7 ms·

My M1 MacBook is significantly "faster" than my previous Intel 16", even though the per-core performance are roughly similar in CPU benchmarks (small advantage

My M1 MacBook is significantly "faster" than my previous Intel 16", even though the per-core performance are roughly similar in CPU benchmarks (small advantage to M1). I saw a previous HN comment about this being due to memory bandwidth and cache latency, but I can't seem to substantiate that comment. That being said, I'd love to have this sort of performance out of servers. Arm released https://www.anandtech.com/show/17575/arm-announces-neoverse-v2-and-e2-the-next-generation-of-arm-server-cpu-cores https://www.anandtech.com/show/17575/arm-announces-neoverse-... in 2022, but it's not really available yet anywhere.

FredPret 4y ago
I had one of those behemoth AMD dozen-core CPU's with 64gb of RAM, in a desktop. My basic M1 blows it out of the water in terms of how fast it feels. Some workloads are obviously faster on the big PC, but I haven't been this excited about a CPU since the Pentium 1.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  I just really appreciate how quiet it runs. I basically never hear the fan, and I remember having to pin the fan in my old Macbook to max to force it to adequately cool the machine.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > pin the fan in my old Macbook to max At the office we all joked that the MBPs were preparing to take off.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The M1 has a lot more transistors per core than the AMD, so which is the behemoth?
  - FredPret 4y ago
    The one that: - costs more - plugs into the wall - cannot easily be moved - sounds like a helicopter!
    - pdimitar 4y ago
      Is cooling the 3990X really that noisy?
      - FredPret 4y ago
        I have a lower model but yes, it’s super annoying
- 15155 4y ago
  I have a 3990X + 256GB RAM workstation with NVME drives. My M1 Max MBPs absolutely do not "feel as fast" - but definitely feel proportionately faster for the cost.
  - FredPret 4y ago
    That's quite the workstation! I use my laptop as a thin client and have compute jobs running on the PC, which is now a Linux server. Best of both worlds I think.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      > I use my laptop as a thin client and have compute jobs running on the PC Same arrangement as here. I wish I could transparently overflow to cloud when the local server gets bogged down by my demands.
    - 15155 4y ago
      I use my M1 Max MBP as a thin client, incidentally. I have XRDP setup, but primarily use the machine heedlessly.
- bdittmer 4y ago
  My personal macOS "machine" is a VM running on a supermicro threadripper pro board (along with a Linux desktop VM + random LXC/VMs). The macOS VM is significantly faster than my M1 Pro work system. I should run some benchmarks.
nordsieck 4y ago
> I saw a previous HN comment about this being due to memory bandwidth and cache latency, but I can't seem to substantiate that comment. I don't know if Apple has released any stats, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The technical reason to put memory and the CPU/GPU on a single package is to decrease memory latency (and possibly boost operating frequency). There's probably also the option to have a really wide memory bus. Of course, a nice side benefit for Apple is that people can no longer buy 3rd part ram at market rates. That being said... > My M1 MacBook is significantly "faster" than my previous Intel 16", even though the per-core performance are roughly similar in CPU benchmarks (small advantage to M1). The thing about benchmarks is, they're sometimes particular to a specific application, and even data sets. So M1 can be largely tied with an Intel chip across a broad range of benchmarks (e.g. Geekbench), but it can also be a lot faster on your specific workloads.
- wtallis 4y ago
  > The technical reason to put memory and the CPU/GPU on a single package is to decrease memory latency (and possibly boost operating frequency). You've got that backwards, I think. Putting memory on package, or even just soldered on the PCB nearby rather than in removable DIMMs primarily helps hit higher frequencies or lower power at similar frequencies (GPUs and smartphones provide a wealth of examples). There's little or no impact on latency, because most DRAM latency occurs within the DRAM dies or inside the CPU's cache hierarchy rather than on the link between the CPU and DRAM.
  - sliken 4y ago
    Seems to be both. One big advantage which is not visible on the M1 (which has a 128 bit wide memory), is the M1 pro, max, and ultra have 2x, 4x, and 8X the memory bandwidth. Something that's much harder on the x86-64 size, and (AFAIK) impossible on x86-64 laptop. The latency does seem improved in the last level cache and main memory, at least compared to AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. Sadly looks like Anandtech has lost the people who did the deep dives and I can't find similar latency numbers for cache and ram for the Ryzen 7000 series. Apple's power efficiency allows for a 512 bit wide memory system in a laptop, 4 times any x86-64 laptop. I do hope that AMD or Intel ups their game and allows for more aggressive memory systems on laptops. Only similar design I know of is the Xbox series X and PS5, which both use AMD chips with improved memory systems to keep from bottlenecking the iGPU.
