3 ms·

What we're seeing right now with Apple's M1 chips for desktop computing is on the same level of revolutionary as what the original iPhone did for mobile phones.

What we're seeing right now with Apple's M1 chips for desktop computing is on the same level of revolutionary as what the original iPhone did for mobile phones. The advancements in such a short period of time in the amount of computing power, low power usage, size, and heat usage of these chips is unbelievable and game-changing.

bradmcgo 5y ago
It really feels like this is all in the name of their AR/VR efforts. The killer device as far as I can think would be a simple headset that packs the capabilities of full-blown workstations. Apple Silicon seems like it could totally be on that track in some way.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  True but I can only imagine the cost of that headset. It will be sure the 1% of the 1% :'(
- TheKarateKid 5y ago
  I don't think so. I think it stemmed from Apple's desire to make their SoC fully in-house for their iPhones. They realized they were onto something, and took it to a whole new level by focusing on desktop-class performance. This was probably further fueled by their soured relationship with Intel which was responsible for thermal issues on MBP's for years, poor performance increases across their entire Mac lineup, and poor cellular radio performance on some iPhone models -- forcing them to settle with Qualcomm and ditch Intel for mobile radios.
schmuelio 5y ago
Don't get me wrong, the benefits of using ARM architectures for general purpose vs. x86 are really compelling. The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them, but the cruft of the x86 instruction set and the architectural stuff you have to do to make the instruction set work is really showing it's age. That being said, the GPU performance claims are incredibly misleading. The previous "relative performance" benchmarks that were done on the M1 Max for GPU performance were misleading as well, they definitely cannot keep up with a mid-tier modern discrete GPU. The GPU claim isn't an ARM/x86 comparison like the CPU performance would be. This is comparing a 64 core 800GB/s GPU with a 10k core 900GB/s GPU and trying to make them look equivalent through misleading marketing. None of this is to say that the M1 Ultra is bad necessarily, even if it performs roughly the same as a mobile GPU or powerful iGPU it would still be a very good chip, and I'd love to use one if I could use it in my environment properly. I'm just saying don't put too much faith in the GPU performance measurements provided here.
- inkyoto 5y ago
  > The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them Without denying some good work and engineering having gone into some x86 chips, they are not the reasons for the x86 becoming a leader. The duopoly of Intel and Microsoft – coupled with the aggressive Intel strategy to undermine competitors on the pricing and the sheer production volume they could quickly ramp up – has squeezed every single other viable competitor out of the market and relegated very few to become niche players (e.g. POWER) and entrenched the duopoly as a unfortunate leader. And then complacency and arrogance had set in for years to come until recently.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    GP was talking about performance not marketshare.

bradmcgo 5y ago

It really feels like this is all in the name of their AR/VR efforts. The killer device as far as I can think would be a simple headset that packs the capabilities of full-blown workstations. Apple Silicon seems like it could totally be on that track in some way.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
True but I can only imagine the cost of that headset. It will be sure the 1% of the 1% :'(
TheKarateKid 5y ago
I don't think so. I think it stemmed from Apple's desire to make their SoC fully in-house for their iPhones. They realized they were onto something, and took it to a whole new level by focusing on desktop-class performance. This was probably further fueled by their soured relationship with Intel which was responsible for thermal issues on MBP's for years, poor performance increases across their entire Mac lineup, and poor cellular radio performance on some iPhone models -- forcing them to settle with Qualcomm and ditch Intel for mobile radios.

schmuelio 5y ago

Don't get me wrong, the benefits of using ARM architectures for general purpose vs. x86 are really compelling. The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them, but the cruft of the x86 instruction set and the architectural stuff you have to do to make the instruction set work is really showing it's age. That being said, the GPU performance claims are incredibly misleading. The previous "relative performance" benchmarks that were done on the M1 Max for GPU performance were misleading as well, they definitely cannot keep up with a mid-tier modern discrete GPU. The GPU claim isn't an ARM/x86 comparison like the CPU performance would be. This is comparing a 64 core 800GB/s GPU with a 10k core 900GB/s GPU and trying to make them look equivalent through misleading marketing. None of this is to say that the M1 Ultra is bad necessarily, even if it performs roughly the same as a mobile GPU or powerful iGPU it would still be a very good chip, and I'd love to use one if I could use it in my environment properly. I'm just saying don't put too much faith in the GPU performance measurements provided here.

inkyoto 5y ago
> The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them Without denying some good work and engineering having gone into some x86 chips, they are not the reasons for the x86 becoming a leader. The duopoly of Intel and Microsoft – coupled with the aggressive Intel strategy to undermine competitors on the pricing and the sheer production volume they could quickly ramp up – has squeezed every single other viable competitor out of the market and relegated very few to become niche players (e.g. POWER) and entrenched the duopoly as a unfortunate leader. And then complacency and arrogance had set in for years to come until recently.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  GP was talking about performance not marketshare.