5 ms·

> Apple's M1 is in a class of its own, unfortunately. We want companies to excel and give a stiff competition to their peers. Now that we have M1, it's pushing

> Apple's M1 is in a class of its own, unfortunately. We want companies to excel and give a stiff competition to their peers. Now that we have M1, it's pushing the entire floor to the next level - pushing Intel, AMD and the entire x86 ecosystem. Curious, why do you think it's unfortunate? Is it because Apple is a large company?

dannyw 6y ago
Not OP, but Apple doesn't sell their chips to other companies. It's their right to do so, but if Apple sold M1, that'd be great for consumers.
- f6v 6y ago
  M1 is that good because Apple customises their software for it(or the other way around). I doubt any other company would dedicate that much effort to it.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    M1 is quite good at general-purpose workloads.
duskwuff 6y ago
Not the parent, but: it isn't unfortunate that the M1 is so good; it's unfortunate that everything else is so far behind.
- jeswin 6y ago
  Is it that far behind? Benchmarks aren't everything, but it's probably as good as other metrics. A14 is ahead of SD888 in Geekbench (which has historically favored Apple CPUs), and behind on Antutu (which is more considerate to Snapdragons). Geekbench 5: - Single core: A14 1609, SD888 1127 - Multi core: A14 3872, SD888 3731 Antutu: - A14 615796, SD888 723674
  - phinnaeus 6y ago
    The quoted comment referred only to battery life.
  - selcuka 6y ago
    Note that M1 is faster than A14: Geekbench 5: - Single core: 1744 - Multi core: 7676
  - reacharavindh 6y ago
    Benchmarks aren’t everything as you said. I used to have the last gen MAcBookPro with Intel for 3 years, and replaced it with M1 MacBook Pro. It’s almost an apple to apple comparison as they are same spec except the new processor. The difference is night and day. It just simply feels faster to use. It last almost 1.5 workdays of my use, while the intel one would not even last one full work day. I don’t need to lug around a power brick anymore. I charge at home and bring only the Mac to work without feeling anxious about battery. The cost I pay is that building x86 Docker images are quite slow on M1, but I don’t do it that often to bother me much.
  - ksec 6y ago
    > and behind on Antutu (which is more considerate to Snapdragons). It is more considerate to Multi Core workload. The main point is Single Core benchmarks. Which A14 set itself apart to all of its competitors.
baybal2 6y ago
If Samsung just commits to outspend Apple on the node commitment, transistor counts, and size, then the outcome of the race may not be so pre-determined yet. Transistor for transistor, ARMs latest licenseable cores are not so much far behind.
- ProfessorLayton 6y ago
  Outspending Apple seems like a tall order, to put it mildly.
  - cerved 6y ago
    probably not when you're the second largest
- spfzero 6y ago
  You would need to not only outspend them, but at least match their engineering. Either one alone would be a tall order. But they should at least try, consumers will benefit even from a close miss.
- f6v 6y ago
  Last time I checked Samsung tablets and phones, they lagged already in the store. I don't know whether it's all the crapware that gets pre-installed, or just inefficient programming. But I think CPU speed might not help them.
  - bserge 6y ago
    Their Exynos are infamous for being slower, running hotter and using more power than equivalent Snapdragon and even Kirin (and of course, Apple SoCs). But I doubt that shows in light usage like scrolling or opening an app, that's more likely their (lack of) software optimization.
    - p_l 6y ago
      My experience is that Exynos hw was great... but Samsung software (including drivers) was problematic. Combine to with legacy of android design going for flexibility, including allowance for inefficient options (especially important in comparing graphics - Several Apple models ran on edge of being able to paint one frame without stutter assuming well-optimized code - Apple spent a lot of time ensuring you didn't see that) and you get certain reputation. The only thing that I noticed really problematic is graphics intensive software optimized for Qualcomm. Also, the real issue is not that Samsung doesn't have the capability. A lot of Apple "secret sauce" is that they don't have contractually separated design teams that have to "shop" around for suppliers/buyers, which means that both Qualcomm and Samsung are forced to make more mediocre CPUs because it brings wider selection of buyers - whereas Apple can design device with SoC together, which let's them easily take decisions like "ok, let's put A LOT MORE L1/L2 cache on each core" because they aren't going to deal with customers not wanting to buy them.

