Apple Announces The M2 Ultra SoC - 24 Core CPU, Up To 192GB Unified Memory

[Paradigm Shifter]

This is actually kind of neat. I won't buy one, but having an M1 Macbook Pro for work now, I can admit that occasionally Apple do get things right (last time I admitted that was my 160GB iPod Classic, which had a sensible interface, high storage capacity and great battery life... and Apple killed them in favour of the "Touch" and iPhones) but they also seem to screw up quite a bit (but refuse to admit it) - my boss had the Macbook Pro just before the M1's released and the keyboard... oh my God the keyboard was appalling.

I've been really impressed with just running Linux in a VM via UTM on my Macbook. It's still snappy and quick, which is the opposite of my experiences with VMs on x86 where optimising performance can be a bit of a juggling act.

[mitchellrenouf]

yes the same chip running at a higher frequency is faster yes thats the only case when GHZ matters.

if you compare apple M2 with intel cpus GHZ do not matter at all.

"I am also talking about a generalized CPU."

thats the point dude most intel cpus are generalized CPUs but the apple M1/M2 is not because the biggest parts of apple m2 is not a generalized CPU it is instead ASIC hardware

all the benchmarks people watch on phoronix.com is most of the time always only about the generlized cpu parts

and the ASICs are never tested but these ASIC parts are the relevant parts for apple M2 design.

for example Apple M3 will have AV1 decode and encode ASIC support.

also apple M3 will be in 3nm TSMC this will give intel a very hard time believe me.



the reson for this is that software for the commodore 64 and the mega64 (8bit at 40mhz instead of 1mhz of the C64)
is written in assembler and need to be clock precise means the virtual machine do not only need to calculate it but also need to sync it to the precise clock state... and this is a problem for modern 6ghz cpus to sync every state to make sure everthing is in place at a clock precise timing...

and for this it does not matter of your 6ghz cpu can execute 16 bit or 32bit or 64bit its emulate 8bit but the tact precise timing of all the components is the problem.

this means it is not only the cpu... all other components like sound chip and so one need to be clock precise just remember even the floppy disk of a commodore 64 has its own processor the same as the main processor and this also is everything written in assembler and need to be clock precise.

remember this is not a performance problem its a synconisation prolem because in this old systems like comodore 64 everything was developed to be clock precise with all other components liks flopy disk and so one.

15th gen intel core will also have a npu like apple they only have a asic for recording people during standby right now now since skylake and a igpu. I never said apple cpu aren't better I said they can't overclock. Most people using a i9 use expansion cards which apple can't compete with at all without making their own or having a huge waffer. I want apple to make motherboards and socketed cpu with overclocking and coreboot ideally. I never used an 8-bit home computer in my life I used a 64-bit capable chipset from my first computer.
"Cortana, wake up" is why you should just use powerful home computers and i guess in your case a fpga or make your own C64.

[Ironmask]

They are worth zero to me because they are too slow for what I do. I'm not going to be waiting extra hours for the same task I would rather buy a mac to run Linux but I can't unless they can overclock. Taking serious means features for people who actually know things about computers like being able to throw as much power as you want. Why would someone use a 95W TDP apu instead of having 400W just for the CPU power without having to build a cluster. You can probably double the performance of apples CPU with overclocking it doesn't matter if you max out their best mac it is still slower without overclocking. A i9 is 6Ghz stable overclocking right now if you buy one and throw as much power as you can at it they aren't even 4Ghz without doing that. You can even go near 7Ghz if you spend a lot on cooling and if you just don't care about money basically get 3 i9 processors for your dollar. You need a liquid helium cooling system to fully use any CPU.

Build your own computer, then?
Why are you ranting as if Apple is the only company on earth that makes computers?
Did you ever consider that you are not a part of their target audience?

[stormcrow]

It is and isn't at the same time. Obviously the same chip running at a higher frequency is faster than not. I am also talking about a generalized CPU. Java is also really stupid to use for something that needs preformance if that's what you mean by ja. I would have to actually examine the software you are talking about to know why it is so slow.

Not significantly if the surrounding support framework can't feed the CPU data faster than the slower clocked chip, otherwise you're burning cycles at idle waiting for external IO. This is why people only see small incremental gains (typically 5% or less) when updating a CPU from one clock speed to the identical chip but higher clock speed without updating anything else and all else being equal. The real gains usually come from a newer chip introducing new instructions or processing paradigm (486SX v. 486DX for example or AES-NI in early Core i3 v. i5 for disk encryption) instead of just straight up clock cranking - and why Intel had boxed itself in so neatly in the late 90s by harping so much on clock speed in their marketing when AMD stole their lunch by introducing multi-core SMP to the x86 market. Yes, it's "faster" but the question isn't just "faster" but how much faster for how much money and/or electricity. It also matters whether or not the processor in question is just the wrong tool for the job anyway. I remember back in the day when a certain prof was working with DSP daughter boards. Once a question was reimagined as a signal processing job the DSP board would always be faster at arriving at the same solution than the general purpose CPU.

