Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple M2 vs. AMD Rembrandt vs. Intel Alder Lake Linux Benchmarks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

    Actually completely wrong, especially if you read the leaked statements directly from Apple. Apple was majorly pissed off at Intel for better past decade because Intel completely botched their power saving and also their thermal efficiency. This is actually what pushed Apple to eventually create their own sillicon for their laptops.

    Typical Apple customers don't want their laptops to sound like a jet turbine or require ridiculous power bricks to run and Apple tried to do this with Intel CPU's which completely failed to how inefficient the CPUs are.
    I do not read leaked stuff because there is no way to verify the validity. Perhaps this is true - I am not religious regarding my position. Intel was stuck at 14N and stagnant in CPU design at the time so I could perfectly believe this. Either way this does not change the fact that x86 core can be comparable in efficiency given the similar node, uArch design/philosophy is used. Problem was not x86 per se, problem was Intel. TBH, the first truly comparable to M1/2 Intel mobile SoC is going to be Meteor Lake and even then we would not be able to compare it apples vs apples way because Intel's uarch/packaging/platform design has different goals form the Apple ones.
    Last edited by drakonas777; 10 August 2022, 05:44 AM.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post

      I do not read leaked stuff because there is no way to verify the validity. Perhaps this is true - I am not religious regarding my position. Intel was stuck at 14N and stagnant in CPU design at the time so I could perfectly believe this. Either way this does not change the fact that x86 core can be comparable in efficiency given the similar node, uArch design/philosophy is used for the design. Problem was not x86 per se, problem was Intel. TBH, the forst truly comparable to M1/2 Intel mobile SoC is going to be Meteor Lake and even then we would not be able to compare it apples vs apples way because Intel's uarch design has different goals than one Apple is using.
      No it isn't if you normalize for thermals, there is no x86 laptop on the market that can be passively cooled that has comparable performance to M1/M2, that is a fact.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
        The 512GB model is $1,500 and does come with 2 extra GPU cores, but do you know what you could get outside of Apple for that much? A whole lot more laptop..
        I'm with you 100% on hating apple, everything they stand for and all their products, and yet... I can't help but admire their M1 series chips.

        Pick any other apple product and compare it to it's competitors and you would have been right, but the M1/M2 series are special. They may not be the fastest (yet they're more than fast enough for just about everyone), they may not have the strongest gaming performance (yet again, they do have gaming performance more than good enough for like 99% of gamers), but performance isn't really where the magic happens with this product.

        It's the efficiency, it's the low power draw, that's what's magical about this product, their battery life is so good that depending on your usage you might be able to sit on the PC all day, granted they aren't the only ones with this good of a battery life but they're the only ones that have this good of a battery life AND performance at the same time.

        The fact of the matter is that Apple beat everyone with the M1 chips and they did it again with the M2 chips because everyone else apparently has their heads stuck up their asses.

        Don't get so lost in hating apple that you miss the small handful of things they are good at (until the M1 they were only good at one thing, marketing, now they're apparently good at making CPUs and GPUs too, it boggles the mind, but they are)

        And also, don't get so lost in hating apple that you forget to hate all thee rest of these companies who have their thumbs up their asses instead of catching up to apple's hardware quality.

        We have like one laptop in existence as far as I know that's a 'close but no cigar' competitor to the M1 in just cpu performance (graphical performance is so far behind it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad).

        On the bright side, that's at least a start, but on the less bright side, it's only one, and it isn't good enough, it isn't as good as appple's m1 because nobody's matched that chip in performance per watt yet.

        The M1 is so good, that even I, with my hate for apple possibly even rivaling your own, would still buy that laptop if I could get full performance out of it under Linux. If Avahi was just a bit further along, and if they had proper gpu support as well (and that performing up to spec compared to how it is on macos); I wouldn't hesitate to buy it. I'd just put a sticker on the apple logo and pretend not to be on a mac while enjoying that sweet low power draw.
        Last edited by rabcor; 10 August 2022, 05:45 AM.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

          No it isn't if you normalize for thermals, there is no x86 laptop on the market that can be passively cooled that has comparable performance to M1/M2, that is a fact.
          Yes, that's probably true. But yet again, this fact does not prove that x86 can't be comparable efficient. That is my fucking point LOL If at this moment no one is manufacturing x86 SoC based on efficiency tuned N5, modern SoC design, "Apple-like" uArch philosophy (less compromise in transistor count/die space) and great software to support it - does not mean it's not possible.

          And yeah, I know all the buzzwords: Graviton, Nuvia (the lack of existing of it more LOL), a wish NVIDIA will do something in consumer segment etc etc. I know.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Anux View Post
            That's a really bald conclusion. One old x86 chip in one platform with one specific cooling solution is enough for you to judge million other devices?
            I'd argue that a T14 Gen1 is a pretty good representative of what a decent x86 laptop can do temperature wise. The improvement between Zen2 and Zen3 is not that large. There certainly aren't millions of devices, more like hundreds, and probably just a handful of them would have a considerably better cooling design than a TP. Another thing to consider is that - at least to my knowledge - the M-based Airs do not have particularly sophisticated heatsinks. Some kind of over-engineered cooling solution might be able cope the latest x86 mobile chips but the point is that the M Airs don't seem to need one.

