9 ms·

Is it actually more powerful than a top of the line threadripper[0] or is that not a "personal computer" CPU by this definition? I feel like 64 cores would beat

• dljsjr 5y ago
  Apple's ARM chips can process a metric ton of ops per cycle due to the architecture of the chip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25257932 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25257932
  • zamadatix 5y ago
    But the answer to the question is still "no".
    • gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Doesn't have to though. A Threadripper 3990X uses barrels of electricity, generates plenty of heat, comes with no GPU, has worse single-threaded performance, and still costs $4000 by itself without any of the parts needed to make it actually work.
      • Nition 5y ago
        The question is in relation to Apple's claim that it's "the world’s most powerful and capable chip for a personal computer".
        • gjsman-1000 5y ago
          Depends on what you define "capable" as. Remember, they specify that it is the most powerful and capable chip, not necessarily complete system. There's no other chip that has the power of an RTX 3090 and more power than an i9-12900K in it - after all, Threadripper doesn't have a lick of graphics power at all. This chip can do 18 8K video streams at once, which Threadripper would get demolished at. I'm content with giving them the chip crown. Full system? Debatable.
        • gzer0 5y ago
          It might also be reasonable to say that the threadripper is a workstation chip, not a chip for personal computers. Edit: even AMD themselves call their threadripper lineup workstation chips, not personal. https://www.amd.com/en/processors/workstation https://www.amd.com/en/processors/workstation
          • kllrnohj 5y ago
            Threadripper Pro is the workstation chip. Regular Threadripper (non-Pro) was not aimed at workstations, it was aimed at the "HEDT" market. Strictly speaking it's considered a consumer market (albeit for the enthusiasts of enthusiasts)
          • 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
            I'd call them personal chips. When I think of non-personal chips I think IBM POWER or Ampere Altra.
            • freemint 5y ago
              Why do you think of Altera as non-personal chips?
              • 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
                Not Altera, Ampere Altra. This: https://amperecomputing.com/processors/ampere-altra/ https://amperecomputing.com/processors/ampere-altra/ If the purchase page says to "contact sales" and doesn't list a price then it is not for consumers.
                • freemint 5y ago
                  Click where to buy tab, then there is a list of distributors. Including ones which sell workstation versions with a configurator and pricing. https://store.avantek.co.uk/ampere-altra-64bit-arm-workstation.html https://store.avantek.co.uk/ampere-altra-64bit-arm-workstati...
      • dathinab 5y ago
        Through you would need to compare it to the coming threadripper 5000WX(?) or better the soon coming Ryzen 7000 CPUs (which seen to have integrated graphics). I mean they all are CPUs coming out this year as far as I know.
      • zamadatix 5y ago
        It's a fantastic chip but that wasn't the question. I love my M1 Max and I love my Threadripper workstation, each has their own strengths and that's alright.
    • klelatti 5y ago
      Only if the only thing you compare is CPU performance - adding a big GPU on die adds a certain amount of ‘power’ by any measure.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
• marcan_42 5y ago
  My 1st gen 16 core Threadripper is barely faster than an M1 Pro/Max at kernel builds, so a 64 core TR3 should handily double the M1 Ultra performance. But you know, I'm still happy to double my current build perf in a small box I can stick in my closet. Ordered one :-)
  • gtvwill 5y ago
  • mhh__ 5y ago
    How many threads are actually getting utilized in those kernel builds? I don't work on the kernel enough to have intuition in mind but people make wildly optimistic assumptions about how compilation stresses processors. Also 1st gen threadrippers are getting on a bit now, surely. It's a ~6 year old microarchitecture.
    • nextos 5y ago
      Yes, it'd be interesting to see this comparison made with current AMD CPUs and a full build that has approximately the same price. I am curious whether there is a real performance difference? I do lots of computing on high-end workstations. Intel builds used to be extremely expensive if you required ECC. They used that to discriminate prices. Recent AMD offerings helped enormously. I wonder whether these M1 offerings are a significant improvement in terms of performance, making it worthwhile to cope with the hassle of switching architectures?
