5 ms·

For some people it's a nice challenge to tackle. Additionally, M1 is currently best? platform when comparing performance with power usage, and (at least MBA) c

For some people it's a nice challenge to tackle. Additionally, M1 is currently best? platform when comparing performance with power usage, and (at least MBA) comes in a great form factor. AFAIK there is no comparable device that has decent support for Linux.

distances 5y ago
Ryzen mobile is of course still faster in multi-core tasks, although with a higher power demand.
- phonon 5y ago
  Actually not--a 5900HX is about 1400/7500 (ST/MT GB5) An M1 is about 1700/7600. So call that a tie for MT, and 20% faster in ST...with a chip using about a third the power.
  - distances 5y ago
    No, M1 is clearly slower in multi-core (to be fair, it has fewer threads). Not sure where you got your numbers from. 5900HX gets about 7800 in Geekbench 5, and the difference is much larger in some other multi-core tests. For example Cinebench gives 7800 for M1, 13800 for 5900HX. E.g. https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-9-5900hx https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...
    - phonon 5y ago
      It says in your link there is a 3% difference in "Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)" between the two? I would say that is practically equivalent, particularly since 5900HX comes in several TDPs. (It says "54 Watt" at your link.) I took my data from perusing the Geekbench DB for the latest submissions...
      - distances 5y ago
        Yeah I agree GB5 is roughly equivalent, others not so. Anyway this is just me being pedantic as so many people seem to think for whatever reason that M1 is the most powerful mobile chip while it certainly isn't. I do expect Apple's follow-up chips to take the multi-core lead too eventually.
        phonon 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsy1yrG2e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsy1yrG2e8
nixpulvis 5y ago
> For some people it's a nice challenge to tackle. So is killing a tiger, but you don't see any stripes on my wall.
- bschwindHN 5y ago
  Sure, getting Linux to run on hardware you purchased is equivalent to poaching. Very reasonable take.
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    I guess I took the OS X 10.4 joke a bit too far huh?
- Y_Y 5y ago
  Well sticking the skin on your wall is just tacky. I normally just wait until people ask about the clawmarks and then feign reluctance as I explain.
- h4x0r12345 5y ago
  With your anti-intellectual mindset, Linux and BSD would never had made any progress. Linux now runs on countless platforms and all of it has been reverse engineered and hacked from the beginning. Getting Linux working on the M1 is a worthwhile challenge for the most talented hackers, which you are definitely not one of.
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    um, ok thanks.

distances 5y ago

Ryzen mobile is of course still faster in multi-core tasks, although with a higher power demand.

phonon 5y ago
Actually not--a 5900HX is about 1400/7500 (ST/MT GB5) An M1 is about 1700/7600. So call that a tie for MT, and 20% faster in ST...with a chip using about a third the power.
- distances 5y ago
  No, M1 is clearly slower in multi-core (to be fair, it has fewer threads). Not sure where you got your numbers from. 5900HX gets about 7800 in Geekbench 5, and the difference is much larger in some other multi-core tests. For example Cinebench gives 7800 for M1, 13800 for 5900HX. E.g. https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-9-5900hx https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...
  - phonon 5y ago
    It says in your link there is a 3% difference in "Geekbench 5 (Multi-Core)" between the two? I would say that is practically equivalent, particularly since 5900HX comes in several TDPs. (It says "54 Watt" at your link.) I took my data from perusing the Geekbench DB for the latest submissions...
    - distances 5y ago
      Yeah I agree GB5 is roughly equivalent, others not so. Anyway this is just me being pedantic as so many people seem to think for whatever reason that M1 is the most powerful mobile chip while it certainly isn't. I do expect Apple's follow-up chips to take the multi-core lead too eventually.
      - phonon 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsy1yrG2e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsy1yrG2e8

nixpulvis 5y ago

> For some people it's a nice challenge to tackle. So is killing a tiger, but you don't see any stripes on my wall.

bschwindHN 5y ago
Sure, getting Linux to run on hardware you purchased is equivalent to poaching. Very reasonable take.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  I guess I took the OS X 10.4 joke a bit too far huh?
Y_Y 5y ago
Well sticking the skin on your wall is just tacky. I normally just wait until people ask about the clawmarks and then feign reluctance as I explain.
h4x0r12345 5y ago
With your anti-intellectual mindset, Linux and BSD would never had made any progress. Linux now runs on countless platforms and all of it has been reverse engineered and hacked from the beginning. Getting Linux working on the M1 is a worthwhile challenge for the most talented hackers, which you are definitely not one of.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  um, ok thanks.