dragontamer 4y ago
M1 is a bigger core than any other core I know of. Just larger reorder buffers, wider execution, etc. etc. Nominally speaking, its inefficient at that point. You pretty much can make 2 cores fit inside of the M1 core, and each x86 core supports two threads (Would you rather have 4x x86 threads, or 1x M1 core??). I'm intrigued that people continue to find benefits from such a large core (even without SMT / Hyperthreading). -------- But yes, M1 has huge L1 cache, huge reorder buffers, and extremely wide execution. I'd expect it to win clock-for-clock vs any other core in the market. But I'm not fully convinced that its the best design / tradeoff. Intel's E-cores + P-cores suggests that modern CPU cores may have become overly big.
- smachiz 4y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges to an extent - the M1/M2 delivery like.... 5x the performance per watt of x86 designs. Even the E-cores draw more power than the M1/M2 cores.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Not really. You can always cut down power consumption by running them slower GHz. Among other tricks. As far as I'm aware, AMD EPYC continues to win performance/watt crown in practical server applications (servers also cut down on GHz to try to keep things power-efficient. Better to have many cores at lower GHz to win power-efficiency races). The interesting thing to me is die-area. Because that's what determines how many cores you get per chip.
    - xenadu02 4y ago
      > Not really. You can always cut down power consumption by running them slower GHz But that ruins the original argument... Not that any amount of down clocking can let Intel or AMD get close on the perf/power graph. Besides heat is the main bottleneck on data center density and operational cost. This is the denialist argument I keep seeing where people want to have their cake and eat it (or perpetually pin their hopes on Zen+1 that hasn't actually shipped). If Intel could match M1/M2 power/perf they'd do it. But they can't. They can win the perf crown by absolutely burning power or they can get massively trounced to kinda get close on power. Zen is better but still has the same fundamental trade off. Instead of saying M1/M2 are nothing special I'm super excited to see actual competition in the CPU space for the first time in a long time - competition that has proven a lot of conventional wisdom to be bunk.
wil421 4y ago
My M1 air is only a few minutes behind my old i7-7700k in handbrake encoding a 4k 10 bit HDR movie into a 1080p version. I still have a 2017 16inch MBP that throttles horribly on any major task. I’m going to some personal benchmarks for all all 3 machines plus my new Ryzen 7950x. It still amazes me the fanless M1 Air is nearly as fast as my old desktop and laptop.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygy_JfE0cMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygy_JfE0cMA i watched this long time ago and i have a new appreciation for "my phone", not to speak of other general computing devices like laptops or desktops
  - wil421 4y ago
    I’m unsure of the quality of the hardware encoder for snapdragon. Intel QSV had noticeable changes and Nvidia’s nvenc is the worst.
- helf 4y ago
  Not to cause any arguments or anything but comparing an Apple Intel laptop go their new ARM units isn’t a great comparison because I swear apple started thermally gimping them several years before releasing the M1s to make them look even better. Seriously. The thermals the the last couple of intel apple laptops are atrocious. And I mean from a design standpoint point. With shitty coolers and fan arrangements etc. its kinda wild.
  - marshray 4y ago
    Perhaps the simplest explanation is they just wanted to optimize for size and weight as much as possible, and the copper/aluminum budget is a natural target.
    - helf 4y ago
      Probably. But that’s not as fun of an answer! :)
api 4y ago
It's due to larger caches, memory bandwidth, and thermal throttling or lack thereof. Intel laptops tend to run hot and therefore tend to not reach peak performance for longer periods of time. With M1/M2 and especially with the pro laptops with fans you will get peak performance much or all of the time.
zX41ZdbW 4y ago
It can be about the memory bandwidth, but it matters mostly for hi-end data processing software. You can compare Threadripper (4-channel memory), Threadripper Pro (8-channel memory, same as for EPYC servers) and M1 by memory bandwidth. Example 1: https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-threadripper-5965wx/5 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-threadripper-5965wx/5 - ClickHouse on Threadripper Pro with less number of cores but better memory bandwidth is faster than Threadripper with larger number of cores. Example 2: https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/hardware/ https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/hardware/ various servers, while Aarch64 servers have good places, the top results are from EPYC servers. Never EPYC servers have 12-channel DDR-5 memory - sounds like a heaven for ClickHouse :)

FredPret 4y ago

I had one of those behemoth AMD dozen-core CPU's with 64gb of RAM, in a desktop. My basic M1 blows it out of the water in terms of how fast it feels. Some workloads are obviously faster on the big PC, but I haven't been this excited about a CPU since the Pentium 1.