      • modzu 5y ago
        but do the m1s have ecc?
    • heavyset_go 5y ago
      Kernel compilation can be heavily parallelized.
    • enedil 5y ago
      Kernel has thousands of compilation units. Each of them is compiled by a separate compiler process. Only the linking at the end doesn't parallelise, however it should take a much smaller part of the time. The proportions change of course, if you develop kernel and do incremental builds lots of times. Then the linking stage might become a bottleneck. The above statement should also relate to most other C/C++ projects.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• cehrlich 5y ago
  Seems like for things that are: 1. Perfectly parallel 2. Not accelerated by some of the other stuff that's on the Apple Silicon SoC's ...it will be a toss-up. Threadripper 3990X get about 25k in Geekbench Multicore [1] M1 Max gets about 12.5k in Geekbench Multicore, so pretty much exactly half [2] Obviously different tasks will have _vastly_ different performance profiles. For example it's likely that the M1 Ultra will blow the Threadripper out of the water for video stuff, whereas Threadripper is likely to win certain types of compiling. There's also the upcoming 5995WX which will be even faster: [3] [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3990x https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-threadrip... [2] https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=apple+m1+max https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q... [3] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5995wx https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-threadripper-p...
  • gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Also of note is that half of the Mac Studio's case is dedicated to cooling. Up to this point, all M1 Max benchmarks are within laptops while all Threadripper benchmarks are in desktops. The M1 Max in the Mac Studio will probably perform better than expected.
    • tacLog 5y ago
      This is sound logic and probably be the case but I wonder if this effect will be less than what we have seen in the past because of the reduced TDP of the M1 processors in general. Maybe the cooling and power delivery difference between laptop formfactors and PC formfactors will be less with these new arm based chips.
    • ip26 5y ago
      Maybe; every chip hits a point where feeding in more power doesn’t make it go any faster. If I was to guess, the increased cooling probably helps the Studio sustain similar boost clocks as the laptops, but for longer. Although it’s possible these are on N4x, which might increase the attainable boost.
  • 5y ago
• runako 5y ago
  Having not seen benchmarks, I would imagine that claimed memory bandwidth of ~800 GB/s vs Threadripper's claimed ~166 GB/s would make a significant difference for a number of real-world workloads.
  • paulmd 5y ago
    Someone will probably chime in and correct me (such is the way of the internet - Cunningham's Law in action) but I don't think the CPU itself can access all 800 GB/s? I think someone in one of the previous M1 Pro/Max threads mentioned that several of the memory channels on Pro/Max are dedicated for the GPU. So you can't just get a 800 GB/s postgres server here. You could still write OpenCL kernels of course. Doesn't mean you can't use it, but not sure if it's all just accessible to CPU-side code. (or maybe it is? it's still a damn fast piece of hardware either way)
    • runako 5y ago
      Fascinating! Linking this[1] because TIL that the memory bandwidth number is more about the SoC as a whole. The discussion in the article is interesting because they are actively trying to saturate the memory bandwidth. Maybe the huge bandwidth is a relevant factor for the real-world uses of a machine called "Studio" that retails for over $3,000, but not as much for people running postgres? 1 - https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performanc...
    • crest 5y ago
      On an M1 Max MacBook Pro the CPU (8P+2E) cores peak at a combined ~240GB/s the rest of the advertised 400GB/s memory bandwidth is only useable by the other bus masters e.g. GPU, NPU, video encoding/decoding etc.
      • paulmd 5y ago
        So now the follow-on question I really wanted to ask: if the CPU can't access all the memory channels does that mean it can only address a fraction of the total memory as CPU memory? Or is it a situation where all the channels go into a controller/bus, but the CPU link out of the controller is only wide enough to handle a fraction of the bandwidth?