            Originally posted by Anux View Post
            Here you can see that the M2 with prime 95 starts at 31 W and throttles down to 25 W. No clock speeds are known but you can guess its around 1.5 to 2 GHz, but we know that those chips run at over 90 °C. https://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-A...3.0.html#toc-7 why would a Ryzen 6850 not be able to work under the same conditions?
            The test you link seems a bit inconsistent in the comparisons it makes but one conclusion you can take away from there is that a 6800U-powered laptop draws about 30 % more power and performs about the same as the M2 Air. The 6800U device has active cooling whereas the M2 does not. I think this illustrates the kind of edge that M2 has over Zen3 in terms of power efficiency.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post

              Yes, that's probably true. But yet again, this fact does not prove that x86 can't be comparable efficient.
              If no such product exists then its a moot point unless you are arguing that Intel/AMD are deliberately shooting themselves in the foot by making worse products

              Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post
              That is my fucking point LOL If at this moment no one is manufacturing x86 SoC based on efficiency tuned N5, modern SoC design, "Apple-like" uArch philosophy (less compromise in transistor count/die space) and great software to support it - does not mean it's not possible.
              Firstly for starters, AMD/Intel are manufacturing their CPU's for maximum efficiency, that is like the primary goal of making a good CPU. Thats why they also have different SKU's, laptop SKU's don't have as much top end performance as desktop ones but use a lot less power/generate less heat for "good" (but not top) performance.

              So the current x86/64 SKU's deliberately designed to be as efficient as possible for thermals/power draw (i.e. laptop SKU's) cannot compete against M1/M2 and even if you want to normalize for node process you can since AMD's current gen uses TSMC 7nm which is the same that Apple uses for M1 Pro (and its still not competitive).

              Secondly there are multiple reasons on the ISA/silicon level why x86 is worse, x86 is an old ISA that is meant to maintain compatibility with programs that are programmed/built 40 years ago. All of that extra compatibility has to be accounted for in the silicon where as the way ARM works is it redesigns the ISA every generation (which means no old cruft). In some ways, some Intel engineers would probably love to not have to use these old instructions which are also not very efficient in design but the x86/64 ISA with Intel's exclusive license is how they maintained their monopoly/software economy which is now starting to break.

              If you also study/read up on the actual physical silicon you will see how Apple engineers deliberately designed the CPU to take as much advantage as possible of new ARM design, i.e. one single example is that all instructions have the same fixed word length which makes pipelining trivial (this is impossible to do with CISC style x86 ISA's). All of these small things add up, resulting in less silicon needed and simpler design which translates to less power draw and less heat generation.

              The point is if you asked ISA engineers today to make the ideal/perfect ISA, it would look nothing like x86/64 but instead would be a lot closer to AArch64/ARM 8+/RISC 5.
              Last edited by mdedetrich; 10 August 2022, 06:12 AM.

              Comment


              • #77
                No, I'm not saying that Intel/AMD are deliberately shooting themselves in the foot by making worse products. I'm saying that products of Intel/AMD are chips, so as a consequence they have to find optimal point between semicon economy and CPU properties. They do the maximum efficient designs they can with the constrains they have. Apple makes products, not chips. They can allow themselves more liberal constrains regarding uArch/SoC and whatnot ant that is not a trivial difference in the circumstances.

                I agree that ARM has advantages over x86. That's obvious. I also agree Apple M1/2 overall are the most efficient consumer high performance SoCs. I do not deny empirical evidences.

                What I am arguing is it is a mistake to attribute most of the M1/2 properties/user experience to ARM ISA. That's all. And unfortunately, that's a trend in the tech community. They see how M1/2 performs and they jerk off agains ARM ISA like it's the only or even the main reason for that. It's not.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post
                  Yes, that's probably true. But yet again, this fact does not prove that x86 can't be comparable efficient.
                  The very test whose results we're discussing demonstrates three state-of-the art products and the M2 apparently wins the performance-per-watt game. The fact that Apple was able to completely turn the tables on the ARM vs x86 situation in "consumer" computing whereas x86 has been struggling pretty much since Skylake does not suggest that x86 has much tricks up its sleeve left to stay competitive.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by MadCatX View Post

                    The very test whose results we're discussing demonstrates three state-of-the art products and the M2 apparently wins the performance-per-watt game. The fact that Apple was able to completely turn the tables on the ARM vs x86 situation in "consumer" computing whereas x86 has been struggling pretty much since Skylake does not suggest that x86 has much tricks up its sleeve left to stay competitive.
                    Well, we will see about that in the coming years

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      That's pretty damn impressive for something that's basically a fashion accessory.

                      Which is a point that I think often gets overlooked. Not even one Macbook in a thousand will ever be used for "real" work that needs the peak performance of the M1, but getting an extra 6 hours of Word etc matters, and getting that in something with half the weight of a "real" laptop and none of the fan noise is hugely desirable.

                      Apple doesn't sell technology, it sells *lifestyle*. Usually that means garbage gimmicks and stupid decisions that *hurt* the tech in their products: shitty/absent ports, dongle chains, "courage", butterfly keyboards, late-stage Jony Ive, 1-button mice, etc etc - but every once in a while, it does happens to coincide with something that is genuinely good. M1 is the first such case in more years than any of us can remember, and I do think Apple deserves a lot of credit for making it happen.

                      However, they also deserve at least as much credit for how good the software support is. Even in their own right, both of those pieces are *worlds* ahead of the "Windows on ARM" mess that MS still hasn't managed to get working right after 10 years. Apple's executed on both the HW and the SW aspects in far less time, *and* did a far better job of it, and that's what makes the M1 not just viable but really a "meaningful" moment of progress.

                      That said, consider how much of the performance just comes from having all the RAM where it is. I wish that meant we'd start seeing a *lot* of M1-like laptops start to show up a few more years, but - thanks, MS! - that's not going to happen. sigh. So yeah, looks like Apple's going to own this segment for pretty much all eternity.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X