Apple devices started out faster with the transition to ARM because the solution wasn't just the CPU. It was the entire package that was upgraded, electrically redesigned, updated, with obsolete Intel x86 features from the 80s and early 90s jettisoned without significantly harming backwards Mac software compatibility. The only software I have still using Rosetta 2 are traditional foot draggers like Steam, and some small indie game makers that only put out Mac binaries because their dev framework does it without extra effort on their part. Even the indies are slowly moving to ARM native or universal binary as their frameworks get updated. What's Steam's excuse? :P (don't answer, it's rhetorical)

[sophisticles]

Source?

If anything, Apple M3 would have VVC decode/encode because Apple has a hard time acknowledging open standards since the day Cook took over.

If you are correct, and there is a good chance you are considering Apple was the first to have a hardware H264 encoder years ago, then the M3 will have a huge advantage over AMD and Intel based systems, at least for a while.

[mitchellrenouf]

Build your own computer, then?
Why are you ranting as if Apple is the only company on earth that makes computers?
Did you ever consider that you are not a part of their target audience?

I already stated I want to build a computer using apple silicon to overclock so i get double preformance. It's a crime to charge so much for a computer that clearly would be the best at overclocking and just have it designed for illiterate people.

[brad0]

Wow, ridiculously super weak for a Mac Pro.

[mitchellrenouf]

Not significantly if the surrounding support framework can't feed the CPU data faster than the slower clocked chip, otherwise you're burning cycles at idle waiting for external IO. This is why people only see small incremental gains (typically 5% or less) when updating a CPU from one clock speed to the identical chip but higher clock speed without updating anything else and all else being equal. The real gains usually come from a newer chip introducing new instructions or processing paradigm (486SX v. 486DX for example or AES-NI in early Core i3 v. i5 for disk encryption) instead of just straight up clock cranking - and why Intel had boxed itself in so neatly in the late 90s by harping so much on clock speed in their marketing when AMD stole their lunch by introducing multi-core SMP to the x86 market. Yes, it's "faster" but the question isn't just "faster" but how much faster for how much money and/or electricity. It also matters whether or not the processor in question is just the wrong tool for the job anyway. I remember back in the day when a certain prof was working with DSP daughter boards. Once a question was reimagined as a signal processing job the DSP board would always be faster at arriving at the same solution than the general purpose CPU.

Apple devices started out faster with the transition to ARM because the solution wasn't just the CPU. It was the entire package that was upgraded, electrically redesigned, updated, with obsolete Intel x86 features from the 80s and early 90s jettisoned without significantly harming backwards Mac software compatibility. The only software I have still using Rosetta 2 are traditional foot draggers like Steam, and some small indie game makers that only put out Mac binaries because their dev framework does it without extra effort on their part. Even the indies are slowly moving to ARM native or universal binary as their frameworks get updated. What's Steam's excuse? :P (don't answer, it's rhetorical)

No they had issues with clock speed because they don't wanna melt their product which is why you need zero kelvin to fully use any processor. They had to use multiple slower cores just so people could keep using stock cpu fans. I don't care about how much wattage my processor uses as long as it is cooled enough and the one I have can go to 9Ghz at zero kelvin. Are you aware most desktop processors didn't even use $100 a year for most people in power until a couple years ago and actually heat your house so they pay for themselves. You also don't need AES-NI at all as it is slower than self encrypting drives that are just as trustworthy. Intel also designed IA-64 and AMD had everyone use x86_64 instead of a pure 64-bit processor so intel had to switch too. You're wasting your money and time if you don't overclock and actually do things. I wouldn't be suprised if you could still get by with a overclocked core 2 duo if all you do is use chrome or firefox. I recommend everyone uses a overclocked desktop with a large radiator and if you are someone who plays games you also probably are producing almost kilowatt of heat with a decent computer which is cozy in the winter. You could also donate your GPU power to charity to heat your home. Home computers aren't going to be locked down I readlly don't care how many trillions of dollars people have invested their companies are worthless to me if I can't compile anything from source. it takes the average person probably 10+ hours just to test a build of chrome alone now and anyone who isn't a idiot knows what the settings in it mean. Free as in freedom isn't a lie.

[partcyborg]

No they had issues with clock speed because they don't wanna melt their product which is why you need zero kelvin to fully use any processor.

Sorry no, that is not how physics works. First of all, absolute zero is physically impossible to achieve as it would mean all subatomic motion has ceased. Second, even if it were no computing would happen at all because all subatomic movement would be stopped so nothing would happen.

I'm not sure where you got these ideas with absolute zero and liquid helium, but I strongly recommend doing some research on wikipedia as it is all pretty far off base

[Volta]

Imagine someone spending 10+ grand on a high end system featuring one of these processors and wanting to void the warranty by wiping the excellent Max OS and installing a half-baked kludge of an OS in its place.

Wiping piece of shit like macos is the first thing sane user will do. Why would someone want to waste all of those cores for utter slow, insecure spying joke?

No thanks, you can keep your Linux, i will stick with Mac OS if I ever have the dough to buy one of these.

No thanks, you can keep your spyware if you want.