10 ms·

Why Is Apple’s M1 Chip So Fast?

27 points by highfrequency 6y ago

olliej 6y ago
I’m looking forward to compile time perf which looks really good, and it’s really nice to have an article that doesn’t just look at the “amazing” video performance. I’m kind of sick of video encode/decode perf comparisons though as it is invariably just software vs hardware, and unsurprisingly hardware is vastly faster.
- acqq 6y ago
  https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro-is-powerful-but-its-the-battery-life-that-will-blow-you-away/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro... WebKit compile time: "2020 13-inch MacBook Pro with Intel CPU: 46 minutes and 10 seconds M1 MacBook Pro: 20 minutes and 43 seconds" And even more fascinating: "2019 Mac Pro (Intel 12-Core 3.3GHz CPU): 20 minutes and 11 seconds M1 Mac mini: 19 minutes 32 seconds" Some other measurements of some other compilations show the advantage of many core Intels but with more cores and much more electricity spent: https://build2.org/blog/apple-m1-compilation.xhtml https://build2.org/blog/apple-m1-compilation.xhtml "time sh ./build2-install-0.13.0.sh --local --yes ~/install 163s" "As the first point of reference, let's compare it to my workstation with an 8-core Intel Xeon E-2288G (essentially i9-9900K plus ECC). It does the same build using vanilla Clang in 131s. While E-2288 is faster, M1's performance is nevertheless impressive. Especially when you consider that during the build the workstation is belching hot air and screaming like an airplane about to take off while M1 is whisper-quiet with barely warm air coming from its exhaust." It seems that in the comparable power envelope M1 remains better: "CPU CORES/THREADS TIME Apple M1 4+4 163s AMD Ryzen 4700U 8/8 222s Intel Core 1165G 4/8 295s"
  - bjoli 6y ago
    Well, the next question is: is clang doing anything different for arm than for x86? Why is the difference so big if that is not the case? Memory, cache and latency might be the big thing, and there is nothing saying that intel or AMD couldn't compete with that.
    - thecompilr 6y ago
      Clang is definitely not better for ARMv8 yet, in fact clang doesn’t even have an optimization profile for the M1 yet.
      - crest 6y ago
        Not spending as much time in the target optimizer could explain some of it.
        awj 6y ago
        Right, and on the flipside significant effort has been invested in Clang performance when compiling for Intel CPUs. Much of that is likely to the benefit of all backends, but some of it surely is specific to Intel. IMO this bit right here is worthy of highlighting again: > Especially when you consider that during the build the workstation is belching hot air and screaming like an airplane about to take off while M1 is whisper-quiet with barely warm air coming from its exhaust. I have never run a significant amount of compilation on any machine that didn't hit heat issues. So either the M1 is doing very well at managing heat, or Clang is doing incredibly poorly at exploiting the full system. In either case this makes the M1 look like something special.
      - olliej 6y ago
        armv8 is one of clang's most important targets, and the optimization profiles don't impact compile time.
- yawnxyz 6y ago
  I just got the M1. Macbook Air 13 and it plays Firewatch faster than my MBP
webmobdev 6y ago
Keep repeating the same thing again and again, and people eventually start believing it. I don't believe Apple processors are "game changing" as the hype warrants or that AMD and Intel or DOOMED, because the comparison with AMD and Intel CPU itself is flawed. It's only game changing like the lightening connector of Apple - it was based on existing technology that Apple was bold enough to customise and innovate for its specific needs. Their current processor is the same. People are forgetting that this is not the first time that different CPU architectures are competing with one other! Apple themselves are historical proof of this with the many switches they have made over the last 3+ decade. Apple has made a system-on-chip that is obviously quite different from the current Intel or AMD processors. Moreover their software is finely optimized for it. Kudos to them for doing so - they certainly have been bolder in pushing for these obvious existing innovations that no one was willing to spend some money to do so. While Intel and AMD also offer integrated GPU with some of their CPU, they are nothing like the current spread of ARM SoCs that offer many other units integrated with the CPU - as this article itself points out, Apple's SoC contains a GPU, an image processing unit, a digital signal processing unit, Neural processing unit, video encoder / decoder, a "secure enclave" for encryption / decryption and unified memory (RAM integrated). (Note that this is not a unique innovation as claimed by this article, and some others - many ARM SoCs like these already exist in different variations. In fact, it's what made ARM popular.) Obviously, when a system software or application uses these specific units of an SoC to process specific data, they may be faster than a processor that doesn't have these units. And Intel and AMD processors currently don't have these specific units integrated with their CPU. That is why comparing the Apple SoCs with Intel or AMDs processors and calling them "better" is bullshit to begin with as they aren't the same thing. If Intel and AMD also had these units along with RAM integrated within it, than it would be a reasonably fair comparison. (Assuming all the other hardware and software remain the same, which is quite difficult to do so with Apple computers as they make custom hardware that doesn't easily accept other parts.) Yes, Apple system-on-chips for its desktop PC do appear to give a comparable performance to the current Intel and AMD CPUs (and even surpass it in some specific computing) through macOS. But calling it an AMD or Intel killer however is just illogical and exaggerated marketing - there is nothing that prevents either AMD or Intel to innovate even beyond what Apple has done, and integrate the RAM or build similar SoCs, if the market demands it. I am betting that while Apple will certainly increase their profits and customer base with their own chips, they will also lose many "insignificant" customers like me who have no interest in buying an even less customisable and more closed system from Apple. Intel and AMD CPUs offer me more computing freedom than an Apple Silicon ever will.
varispeed 6y ago
So a new state of the art CPU is a bit faster than a 5 year old design that Intel kept milking without any significant changes? I think that sounds reassuring that there are companies still capable of innovation although I am not a fan of Apple, I admire them for getting Intel on their toes. Finally.
davidy123 6y ago
> That makes it a more natural fit for an actual computer-maker, such as HP and Dell. What about XBox and Playstation? I gather AMD makes equivalent integrated silicon for the leading game systems, so that might be the most interesting comparison.

