16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world Rust compile

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by The_Colonel on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @01:55PM (#25127990)

> I think the bigger question is what does this spell for x86-64?

Not much?

People are acting like M1 destroys x86, but as AnandTech showed in the recent benchmark, M1 is trading blows with Zen 3 in single thread performance while having much larger core and process advantage (5nm vs. 7nm) thus being actually more expensive to produce.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by chungus_khan on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @02:08PM (#25128178)

Plus I would like to remind people that there were points where PowerPC Macs were extremely impressive, and that didn't magically reorder the world because existing software and OS ecosystems mean a hell of a lot more than just straight performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by bioipbiop on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @03:03PM (#25128937)

The only Zen 3 chips are desktop class, so Apple’s first generation ultra book oriented processor is trading blows with the best line of desktop processors. That’s a pretty big deal!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by nicoburns on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @03:40PM (#25129512)

Note that apple has a process advantage here. AMD's 5nm chips will probably see a decent perf boost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by The_Colonel on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @03:19PM (#25129213)

Zen 3 mobile chips are probably coming in the next months.

Single core performance does not differ much between mobile and desktop CPUs these days.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by harrygeez on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @02:14PM (#25128263)

My concern is not with performance but the seemingly energy consumption advantage. If Arm chips perform just as well (or as we've just seen, better) than x86 chips while sipping much less power, why would anyone want x86 on mobile devices?

Are there any workloads that requires or perform better with x86?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by The_Colonel on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @02:39PM (#25128602)

This is clear only when you compare against an obsolete Intel which is known to be throttling power hog.

The difference might be way smaller or non-existent once we see some comparisons with latest AMD offerings (especially when we have also CPUs with comparable process).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by spronkey on Thursday November 19, 2020 @06:07AM (#25148306)

Yeah, Anandtech's dive revealed some interesting benchmark results - such as the Zen 2 4200U part being quite close in both performance and power consumption (a little higher) to the M1 in heavily multithreaded tasks, but getting stomped in both aspects in single-threaded ones.

The M1 isn't a tiny power-sipping mobile part - it sucks power down just like AMD's 15W TDP CPUs do. The efficiency gains Apple are getting here are likely to be the result of several factors, only one of which are the CPU cores themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by Symmetry on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @04:22PM (#25130041)

Do we have numbers on how big the M1 is in square mm terms?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by spullara on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @03:18PM (#25129206)

The price of the 5950X is nearly the same as the Mac Mini. Estimates on actual cost of the M1 is around $75-100.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16-inch MBP 2x slower than M1 MacBook Air in a real-world... by The_Colonel on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @03:32PM (#25129404)

They could have used 5600X with virtually the same single core performance as well.

You also can't compare manufacturing cost and retail cost. But given AMD cores are both smaller and manufactured on older process, it's probably safe to assume AMD ones are cheaper to manufacture.

[ Parent | on HN ]