• jbellis 5y ago
  Next-gen Threadripper Pro was also announced today: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-details-ryzen-threadripper-pro-5000-wx-series-zen-3-up-to-64-cores https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-details-ryzen-threadri...
  • paulmd 5y ago
    Bit of a wet fart though, even Charlie D thinks it's too little too late. OEM-only (and only on WRX80 socket), no V-cache, worse product support. https://semiaccurate.com/2022/03/08/amd-finally-launches-threadripper-pro-5000/ https://semiaccurate.com/2022/03/08/amd-finally-launches-thr... The niche for high clocks was arguable with the 2nd-gen products but now you are foregoing v-cache which also improves per-thread performance, so Epyc is relatively speaking even more attractive. And if you take Threadripper you have artificial memory limits, half the memory channels, half the PCIe lanes, etc, plus in some cases it's more expensive than the Epyc chips. It is a lot to pay (not just in cash) just for higher clocks that your 64C workloads probably don't even care about. AMD moved into rent-seeking mode even before Zen3 came out. Zen2 threadripper clearly beats anything Intel can muster in the segment (unless they wanted to do W-3175X seriously and not as a limited-release thing with $2000 motherboards) and thus AMD had no reason to actually update this segment when they could just coast. Even with this release, they are not refreshing the "mainstream" TRX40 platform but only a limited release for the OEM-only WRX80 platform. It was obvious when they forced a socket change, and then cranked all the Threadripper 3000 prices (some even to higher-levels than single-socket Epyc "P" skus) what direction things were headed. They have to stay competitive in server, so those prices are aggressive, but Intel doesn't have anything to compete with Threadripper so AMD will coast and raise prices. And while Milan-X isn't cheap - I doubt these WRX80 chips are going to be cheap either, it would be unsurprising if they're back in the position of Threadripper being more expensive for a chip that's locked-down and cut-down. And being OEM-only you can't shop around or build it yourself, it's take it or leave it.
    • frant-hartm 5y ago
      The PRO Threadrippers are not cut down, they have 8 memory channels and 128 PCIE 4.0 lanes. I think the only limitation compared to Epyc is that you can have 1 socket only.
• alwillis 5y ago
  It doesn’t support your argument when we’re talking about a massive processor like a threadripper vs. a M1 Ultra. The performance per watt isn’t in the same universe and that matters.
  • wyattpeak 5y ago
    The article claims that the chip is "the world’s most powerful and capable chip for a personal computer". It's reasonable to ask whether it genuinely is faster than another available chip, it's not an implicit argument that it's not powerful.
  • forrestthewoods 5y ago
    > The performance per watt isn’t in the same universe and that matters. I couldn’t give less of a shit about performance-per-watt. The ONLY metric I care about is performance-per-dollar. A Mac Studio and Threadripper are both boxes that sit on/under my desk. I don’t work from a laptop. I don’t care about energy usage. I even don’t really care about noise. My Threadripper is fine. I would not trade less power for less noise.
    • hu3 5y ago
      This is what some folks miss. One hour of my time is more expensive than an entire month of a computer electricity bill. Some people just want tasks to perform as fast as possible regardless of power consumption or portability. Life's short and time is finite. Every second adds up for repetitive tasks.
      • ghshephard 5y ago
        The power is only relevant because it makes the machine quite in a compact form. If you've got a bit of space, then a water cooled system accomplishes a lot of the same thing. For some people there is an aesthetic element. Power does make a big difference in data centers though - it's often the case that you run out of power before you run out of rack space. Where power for a computer might make a difference could be in power-constrained (solar/off grid) scenarios. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone make an argument based on $$$.
• kiratp 5y ago
  My workstation has a 3990x. Our "world" build is slightly faster on my M1 Max. https://twitter.com/kiratpandya/status/1457438725680480257 https://twitter.com/kiratpandya/status/1457438725680480257 The 3990x runs a bit faster on the initial compile stage but the linking is single threaded and the M1 Max catches up at that point. I expect the M1 Ultra to crush the 3990x on compile time.