27 points by highfrequency 6y ago

I’m looking forward to compile time perf which looks really good, and it’s really nice to have an article that doesn’t just look at the “amazing” video performance. I’m kind of sick of video encode/decode perf comparisons though as it is invariably just software vs hardware, and unsurprisingly hardware is vastly faster.

acqq 6y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro-is-powerful-but-its-the-battery-life-that-will-blow-you-away/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro... WebKit compile time: "2020 13-inch MacBook Pro with Intel CPU: 46 minutes and 10 seconds M1 MacBook Pro: 20 minutes and 43 seconds" And even more fascinating: "2019 Mac Pro (Intel 12-Core 3.3GHz CPU): 20 minutes and 11 seconds M1 Mac mini: 19 minutes 32 seconds" Some other measurements of some other compilations show the advantage of many core Intels but with more cores and much more electricity spent: https://build2.org/blog/apple-m1-compilation.xhtml https://build2.org/blog/apple-m1-compilation.xhtml "time sh ./build2-install-0.13.0.sh --local --yes ~/install 163s" "As the first point of reference, let's compare it to my workstation with an 8-core Intel Xeon E-2288G (essentially i9-9900K plus ECC). It does the same build using vanilla Clang in 131s. While E-2288 is faster, M1's performance is nevertheless impressive. Especially when you consider that during the build the workstation is belching hot air and screaming like an airplane about to take off while M1 is whisper-quiet with barely warm air coming from its exhaust." It seems that in the comparable power envelope M1 remains better: "CPU CORES/THREADS TIME Apple M1 4+4 163s AMD Ryzen 4700U 8/8 222s Intel Core 1165G 4/8 295s"
- bjoli 6y ago
  Well, the next question is: is clang doing anything different for arm than for x86? Why is the difference so big if that is not the case? Memory, cache and latency might be the big thing, and there is nothing saying that intel or AMD couldn't compete with that.
  - thecompilr 6y ago
    Clang is definitely not better for ARMv8 yet, in fact clang doesn’t even have an optimization profile for the M1 yet.
    - crest 6y ago
      Not spending as much time in the target optimizer could explain some of it.
      - awj 6y ago
        Right, and on the flipside significant effort has been invested in Clang performance when compiling for Intel CPUs. Much of that is likely to the benefit of all backends, but some of it surely is specific to Intel. IMO this bit right here is worthy of highlighting again: > Especially when you consider that during the build the workstation is belching hot air and screaming like an airplane about to take off while M1 is whisper-quiet with barely warm air coming from its exhaust. I have never run a significant amount of compilation on any machine that didn't hit heat issues. So either the M1 is doing very well at managing heat, or Clang is doing incredibly poorly at exploiting the full system. In either case this makes the M1 look like something special.
    - olliej 6y ago
      armv8 is one of clang's most important targets, and the optimization profiles don't impact compile time.
yawnxyz 6y ago
I just got the M1. Macbook Air 13 and it plays Firewatch faster than my MBP

