from Windows to MacOS. IT has as much power as the company wants them to have.

In 2016 (though this was before the Apple Keyboards fiasco and before M1), IBM found that Macs were, despite their upfront cost, they were between $273-543 per device cheaper in the long run. They also found only 5% of Mac users called the help desk, whereas 40% of PC users did. The Mac users also had 16% more high-value deals than PC users and there were 22% more Mac users who exceeded performance reviews. It also took only 7 engineers to support 200,000 Macs, whereas it took 20 engineers to manage 200,000 PCs. 

 

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html

 

Of course, the IT Department most likely has a longstanding bias against macOS, but regardless,

 

34 minutes ago, Paul Thexton said:

That sounds rather extreme. I'm glad I live somewhere with employment rights.

IANAL, but refusing to do a legitimate company order that is not blocked by nondiscrimination or other protection rules, is absolutely grounds for being fired and you will never win a lawsuit. Otherwise, what's preventing, say, the employees at Amazon have accounting raise their salary 25% against the corporate board's approval? It would be the collapse of the business to have such anarchic rule.

[bcredeur97]

On 3/13/2022 at 1:19 PM, saltycaramel said:

Just stumbled on this tweet (from a leaker that’s not necessarily super reliable)

 

 

I see people in the replies not taking into account that by the time the MacPro is out 64GB LPDDR5X Samsung modules will be available, so even forgoing half of the modules (because of that arrangement) could still mean a 512GB max RAM for the MacPro..plus whatever they come up with for the user-serviceable pool..

Apple building bridges for everything lol. 

CPU Legos

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Obioban said:

Amusingly, my wife's company recently fired 2/3 of their IT department because they wouldn't get onboard with moving from Windows to MacOS. IT has as much power as the company wants them to have.

 

She's now happily on a 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max, after a decade of hating her Lenovos.

I imagine your wife can't share exactly why those IT workers objected to the Mac switch, but that strikes me as oddly petty. The only valid reason I see for mounting an objection would be a serious technical issue (a missing app or an overly clunky workaround, for example). After that, it might be down to a childish Anything But Apple bias, an unwillingness to change or even a fear that the Macs might put them out of a job (through improved stability or just a lack of training). In those last cases... well, your job as an IT manager is to make the technology do what the company leadership wants, not what keeps you in your comfort zone.

[Paul Thexton]

25 minutes ago, gjsman said:

IANAL, but refusing to do a legitimate company order that is not blocked by nondiscrimination or other protection rules, is absolutely grounds for being fired and you will never win a lawsuit.

Yeah that’s fair, I guess it depends on how exactly the IT folk in question were behaving re: the company decision to use macs

[Paul Thexton]

13 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I imagine your wife can't share exactly why those IT workers objected to the Mac switch, but that strikes me as oddly petty. The only valid reason I see for mounting an objection would be a serious technical issue (a missing app or an overly clunky workaround, for example). After that, it might be down to a childish Anything But Apple bias, an unwillingness to change or even a fear that the Macs might put them out of a job (through improved stability or just a lack of training). In those last cases... well, your job as an IT manager is to make the technology do what the company leadership wants, not what keeps you in your comfort zone.

I’ve worked with people who actively refuse to engage with anything Linux based and in a few cases went so far as to migrate in-use systems to something Windows based instead. I don’t understand people willingly turning down the opportunity to learn/upskill.

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, Paul Thexton said:

Yeah that’s fair, I guess it depends on how exactly the IT folk in question were behaving re: the company decision to use macs

If I had to guess, it went down like this:

 

Management: We are changing to Macs for our workforce.

IT: No we don't want to!

Management: You have to.

IT: Nope we don't!

Management: Switch or you are fired.

IT: Then fire us!

 

I seriously doubt the conversation was:

Management: We are changing to Macs.

IT: We don't want to.

Management: Everyone who said no is immediately fired.

