4 ms·

> I think that in terms of clock frequency increase that road is closed, and has been for 15 years already. Possibly, except M1 runs at relatively low clock sp

> I think that in terms of clock frequency increase that road is closed, and has been for 15 years already. Possibly, except M1 runs at relatively low clock speeds of around 3.2ghz. This is in no small part how it achieves good power efficiency. It's a bit surprising that a wall powered unit is still capped at this clock speed, although whether that's intentional or just something Apple hasn't gotten around to fixing is TBD. That is, the M1 largely lacks the load-based turbo'ing that modern Intel & AMD CPUs have. So it's "stuck" at whatever it can do on all-cores & max load. This could be intentional, that is Apple may just not ever want to venture into the significantly reduced perf/watt territory of higher clock speeds & turbo complications. Or it could just be an artifact of the mobile heritage, and might be something Apple addresses with the M2, M3, etc...

ls612 5y ago
But for a desktop chip like the M1 Ultra which will always be on wall power I don't see why Apple would be uncomfortable pushing the thermal envelope of the M1 architecture.
r00fus 5y ago
> It's a bit surprising that a wall powered unit is still capped at this clock speed The Intel/x86 mantra that desktops should be allowed to be massively inefficient just to pump up the clock speed fractionally is what's changing. I for one, agree with Apple - 450W beasts aren't really needed. Most workflows can be (or already are) parallelized so multiple cores can demolish what a fast single-thread can tackle.
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  > The Intel/x86 mantra that desktops should be allowed to be massively inefficient just to pump up the clock speed fractionally is what's changing. Nonsense. Nobody is going to just give up "free" performance. > I for one, agree with Apple - 450W beasts aren't really needed. Nobody makes a 450W consumer CPU, so this is a strawman. The M1 Ultra's 200W already puts it quite far beyond the typical consumer setup of 65-125W anyway. Regardless if 450W lets your work finish faster than 200W, that's a tradeoff ~everyone makes. Nothing about that is changing. > Most workflows can be (or already are) parallelized so multiple cores can demolish what a fast single-thread can tackle If this is truly the case for you then you'd already be on the Threadripper/Epyc train and the M1 Ultra would be kinda boring.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    Please try to be consistent or at least explicit about whether you're including a GPU in the power numbers you are referencing; changing that context mid-sentence makes it quite hard to tell whether you really have a solid position.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    > Nonsense. Nobody is going to just give up "free" performance. No, they're done with "free" waste. Apple chips idle at far lower and due to efficiency cores, handle moderate workloads with low TDP. > Nobody makes a 450W consumer CPU CPU, yes. But the M1 (along with all Apple chips) is a SoC so if you include graphics, storage, memory and motherboard - you can easily eclipse 450W for many enthusiast consumer (gaming) builds. Most gaming builds are 300-500W.
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      > No, they're done with "free" waste. Apple chips idle at far lower and due to efficiency cores, handle moderate workloads with low TDP. Alder Lake also has efficiency cores. And everyone has aggressive power gating & ultra low idle states, that's not something Apple came up with or innovated. Apple's inability to turbo isn't some magic advantage. It's just a limitation, and there's no reason to believe they are happy with that limitation nor that others who don't have that limitation would for some reason copy that. Or more accurately, why would AMD & Intel regress back to where they were 5-10 years ago? > you can easily eclipse 450W for many enthusiast consumer (gaming) builds. Most gaming builds are 300-500W. If we're talking gaming builds then M1 Ultra is pretty much completely irrelevant as the gaming performance of the M1 Pro & Max were terrible (likely more a software problem than a hardware one, but still). The Max couldn't even keep up with a 3060 mobile. So a 300-500W desktop gaming build will be running laps around an M1 Ultra in games.

ls612 5y ago

But for a desktop chip like the M1 Ultra which will always be on wall power I don't see why Apple would be uncomfortable pushing the thermal envelope of the M1 architecture.

r00fus 5y ago

> It's a bit surprising that a wall powered unit is still capped at this clock speed The Intel/x86 mantra that desktops should be allowed to be massively inefficient just to pump up the clock speed fractionally is what's changing. I for one, agree with Apple - 450W beasts aren't really needed. Most workflows can be (or already are) parallelized so multiple cores can demolish what a fast single-thread can tackle.

kllrnohj 5y ago
> The Intel/x86 mantra that desktops should be allowed to be massively inefficient just to pump up the clock speed fractionally is what's changing. Nonsense. Nobody is going to just give up "free" performance. > I for one, agree with Apple - 450W beasts aren't really needed. Nobody makes a 450W consumer CPU, so this is a strawman. The M1 Ultra's 200W already puts it quite far beyond the typical consumer setup of 65-125W anyway. Regardless if 450W lets your work finish faster than 200W, that's a tradeoff ~everyone makes. Nothing about that is changing. > Most workflows can be (or already are) parallelized so multiple cores can demolish what a fast single-thread can tackle If this is truly the case for you then you'd already be on the Threadripper/Epyc train and the M1 Ultra would be kinda boring.
- wtallis 5y ago
  Please try to be consistent or at least explicit about whether you're including a GPU in the power numbers you are referencing; changing that context mid-sentence makes it quite hard to tell whether you really have a solid position.
- r00fus 5y ago
  > Nonsense. Nobody is going to just give up "free" performance. No, they're done with "free" waste. Apple chips idle at far lower and due to efficiency cores, handle moderate workloads with low TDP. > Nobody makes a 450W consumer CPU CPU, yes. But the M1 (along with all Apple chips) is a SoC so if you include graphics, storage, memory and motherboard - you can easily eclipse 450W for many enthusiast consumer (gaming) builds. Most gaming builds are 300-500W.
  - kllrnohj 5y ago
    > No, they're done with "free" waste. Apple chips idle at far lower and due to efficiency cores, handle moderate workloads with low TDP. Alder Lake also has efficiency cores. And everyone has aggressive power gating & ultra low idle states, that's not something Apple came up with or innovated. Apple's inability to turbo isn't some magic advantage. It's just a limitation, and there's no reason to believe they are happy with that limitation nor that others who don't have that limitation would for some reason copy that. Or more accurately, why would AMD & Intel regress back to where they were 5-10 years ago? > you can easily eclipse 450W for many enthusiast consumer (gaming) builds. Most gaming builds are 300-500W. If we're talking gaming builds then M1 Ultra is pretty much completely irrelevant as the gaming performance of the M1 Pro & Max were terrible (likely more a software problem than a hardware one, but still). The Max couldn't even keep up with a 3060 mobile. So a 300-500W desktop gaming build will be running laps around an M1 Ultra in games.