dannyw 6y ago

Not OP, but Apple doesn't sell their chips to other companies. It's their right to do so, but if Apple sold M1, that'd be great for consumers.

f6v 6y ago
M1 is that good because Apple customises their software for it(or the other way around). I doubt any other company would dedicate that much effort to it.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  M1 is quite good at general-purpose workloads.

duskwuff 6y ago

Not the parent, but: it isn't unfortunate that the M1 is so good; it's unfortunate that everything else is so far behind.

jeswin 6y ago
Is it that far behind? Benchmarks aren't everything, but it's probably as good as other metrics. A14 is ahead of SD888 in Geekbench (which has historically favored Apple CPUs), and behind on Antutu (which is more considerate to Snapdragons). Geekbench 5: - Single core: A14 1609, SD888 1127 - Multi core: A14 3872, SD888 3731 Antutu: - A14 615796, SD888 723674
- phinnaeus 6y ago
  The quoted comment referred only to battery life.
- selcuka 6y ago
  Note that M1 is faster than A14: Geekbench 5: - Single core: 1744 - Multi core: 7676
- reacharavindh 6y ago
  Benchmarks aren’t everything as you said. I used to have the last gen MAcBookPro with Intel for 3 years, and replaced it with M1 MacBook Pro. It’s almost an apple to apple comparison as they are same spec except the new processor. The difference is night and day. It just simply feels faster to use. It last almost 1.5 workdays of my use, while the intel one would not even last one full work day. I don’t need to lug around a power brick anymore. I charge at home and bring only the Mac to work without feeling anxious about battery. The cost I pay is that building x86 Docker images are quite slow on M1, but I don’t do it that often to bother me much.
- ksec 6y ago
  > and behind on Antutu (which is more considerate to Snapdragons). It is more considerate to Multi Core workload. The main point is Single Core benchmarks. Which A14 set itself apart to all of its competitors.

baybal2 6y ago

If Samsung just commits to outspend Apple on the node commitment, transistor counts, and size, then the outcome of the race may not be so pre-determined yet. Transistor for transistor, ARMs latest licenseable cores are not so much far behind.

ProfessorLayton 6y ago
Outspending Apple seems like a tall order, to put it mildly.
- cerved 6y ago
  probably not when you're the second largest
spfzero 6y ago
You would need to not only outspend them, but at least match their engineering. Either one alone would be a tall order. But they should at least try, consumers will benefit even from a close miss.
f6v 6y ago
Last time I checked Samsung tablets and phones, they lagged already in the store. I don't know whether it's all the crapware that gets pre-installed, or just inefficient programming. But I think CPU speed might not help them.
- bserge 6y ago
  Their Exynos are infamous for being slower, running hotter and using more power than equivalent Snapdragon and even Kirin (and of course, Apple SoCs). But I doubt that shows in light usage like scrolling or opening an app, that's more likely their (lack of) software optimization.
  - p_l 6y ago
    My experience is that Exynos hw was great... but Samsung software (including drivers) was problematic. Combine to with legacy of android design going for flexibility, including allowance for inefficient options (especially important in comparing graphics - Several Apple models ran on edge of being able to paint one frame without stutter assuming well-optimized code - Apple spent a lot of time ensuring you didn't see that) and you get certain reputation. The only thing that I noticed really problematic is graphics intensive software optimized for Qualcomm. Also, the real issue is not that Samsung doesn't have the capability. A lot of Apple "secret sauce" is that they don't have contractually separated design teams that have to "shop" around for suppliers/buyers, which means that both Qualcomm and Samsung are forced to make more mediocre CPUs because it brings wider selection of buyers - whereas Apple can design device with SoC together, which let's them easily take decisions like "ok, let's put A LOT MORE L1/L2 cache on each core" because they aren't going to deal with customers not wanting to buy them.