[Commodus]

11 minutes ago, Paul Thexton said:

I’ve worked with people who actively refuse to engage with anything Linux based and in a few cases went so far as to migrate in-use systems to something Windows based instead. I don’t understand people willingly turning down the opportunity to learn/upskill.

I know Linux can be a challenge, but egads... if you're in IT, Linux shouldn't be a completely foreign concept. As a Mac user I still know a number of common Unix commands and am familiar with concepts like user and app permissions.

 

Besides, it's not like the company would force them to install Ubuntu or Debian on their personal laptop.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

If I had to guess, it went down like this:

 

Management: We are changing to Macs for our workforce.

IT: No we don't want to!

Management: You have to.

IT: Nope we don't!

Management: Switch or you are fired.

IT: Then fire us!

 

I seriously doubt the conversation was:

Management: We are changing to Macs.

IT: We don't want to.

Management: Everyone who said no is immediately fired.

Well the problem here like a lot of the time is this does not mean the management wanting to move to Mac OS was the right call at all. And I truly object to this notion of not listening to IT about the area they are expert in. My team has to fight this kind of idiocy all the time about many different things because someone somewhere has been marketing pitched something but they have no clue at all but try to push for it anyway.

 

Everything is a two way street. IT, finance, facilities management etc. If the reasoning for change was nothing more than "trendy and new and to hell with everything else" then I'd happily leave the company first.

 

Sometimes the company is crap and is not worth working for.

[Obioban]

On 3/12/2022 at 1:04 PM, WolframaticAlpha said:

I agree. M2 makes a lot more sense than M1++. The Blizzard+Avalanche cores of the A15 will be more than a year old by the point we see the M2. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they use the A16 cores. In addition to that, the I/O capabilities of the M1 platform are lacking, especially at the very high/professional end of the market. Also, the M2 would probably dump the cool tricks that apple implemented for getting rosetta to work. The M2 would  probably start a series of incremental upgrades for the M series platform(after all, TSMC has been having some troubles at n3: https://english.etnews.com/20210901200003 and the M series chips are using A series cores in them).

There's no way Apple ditches the Rosetta bits in M2. Way too soon.

[Spindel]

Since the discussion has shifted a bit in here I will chip in with my experiences. 
 

During my years working there has been 2 major hurdles to get a Mac at work. One is lack of support for software needed (hard to do something about) and the second is IT vehemetly opposing Mac usage just because (even when no software needs limits the choice). 

 

[Dracarris]

20 minutes ago, Obioban said:

There's no way Apple ditches the Rosetta bits in M2. Way too soon.

Well I sincerely hope they won't. That would be a bummer.

[DANK_AS_gay]

On 3/11/2022 at 12:59 PM, atxcyclist said:

 

There’s nothing ironic about what I’ve stated,

r/woooosh

He's saying that when you said "I'm not apart of your little ecosystem, we only have x86". You essentially said "I'm not a part of your ecosystem, BECAUSE I have my own tiny ecosystem."

Your company is definitely not big enough to be compared to the entirety of the market, and therefore you can go and shove your company experience up your butt. There is a reason Apple still exists. There is a reason why they have such a large market share (compared to anything that isn't Windows, but even then, Windows is losing significant market share due to Apple, and Chromebooks), is because there are people out there who find MacOS to be better for their workloads. You personally may not need that for your company, but other companies would use these things. Even companies you might not even think of.

My father has a Non-profit Advocate law firm, and hey tried using things such as Google Drive, DropBox, and other software that I have literally never heard of before, in order to share files among all of his employees when they went digital. Most of his employees had Windows devices, my father and one other person had Macs. They had a horrible time getting DropBox to work properly just between Windows computers, let alone Windows->Mac and vice versa. But the Macs had 0 issues with DropBox. So, what do you think they did? That's right, the entire firm transitioned over to Macs, with the only software issues being a result of a bug in accounting software. 