webmobdev 6y ago

Keep repeating the same thing again and again, and people eventually start believing it. I don't believe Apple processors are "game changing" as the hype warrants or that AMD and Intel or DOOMED, because the comparison with AMD and Intel CPU itself is flawed. It's only game changing like the lightening connector of Apple - it was based on existing technology that Apple was bold enough to customise and innovate for its specific needs. Their current processor is the same. People are forgetting that this is not the first time that different CPU architectures are competing with one other! Apple themselves are historical proof of this with the many switches they have made over the last 3+ decade. Apple has made a system-on-chip that is obviously quite different from the current Intel or AMD processors. Moreover their software is finely optimized for it. Kudos to them for doing so - they certainly have been bolder in pushing for these obvious existing innovations that no one was willing to spend some money to do so. While Intel and AMD also offer integrated GPU with some of their CPU, they are nothing like the current spread of ARM SoCs that offer many other units integrated with the CPU - as this article itself points out, Apple's SoC contains a GPU, an image processing unit, a digital signal processing unit, Neural processing unit, video encoder / decoder, a "secure enclave" for encryption / decryption and unified memory (RAM integrated). (Note that this is not a unique innovation as claimed by this article, and some others - many ARM SoCs like these already exist in different variations. In fact, it's what made ARM popular.) Obviously, when a system software or application uses these specific units of an SoC to process specific data, they may be faster than a processor that doesn't have these units. And Intel and AMD processors currently don't have these specific units integrated with their CPU. That is why comparing the Apple SoCs with Intel or AMDs processors and calling them "better" is bullshit to begin with as they aren't the same thing. If Intel and AMD also had these units along with RAM integrated within it, than it would be a reasonably fair comparison. (Assuming all the other hardware and software remain the same, which is quite difficult to do so with Apple computers as they make custom hardware that doesn't easily accept other parts.) Yes, Apple system-on-chips for its desktop PC do appear to give a comparable performance to the current Intel and AMD CPUs (and even surpass it in some specific computing) through macOS. But calling it an AMD or Intel killer however is just illogical and exaggerated marketing - there is nothing that prevents either AMD or Intel to innovate even beyond what Apple has done, and integrate the RAM or build similar SoCs, if the market demands it. I am betting that while Apple will certainly increase their profits and customer base with their own chips, they will also lose many "insignificant" customers like me who have no interest in buying an even less customisable and more closed system from Apple. Intel and AMD CPUs offer me more computing freedom than an Apple Silicon ever will.

varispeed 6y ago

So a new state of the art CPU is a bit faster than a 5 year old design that Intel kept milking without any significant changes? I think that sounds reassuring that there are companies still capable of innovation although I am not a fan of Apple, I admire them for getting Intel on their toes. Finally.

davidy123 6y ago

> That makes it a more natural fit for an actual computer-maker, such as HP and Dell. What about XBox and Playstation? I gather AMD makes equivalent integrated silicon for the leading game systems, so that might be the most interesting comparison.