3 ms·

> release a new Apple server that has 10x the processing power of the next most powerful server running at 1/10th the Wattage The power efficiency of M1 is vas

> release a new Apple server that has 10x the processing power of the next most powerful server running at 1/10th the Wattage The power efficiency of M1 is vastly overstated. Reminder here that the M1 Ultra is almost certainly a 200W TDP SoC (since the M1 Max was ~100W, and this is 2x of those...) So 10x M1 Max's would be ~1000W. That's possibly to put in a server chassis, but it's of course also not remotely 1/10th the wattage of existing server CPUs, either, which tend to be in the 250-350w range. And interconnects aren't free, either (or necessarily even cheap). The infinity fabric connecting the dies together on Epyc is like 70w by itself, give or take.

GeekyBear 5y ago
>The power efficiency of M1 is vastly overstated. Reminder here that the M1 Ultra is almost certainly a 200W TDP SoC 114 Billion transistors are going to draw some power. An RTX 3090 is 28.3 Billion transistors drawing 350W or so for just the GPU portion of the system.
jeffbee 5y ago
The M1 Pro is slightly faster than other CPUs at that ~35W design point, but it doesn't scale up beyond that, or Apple just doesn't care if users can experience its latent scaling abilities, if they exist. I like this chart from "Hardware Unboxed" that puts current Apple, AMD, and Intel CPUs in context: https://imgur.com/PKHelVY https://imgur.com/PKHelVY
- wtallis 5y ago
  It's suspicious how the bottom point on each of those curves is exactly 35W. Real-world power measurements don't line up that cleanly, so I wouldn't be surprised if what they're graphing on that axis (for the x86 processors) is merely the power limit they set the systems to throttle to, rather than a real measurement. That or they interpolated to produce those points.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    God knows what their method is, but the numbers on here for the CPU I actually own are consistent with 1) the benchmark results I see, and 2) the package power reported by the PMU, within a reasonable approximation.
  - kllrnohj 5y ago
    Most of the x86 CPUs support setting power limits, which the CPU does actually respect with a fair degree of accuracy. They probably did that & verified it lines up.
    - wtallis 5y ago
      That'll get you within 5W easily, but it's definitely not as precise as what that graph is depicting.

GeekyBear 5y ago

>The power efficiency of M1 is vastly overstated. Reminder here that the M1 Ultra is almost certainly a 200W TDP SoC 114 Billion transistors are going to draw some power. An RTX 3090 is 28.3 Billion transistors drawing 350W or so for just the GPU portion of the system.

jeffbee 5y ago

The M1 Pro is slightly faster than other CPUs at that ~35W design point, but it doesn't scale up beyond that, or Apple just doesn't care if users can experience its latent scaling abilities, if they exist. I like this chart from "Hardware Unboxed" that puts current Apple, AMD, and Intel CPUs in context: https://imgur.com/PKHelVY https://imgur.com/PKHelVY

wtallis 5y ago
It's suspicious how the bottom point on each of those curves is exactly 35W. Real-world power measurements don't line up that cleanly, so I wouldn't be surprised if what they're graphing on that axis (for the x86 processors) is merely the power limit they set the systems to throttle to, rather than a real measurement. That or they interpolated to produce those points.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  God knows what their method is, but the numbers on here for the CPU I actually own are consistent with 1) the benchmark results I see, and 2) the package power reported by the PMU, within a reasonable approximation.
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  Most of the x86 CPUs support setting power limits, which the CPU does actually respect with a fair degree of accuracy. They probably did that & verified it lines up.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    That'll get you within 5W easily, but it's definitely not as precise as what that graph is depicting.