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, Obioban said:

There's no way Apple ditches the Rosetta bits in M2. Way too soon.

And the "cool trick" Apple uses for Rosetta 2 is just standard Arm instructions. The idea that Apple are doing some specialized hardware to get higher performance translation seems to be a false assumption people made early on. 

[atxcyclist]

18 hours ago, Obioban said:

Amusingly, my wife's company recently fired 2/3 of their IT department because they wouldn't get onboard with moving from Windows to MacOS. IT has as much power as the company wants them to have.

 

She's now happily on a 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max, after a decade of hating her Lenovos.

Well, if the principals at an architectural design firm like I work at decided to force their BIM/CAD techs to use Macs, then the whole company would deserve to spiral into the ground as that industry isn't supported on Macs well at all. 

 

I work in a small firm, we will be using Windows x86-64 machines because that's what the industry is using. There will be no discussion on my end, if the boss wants me to efficiently do my job on $10million+ projects, then it will be on the industry-supported hardware I specify. Luckily, my boss isn't an idiot and we run the machines that run our software, as it should be.

[atxcyclist]

14 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

r/woooosh

He's saying that when you said "I'm not apart of your little ecosystem, we only have x86". You essentially said "I'm not a part of your ecosystem, BECAUSE I have my own tiny ecosystem."

Your company is definitely not big enough to be compared to the entirety of the market, and therefore you can go and shove your company experience up your butt. There is a reason Apple still exists. There is a reason why they have such a large market share (compared to anything that isn't Windows, but even then, Windows is losing significant market share due to Apple, and Chromebooks), is because there are people out there who find MacOS to be better for their workloads. You personally may not need that for your company, but other companies would use these things. Even companies you might not even think of.

My father has a Non-profit Advocate law firm, and hey tried using things such as Google Drive, DropBox, and other software that I have literally never heard of before, in order to share files among all of his employees when they went digital. Most of his employees had Windows devices, my father and one other person had Macs. They had a horrible time getting DropBox to work properly just between Windows computers, let alone Windows->Mac and vice versa. But the Macs had 0 issues with DropBox. So, what do you think they did? That's right, the entire firm transitioned over to Macs, with the only software issues being a result of a bug in accounting software. 

Windows x86 isn't a tiny ecosystem, at all, especially not in some industries like the one I work in. 

 

A bunch of people using desktop productivity stuff that will run on Chromebooks probably don't care, This insistence some of you have that everyone just needs a computer for word processing and web browsing, and 'Macs do fine at that', don't understand that there are many specific industries full of power users which are supported nearly 0% on native Mac OS. DropBox? If that's the most complicated software some business uses then they could do that on $350 Dell Inspiron computers, that's not a difficult workload. That's an IT problem not setting-up employee systems, we use DropBox in Windows with zero issues.

 

This software discussion also ignores the point that most Apple computers are not upgradable, so if one specific aspect of a system is under-performing on an Apple, you're buying another $6000 system. Meanwhile, years after building my Windows machine I might be spending a few hundred bucks on memory, a bigger internal drive, or a newer GPU and getting years longer out of a system that probably cost a third of the Apple's price.

 

Try doing building envelope calculations with Windows x86-only software on a Mac, or try using Windows-x86 building modelling software on a Mac. There is no OSX-equivalent software to what I use. It isn't that I need or don't need Apple's ecosystem, their ecosystem is worthless for my job, and people should understand there are industries where that is the case. If I'm working on a 1965 Ford F-100 made in Kentucky, a metric socket set is the wrong one to buy, so why insist that's what I should be buying?

[WolframaticAlpha]

18 hours ago, Obioban said:

There's no way Apple ditches the Rosetta bits in M2. Way too soon.

It's been 2+ years. Most of the software is already ported. Wouldn't be surprised if they ditch it.

[Video Beagle]

21 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

Apple building bridges for everything lol. 

CPU Legos

Sticklebricks...I said Sticklebricks.