3 ms·
I'm guessing you mean double the single core performance and not clock speed. Even Intel Pentium 4's from 2000 had higher clock speeds than Apple's M1 chips. Th
by minhazm 5y ago
I'm guessing you mean double the single core performance and not clock speed. Even Intel Pentium 4's from 2000 had higher clock speeds than Apple's M1 chips. The clock speed matters far less than what you can actually get done in a single clock cycle. Just looking at Apple's own products and their single core performance from Geekbench you can see they achieved around a 40% improvement in just single core performance [1]. So it's not just adding more cores. Apple has usually been the one to hold out on cores and usually has resisted adding more cores to the iPhone / iPad chips in the past and focused on better single core performance.
> Your average user is going to prefer double the clock rate of your processors to doubling the number of processors.
I disagree. The reality is that these days people are running multi-threaded workloads even if they don't know it. Running a dozen chrome tabs, Slack, Teams, Zoom, some professional tools like IDE's, Adobe creative suite, etc. adds up very quickly to a lot of processes that can use a lot of cores.
[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
- rayiner 5y ago> Even Intel Pentium 4's from 2000 had higher clock speeds than Apple's M1 chips. It’s wild to see that in print.
- ac29 5y agoIsnt true though - the Pentium 4 was released in 2000, but the fastest version available that year was only 1.5GHz. It wouldnt hit 3.2GHz (~M1) until 2003.
- pantulis 5y agoIsn't running multiple single-threaded workloads at the same time also a case for better performance with more cores? So even for basic tasks having more cores is better (although maybe not that cost-efficient)
- katbyte 5y agoonly if those workloads are very CPU intensive, and the ones that are should probably be parallelized as much as possible anyway.
- Forgeties79 5y agoSort of related: Adobe creative cloud is the most bloated, CPU-inefficient system I’ve ever had the displeasure of working with as a professional editor. I get FCPX is apple’s NLE but the render times smoke premier in comparison and CC in general is just way too busy in the background.
- zaptrem 5y agoRunning lots of cores at a low speed can be more efficient than one core at turbo speed.