3 ms·
Cache, maybe. But the M1 is generally a more aggressive design. Can issue more instructions per cycle, more functional units, more aggressive GPU, larger reor
by sliken 5y ago
Cache, maybe. But the M1 is generally a more aggressive design. Can issue more instructions per cycle, more functional units, more aggressive GPU, larger reorder window, more extra accelerators (audio, video, machine learning, etc), in package ram, more memory channels (8 x 16 bit on the lowest end M1), etc. There's substantial advantages in memory bandwidth on the higher end M1s. M1 pro = as much bandwidth as a 8 channel AMD Epyc server chip. M1 max = as much bandwidth as a 16 channel AMD epyc dual socket. Some of the M1 products don't even have fans! I have a M1 mini that runs silent fast and makes my 1 year old MBP 16" Intel i9 look pretty terrible, even if I ignore the jet engine sounding fans that turn on when patching, video streaming, or doing nearly anything but idle.
Keep in mind that most laptops have a 128 bit memory interface as do even high end desktops like i7/i9 and the ryzen 59XX. M1 max and pro are 256, and 512 bits and running at 4266 Mhz!
Performance per core near the best Intel and AMD have to offer, but perf/watt is crazy better.
- olliej 5y agoI'm not super convinced by the GPUs to be honest. They seem to be good for integrated gpus, but are still blown away by discrete ones.
- GeekyBear 5y agoA lot of the issues with the GPU come down to legacy software that isn't ARM native and/or doesn't support Apple's GPU/compute API, Metal. It's a similar situation to legacy x86 software that doesn't support AVX-512. It still runs, but could run faster if it supported the available hardware. For example, World of Warcraft is available in an ARM native version that supports Metal and can run at 120 FPS on the 16 inch MacBook M1 Max with the graphics settings cranked up to 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZV3bOpv2Rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZV3bOpv2Rs x86 games on OpenGL don't run nearly as well, as expected.