7 ms·

The 28-core Xeon W-3275M is similar or even slightly better than either the 5950X or 12900KS on multicore workloads, so it won't change the picture much. Overal

by ribit 4y ago

The 28-core Xeon W-3275M is similar or even slightly better than either the 5950X or 12900KS on multicore workloads, so it won't change the picture much. Overall, M1 Ultra CPU is comparable to a Zen3 32-core Threadripper if you aggregate over various workloads, with the difference that the Ultra is a more flexible architecture and thus will be more capable in mixed scenarios. Edit: I'd say that the Ultra is a much better bang for your buck than the Threadripper, unless you absolutely need humongous amounts of RAM or macOS does not work for you.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
The other difference is that the M1 Ultra uses less than one quarter the power. Over a few years of usage, that cost is not insignificant, especially if you are using air conditioning part or all of the year.
- ribit 4y ago
  So far, Apple is the only vendor that makes really pragmatic hardware with true linear scaling. Cache sizes, RAM, power consumption, compute cluster configurations — everything makes sense and everything is balanced. It's a really refreshing take compared to the mainstream PC industry that was predominantly relying on increasing power consumption to improve performance ein the recent years (AMD being a noteworthy exception, but they are struggling too). Of course, the argument can be made — and it is not without merit — that power consumption is secondary to performance for a power or professional user. But the low power consumption of M1 series allows Apple to deliver pretty much unprecedented performance for the given size. Ultra offers performance of large workstation tower in more compact form factor than the smallest HTPC. My M1 Max 16" has the performance of a large workstation laptop with the portability and battery life of an ultrabook — and I can use all that performance while working untethered. It's quite interesting to see all these benchmarks where folks show that the latest ALD laptops can marginally outperform the M1 Pro/Max on the desk, under ideal conditions, while in reality the performance will plummet really fast when you actually want to be mobile. In the meantime I enjoy my desktop-level build times while working on my sofa or on the train.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    That's an interesting limitation: https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1514295682777059329 https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1514295682777059329
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    Low power consumption is so important to me, because the best thing about my M1 over my previous x86 MBP is that it doesn't overheat and melt down and freeze up all the time, rendering all that expensive CPU and GPU power and memory and pixels and other hardware completely useless. I've had to take frozen peas out of the freezer and rub them desperately against the bottom of my x86 MBP to quickly cool it down enough to use, in order to make important Zoom meetings on time. It totally ruins the peas, and can't be good for the computer! Even if they were both the same speed, it would still be so much better, just because of how cool it runs. How fast and long it runs on batteries is just icing on the cake of not getting fucked by speedstep's "kernel_task % CPU 798.6" all the time.

by ribit 4y ago

KennyBlanken 4y ago

The other difference is that the M1 Ultra uses less than one quarter the power. Over a few years of usage, that cost is not insignificant, especially if you are using air conditioning part or all of the year.

ribit 4y ago
So far, Apple is the only vendor that makes really pragmatic hardware with true linear scaling. Cache sizes, RAM, power consumption, compute cluster configurations — everything makes sense and everything is balanced. It's a really refreshing take compared to the mainstream PC industry that was predominantly relying on increasing power consumption to improve performance ein the recent years (AMD being a noteworthy exception, but they are struggling too). Of course, the argument can be made — and it is not without merit — that power consumption is secondary to performance for a power or professional user. But the low power consumption of M1 series allows Apple to deliver pretty much unprecedented performance for the given size. Ultra offers performance of large workstation tower in more compact form factor than the smallest HTPC. My M1 Max 16" has the performance of a large workstation laptop with the portability and battery life of an ultrabook — and I can use all that performance while working untethered. It's quite interesting to see all these benchmarks where folks show that the latest ALD laptops can marginally outperform the M1 Pro/Max on the desk, under ideal conditions, while in reality the performance will plummet really fast when you actually want to be mobile. In the meantime I enjoy my desktop-level build times while working on my sofa or on the train.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  That's an interesting limitation: https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1514295682777059329 https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1514295682777059329
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  Low power consumption is so important to me, because the best thing about my M1 over my previous x86 MBP is that it doesn't overheat and melt down and freeze up all the time, rendering all that expensive CPU and GPU power and memory and pixels and other hardware completely useless. I've had to take frozen peas out of the freezer and rub them desperately against the bottom of my x86 MBP to quickly cool it down enough to use, in order to make important Zoom meetings on time. It totally ruins the peas, and can't be good for the computer! Even if they were both the same speed, it would still be so much better, just because of how cool it runs. How fast and long it runs on batteries is just icing on the cake of not getting fucked by speedstep's "kernel_task % CPU 798.6" all the time.