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

[Anux]

Let's cut to the chase: you've now repeatedly made claims as to what I've "said" that are not just false, they're literally the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. Your reinterpretations of the words are getting more disconnected each time, with your replies also getting further away from the topic each time, and turning into increasingly desperate attempts to dodge or reframe the question.

I tried to talk to him but he isn't interested in a productive discussion and this purposeful misreading is his way of trolling or something. I just stopped talking to him.

I also misread stuff here and there mostly because of translation problems, but at some point its becomming ridiculous.

[ldesnogu]

So I did a bit of research because I've seen v5 code run on newer ARMs and couldn't believe you. Turns out you are right, its not 100% compatible in theory. But code compiled with gccs or clangs standard settings compiles v5 without unaligned access therefore avoiding the incompatibility and in practice is able to run v5 code on any AArch32 variant.
https://developer.arm.com/documentat...aligned-access

I agree, most correct unprivileged compiled code for ARMv5 will run unchanged. I only wanted to highlight that Arm purposefully broke compatibility several times.

But even without using gcc flag to allow unaligned accesses, you can create unaligned accesses by casting and I'm sure one can find code that abused that ARMv5 feature. Programmers like to do stupid things

[Anux]

Oh yes, pointer casting is such a genius trick. Gotta love those micro optimizations that never can justify their gains over their risk. Good thing we have rust comming along.

Also drivers and firmware that use assembler might not run if specific instructions were used.

[mdedetrich]

Then it's ideal for this, which is what I was trying to get established, because this isn't generally a place where Apple users hang out.

> This question is meaningless because the original hypothesis you made is completely opaque and ill defined. Originally, many pages back you claimed that Macbooks are not suited for "real work".

Untrue, and untrue. I said that Macbooks generally weren't *used* for "real work" - as you know, since you quoted that piece in your comment about how they were good development machines - which you and I both defined as "actually pegging the CPU".

Well whats your definition of generally then? And even if we use a fairly liberal definition of general there is also a very strong counter claim to what you are saying which is that Macbook (especially pros) are expensive enough that most people would only justify buying them if it really did produce value (i.e. "real" work). Of course they are exception, you have wealthy people that will just buy something because its expensive but that isn't specific to macbooks and again to quantify this we would have to deal with the nasty world of stats

You've put *way* more effort into avoiding the issue than answering it would have taken, which is generally a very solid hint that you've realized you made a mistake but you're too proud to admit it, so now you're floundering and just throwing out as many excuses as you can in the hope someone will fall for it. (Which seems a waste of effort really: there's only you and me that care at all, and since I can read you're unlikely to convince me).

Maybe you're just really confused. It happens. You did at least accept that the Airs are vanity items, so that's something.
I'd have *liked* something a bit more concrete than my wild guess at what the numbers are, because I'm endlessly curious that way, but I get the impression from your response that I was at worst in the right orders of magnitude, so I guess that'll have to do.

> And if you wondering why a lot of "real" programmers use Macbook Pro's

I'm not wondering about it at all. Most of my friends have ever since Apple abandoned 68K, which is long before laptops became jewelry. But they're a tiny minority of Macbook users overall - which was my point, despite your recent attempts to pretend it wasn't.

If you ever change your mind, feel free to let us know what the answer was. Nobody's going to ridicule you for simply being wrong on a subject where everyone involved was just making their best guess in the first place.

If you think that you have shown that you are "correct" and that I am incorrect but not really being honest about it, you are sadly mistaken.

You haven't provided any real evidence whatsoever. You can either provide proper statistical information which likely doesn't exist (and most importantly you haven't provided) or we can argue from what we know using existing real technical details as to why Macbook Pros specifically can absolutely be used for real work.

[qarium]

Well whats your definition of generally then? And even if we use a fairly liberal definition of general there is also a very strong counter claim to what you are saying which is that Macbook (especially pros) are expensive enough that most people would only justify buying them if it really did produce value (i.e. "real" work). Of course they are exception, you have wealthy people that will just buy something because its expensive but that isn't specific to macbooks and again to quantify this we would have to deal with the nasty world of stats
If you think that you have shown that you are "correct" and that I am incorrect but not really being honest about it, you are sadly mistaken.
You haven't provided any real evidence whatsoever. You can either provide proper statistical information which likely doesn't exist (and most importantly you haven't provided) or we can argue from what we know using existing real technical details as to why Macbook Pros specifically can absolutely be used for real work.

the joke is: you can do real work on any computer even "GameBoy" on youtube there are 1000 of example in how to perform real work on a GameBoy... the idea that Macbook is not for real work is complete insanity.

i would say this: if the macbook is only with MacOS it would be clear that it is not of any use for real work but as soon as you can install linux you are ready to perform real work.

[arQon]

Well whats your definition of generally then?

Well, literally it would be "more often than not", i.e. 50%+, but that's a much higher bar than I'm suggesting here: I'd consider even just 10% to be substantive.

> You can either provide proper statistical information which likely doesn't exist (and most importantly you haven't provided)

That's what the sales figures are for. You claimed a "ridiculous number of installs of homebrew" as support for your claim that Macbooks were - almost exclusively - the province of developers etc. When asked to provide proof of that, you declined. And then did so again when I gave you the sales figures that made up the rest of the equation that would provide that "statistical information" you're pretending is the problem here. And then did so again in this most recent post.
It's not about me being correct, it's about getting some ballpark figures - which you're suddenly very reluctant to see happen, and instead are now arguing wouldn't be relevant anyway.

So, either you were - let's say "mistaken" - about the "ridiculous number of installs", or ...?
It's a simple question, using very simple math, which would resolve a large chunk of the uncertainty that you're saying makes this just a matter of opinion, yet you continue to avoid it. Actions speak louder than words, and yours are telling me that you don't believe your original claim either. I think we can consider this settled, and save us both a bunch of wasted typing, so let's just do that.

[mdedetrich]

i would say this: if the macbook is only with MacOS it would be clear that it is not of any use for real work but as soon as you can install linux you are ready to perform real work.

Your definition of real work is stupid then

So, either you were - let's say "mistaken" - about the "ridiculous number of installs", or ...?
It's a simple question, using very simple math, which would resolve a large chunk of the uncertainty that you're saying makes this just a matter of opinion, yet you continue to avoid it. Actions speak louder than words, and yours are telling me that you don't believe your original claim either. I think we can consider this settled, and save us both a bunch of wasted typing, so let's just do that.

No it really is not that simple, anyone with a uni level degree or a doctorate in statistics will instantly tell you how massively wrong you are.

Do a course in statistics, then come back.

[qarium]

Your definition of real work is stupid then

not more stupid than the other definitions people tell you here. and they demand statistical proof.
i do not demand statistical proof.

the idea that a apple macbook is not for real work is insanity...

[bamache]

Does anyone actually have any Apple M* laptops?

[mdedetrich]

Does anyone actually have any Apple M* laptops?

Yes, I do