5 ms·

It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people edi

It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance (which is reportedly good!)

ogre_codes 6y ago
> It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'd say the same about GPUs as well. It's great for people who game, but beyond a certain baseline, it's pretty pointless for most of us. > I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance Umm, it's also great for people who watch YouTube or Netflix. Zoom calls use the encoder and the decoder. Fundamentally, modern computers do a crapload of video (and audio!) decoding and encoding. Arguably for most of us, it is more important than having a high performance GPU. This is all trebly important when you are using Netflix, YouTube, HBO Max, Zoom, Skype, etc on battery where the specialized encoder uses about 1/3 the power as the CPU.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  GPUs, unlike video decoders, are programmable and general in purpose. As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. No one is streaming 8K RAW for a conference call. Unless you're an editor, you won't see much of a benefit.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. Didn't suggest these were jobs existing CPUs struggle with. I said the video encode/ decode makes the CPU much more efficient which increases battery life.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      But existing CPUs already use accelerated decode for these tasks. They have been for years and years. Those hardware decode blocks just aren't powerful enough for 6K RAW video, but they are fine for YouTube, Netflix, and Zoom, and indeed it's already accelerated. So there is literally no benefit.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        > So there is literally no benefit. If there were no benefit, Apple wouldn't be able to decode 8K video with a low end Mac mini. People wouldn't be seeing vastly better battery life when viewing videos and using Zoom.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        8K video decode isn't very useful when you can barely drive an 8K display, and certainly not for the average consumer. As for wonderful battery life with Zoom, I am fairly certain that this is because Intel CPUs have a bad process that cripples their video decode performance. The correct comparison would be with the 7nm or imminent 5nm Renoir APUs that have accelerated decode on an actually good process. Which is what you should compare M1 against, anyway. But sure, if you want to compare them against obsolete Intel chips, you can, and you'll find improved battery life. It's just not a logical comparison, as Intel isn't the competition to M1 chips, the competition is AMD. And AMD does have high efficiency accelerated video decode on their laptop chips, and it also even supports 8K decoding, though it's almost useless. It is less useless than on an M1 computer though, because at least then you have enough I/O to actually run an 8K screen.
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        > 8K video decode isn't very useful when you can barely drive an 8K display, and certainly not for the average consumer. You are talking in circles. This same exact hardware is used to decode lower resolution video. Benefits reach down to 6k, 4k, 2k, 1080p, 720p, etc etc. Any encoding you do. > The correct comparison would be with the 7nm or imminent 5nm Renoir APUs that have accelerated decode on an actually good process. Which is what you should compare M1 against, anyway. How exactly do you compare an unreleased product to an actual shipping one? Do we go to the land of hypothetical benchmarks where you just make up numbers for the unshipped product? > And AMD does have high efficiency accelerated video decode on their laptop chips, and it also even supports 8K decoding, though it's almost useless. Please share some details on these AMD based $699 systems which can edit 8k video. No-one is claiming you can't edit 8k video on other systems. The entire point is that you can do this on the cheapest system in Apple's lineup.
  - __float 6y ago
    I think many folks' experience with Zoom would show the opposite. Perhaps it's not very efficient software, but battery life often tanks, computers get very warm, and fans start spinning. Any improvement to that is a very welcome change, if you ask me.
- runeks 6y ago
  > […] the specialized encoder uses about 1/3 the power as the CPU. As far as I know, dedicated HW versus CPU is closer to 1/100 the power. Although I admit I don’t have a source for this claim.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'd say the same about GPUs as well. It's great for people who game, but beyond a certain baseline, it's pretty pointless for most of us. > I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance Umm, it's also great for people who watch YouTube or Netflix. Zoom calls use the encoder and the decoder. Fundamentally, modern computers do a crapload of video (and audio!) decoding and encoding. Arguably for most of us, it is more important than having a high performance GPU. This is all trebly important when you are using Netflix, YouTube, HBO Max, Zoom, Skype, etc on battery where the specialized encoder uses about 1/3 the power as the CPU.

sudosysgen 6y ago
GPUs, unlike video decoders, are programmable and general in purpose. As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. No one is streaming 8K RAW for a conference call. Unless you're an editor, you won't see much of a benefit.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. Didn't suggest these were jobs existing CPUs struggle with. I said the video encode/ decode makes the CPU much more efficient which increases battery life.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    But existing CPUs already use accelerated decode for these tasks. They have been for years and years. Those hardware decode blocks just aren't powerful enough for 6K RAW video, but they are fine for YouTube, Netflix, and Zoom, and indeed it's already accelerated. So there is literally no benefit.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > So there is literally no benefit. If there were no benefit, Apple wouldn't be able to decode 8K video with a low end Mac mini. People wouldn't be seeing vastly better battery life when viewing videos and using Zoom.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        8K video decode isn't very useful when you can barely drive an 8K display, and certainly not for the average consumer. As for wonderful battery life with Zoom, I am fairly certain that this is because Intel CPUs have a bad process that cripples their video decode performance. The correct comparison would be with the 7nm or imminent 5nm Renoir APUs that have accelerated decode on an actually good process. Which is what you should compare M1 against, anyway. But sure, if you want to compare them against obsolete Intel chips, you can, and you'll find improved battery life. It's just not a logical comparison, as Intel isn't the competition to M1 chips, the competition is AMD. And AMD does have high efficiency accelerated video decode on their laptop chips, and it also even supports 8K decoding, though it's almost useless. It is less useless than on an M1 computer though, because at least then you have enough I/O to actually run an 8K screen.
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        > 8K video decode isn't very useful when you can barely drive an 8K display, and certainly not for the average consumer. You are talking in circles. This same exact hardware is used to decode lower resolution video. Benefits reach down to 6k, 4k, 2k, 1080p, 720p, etc etc. Any encoding you do. > The correct comparison would be with the 7nm or imminent 5nm Renoir APUs that have accelerated decode on an actually good process. Which is what you should compare M1 against, anyway. How exactly do you compare an unreleased product to an actual shipping one? Do we go to the land of hypothetical benchmarks where you just make up numbers for the unshipped product? > And AMD does have high efficiency accelerated video decode on their laptop chips, and it also even supports 8K decoding, though it's almost useless. Please share some details on these AMD based $699 systems which can edit 8k video. No-one is claiming you can't edit 8k video on other systems. The entire point is that you can do this on the cheapest system in Apple's lineup.
- __float 6y ago
  I think many folks' experience with Zoom would show the opposite. Perhaps it's not very efficient software, but battery life often tanks, computers get very warm, and fans start spinning. Any improvement to that is a very welcome change, if you ask me.
runeks 6y ago
> […] the specialized encoder uses about 1/3 the power as the CPU. As far as I know, dedicated HW versus CPU is closer to 1/100 the power. Although I admit I don’t have a source for this claim.