7 ms·
I think that’s because 99% of regular computer tasks don’t need 24 cores operating at 5 billion cycles per second. The differences between an i7-4xxx and i7-11
by KMnO4 6y ago
I think that’s because 99% of regular computer tasks don’t need 24 cores operating at 5 billion cycles per second.
The differences between an i7-4xxx and i7-11xxx are more about hardware acceleration, eg HEVC and SIMD. That’s why they look so much better in benchmarks that are designed with that in mind.
My main desktop is an unRAID server that hosts multiple VMs. Only yesterday I discovered that I accidentally only gave Windows four (of my 16) cores. Literally 3/4 of the processor was unused for months, and I didn’t notice any slow performance the entire time.
- thehnguy 6y agoThis is perhaps the real genius of the M1. It's a great chip and all. But when you make it the only choice, people are finding the only choice is more than sufficient. And now Apple only has to produce one piece of silicon for their iMacs, iPad Pro, and Laptops. What a boon for logistics.
- fragmede 6y agoThe success of the M1 is a boon for Apple, but I'm not sure that only having to produce one CPU to be used across all devices is where the optimization lies, especially considering that Apple is selling the iPhone SE with an older CPU and not simplifying by not selling it.
- pranavjoneja 6y agoJust because it's being sold today doesn't mean it's actively manufactured still. They could have stockpiled the older processors or have spare inventory to continue meeting demand
- chrisco255 6y agoSpeak for yourself. Me personally? I would like one core per Chrome tab.
- rjzzleep 6y agoYeah, 2500 cores per CPU sure would be nice.
- sillysaurusx 6y agoMy new M1 constantly freezes, and I’m pretty sure it’s because of chrome. Or the secret SSD thrashing design flaw that Apple is hoping nobody talks about till they quietly fix it. Was a bit disappointing. I was like, finally! A new thing! I’m freeeeeee..... wait no it still freezes, I miss sandy bridge, etc.
- vesrah 6y agoIs the the 8GB model? I had the same issue with my workload and found that it was always under high memory pressure, upgrading to a 16GB model fixed it for me.
- sillysaurusx 6y agoIt’s the 16GB. The memory pressure is indeed the issue. I find it hilarious that Apple accidentally inverted their LRU into an MRU and constantly swaps for no reason, yet it’s still so fast that nobody even noticed during QA. Mine has already read/wrote 48TB in the first three weeks; at this rate the SSD will be dead in three years. (If you haven’t looked into SSDGate yet, be sure to check your smartmon to see whether you’re affected.)
- msie 6y agoThis guy seems to have pinpointed the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyMCoQmsv-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyMCoQmsv-I The problem is unoptimized apps running on Rosetta2.
- astrange 6y agoEmulated apps don’t use more memory. It’s more likely Activity Monitor calculates their usage wrong, it doesn’t show very accurate numbers in the first place.
- mh8h 6y agoI have a 15" retina MacBook Pro from 2012, and another from 2018. The one from 2012 is fine for everyday use. But the difference in single core performance, and also IO, is substantial. That's really important when it comes to a lot of typical development work. For example Rails starts at least 2x faster on the newer laptop.