  • howinteresting 5y ago
    Try mold.
    • kiratp 5y ago
      We plan to move to it once MacOS support lands (for the laptops).
    • petecooper 5y ago
      >Try mold Curiosity got the better of me: https://github.com/rui314/mold https://github.com/rui314/mold
  • fivea 5y ago
    > The 3990x runs a bit faster on the initial compile stage but the linking is single threaded and the M1 Max catches up at that point. Isn't linking IO-bound?
    • kiratp 5y ago
      Exposing my limited understanding of that level of the computing stack - it is but Apple seems to have very very good caching strategies - filesystem and L1/2/3. https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/slides/Ueyama-lld.pdf https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/slides/Ueyama-lld.pdf There is a breakdown in those slides discussing what parts of lld are single threaded and hard to parallelize so I suspect single thread performance plays a big role too. I generally observe one core pegged during linking.
      • 5y ago
• Teknoman117 5y ago
  I'm obviously going to reserve judgement until people can get their hands on them. Apple makes good stuff but their keynote slides are typically heavily cherrypicked (e.g. our video performance numbers compare our dedicated ASIC to software encoding on a different architecture even though competing ASICs exist kinds of things).
• chaostheory 5y ago
  It doesn't matter. Speaking as an Apple cult member imo Threadripper is better value if you're not using the machine for personal use.
• Thaxll 5y ago
  Well compare that to a 400$ CPU like a 5900x, the first M1 is slower than this one and cost 2x the price.
• gjsman-1000 5y ago
  It is worth noting that it has, at least according to Apple's graphs, slightly more than an RTX 3090 in graphics performance. So, even if it doesn't quite beat Threadripper in the CPU department - it will absolutely annihilate Threadripper in anything graphics-related. For this reason, I don't actually have a problem with Apple calling it the fastest. Yes, Threadripper might be marginally faster in real-world work that uses the CPU, but other tasks like video editing, graphics, it won't be anywhere near close.
  • komuher 5y ago
    It wont be even close to RTX 3090 looking at m1 max and using same scaling maximum it can be close to 3070 performance. We all need to take Apple claims with grain of salt as they are always cherrypicked so i wont be surprise if it wont be even 3070 performance in real usage.
• guelo 5y ago
  It's bad for competition that only Apple gets to use TSMC's 5nm process. Though what's really bad is that Intel and Samsung haven't been able to compete with TSMC.
  • paulmd 5y ago
    AMD will be on TSMC N5P next year, which will give them node parity with Apple (who will be releasing A15 on N5P this year), and actually a small node lead over the current N5-based A14 products. So we will get to test the "it's all just node lead guys, nothing wrong with x86!!!" theory. Don't worry though there will still be room to move the goalposts with "uhhh, but, Apple is designing for high IPC and low clocks, it's totally different and x86 could do it if they wanted to but, uhhh, they don't!". (I'm personally of the somewhat-controversial opinion that x86 can't really be scaled in the same super-wide-core/super-deep-reorder-buffer fashion that ARM opens up and the IPC gap will persist as a result. The gap is very wide, higher than 3x in floating-point benchmarks, it isn't something that's going to be easy to close.)
    • adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      There is a third variable: Apple is putting ram much closer to the CPU than AMD. This has the advantage that you get lower latency (and slightly higher bandwidth), but the downside that you're currently limited to 128gb of ram, compared to 2tb for threadripper (4tb for epic). Amd's 3d cache that they're launching in a few months will be interesting since it lets the L3 go up a ton.
      • astrange 5y ago
        Latency to RAM is not any better. Bandwidth is extremely much better but not for this reason.
    • Macha 5y ago
      We've already seen x86 draw even with Intel 12th gen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0bsjUMz3EM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0bsjUMz3EM