nordsieck 4y ago
I just really appreciate how quiet it runs. I basically never hear the fan, and I remember having to pin the fan in my old Macbook to max to force it to adequately cool the machine.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > pin the fan in my old Macbook to max At the office we all joked that the MBPs were preparing to take off.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The M1 has a lot more transistors per core than the AMD, so which is the behemoth?
- FredPret 4y ago
  The one that: - costs more - plugs into the wall - cannot easily be moved - sounds like a helicopter!
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    Is cooling the 3990X really that noisy?
    - FredPret 4y ago
      I have a lower model but yes, it’s super annoying
15155 4y ago
I have a 3990X + 256GB RAM workstation with NVME drives. My M1 Max MBPs absolutely do not "feel as fast" - but definitely feel proportionately faster for the cost.
- FredPret 4y ago
  That's quite the workstation! I use my laptop as a thin client and have compute jobs running on the PC, which is now a Linux server. Best of both worlds I think.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > I use my laptop as a thin client and have compute jobs running on the PC Same arrangement as here. I wish I could transparently overflow to cloud when the local server gets bogged down by my demands.
  - 15155 4y ago
    I use my M1 Max MBP as a thin client, incidentally. I have XRDP setup, but primarily use the machine heedlessly.
bdittmer 4y ago
My personal macOS "machine" is a VM running on a supermicro threadripper pro board (along with a Linux desktop VM + random LXC/VMs). The macOS VM is significantly faster than my M1 Pro work system. I should run some benchmarks.

nordsieck 4y ago

> I saw a previous HN comment about this being due to memory bandwidth and cache latency, but I can't seem to substantiate that comment. I don't know if Apple has released any stats, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The technical reason to put memory and the CPU/GPU on a single package is to decrease memory latency (and possibly boost operating frequency). There's probably also the option to have a really wide memory bus. Of course, a nice side benefit for Apple is that people can no longer buy 3rd part ram at market rates. That being said... > My M1 MacBook is significantly "faster" than my previous Intel 16", even though the per-core performance are roughly similar in CPU benchmarks (small advantage to M1). The thing about benchmarks is, they're sometimes particular to a specific application, and even data sets. So M1 can be largely tied with an Intel chip across a broad range of benchmarks (e.g. Geekbench), but it can also be a lot faster on your specific workloads.

wtallis 4y ago
> The technical reason to put memory and the CPU/GPU on a single package is to decrease memory latency (and possibly boost operating frequency). You've got that backwards, I think. Putting memory on package, or even just soldered on the PCB nearby rather than in removable DIMMs primarily helps hit higher frequencies or lower power at similar frequencies (GPUs and smartphones provide a wealth of examples). There's little or no impact on latency, because most DRAM latency occurs within the DRAM dies or inside the CPU's cache hierarchy rather than on the link between the CPU and DRAM.
- sliken 4y ago
  Seems to be both. One big advantage which is not visible on the M1 (which has a 128 bit wide memory), is the M1 pro, max, and ultra have 2x, 4x, and 8X the memory bandwidth. Something that's much harder on the x86-64 size, and (AFAIK) impossible on x86-64 laptop. The latency does seem improved in the last level cache and main memory, at least compared to AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. Sadly looks like Anandtech has lost the people who did the deep dives and I can't find similar latency numbers for cache and ram for the Ryzen 7000 series. Apple's power efficiency allows for a 512 bit wide memory system in a laptop, 4 times any x86-64 laptop. I do hope that AMD or Intel ups their game and allows for more aggressive memory systems on laptops. Only similar design I know of is the Xbox series X and PS5, which both use AMD chips with improved memory systems to keep from bottlenecking the iGPU.

dragontamer 4y ago

M1 is a bigger core than any other core I know of. Just larger reorder buffers, wider execution, etc. etc. Nominally speaking, its inefficient at that point. You pretty much can make 2 cores fit inside of the M1 core, and each x86 core supports two threads (Would you rather have 4x x86 threads, or 1x M1 core??). I'm intrigued that people continue to find benefits from such a large core (even without SMT / Hyperthreading). -------- But yes, M1 has huge L1 cache, huge reorder buffers, and extremely wide execution. I'd expect it to win clock-for-clock vs any other core in the market. But I'm not fully convinced that its the best design / tradeoff. Intel's E-cores + P-cores suggests that modern CPU cores may have become overly big.

smachiz 4y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges to an extent - the M1/M2 delivery like.... 5x the performance per watt of x86 designs. Even the E-cores draw more power than the M1/M2 cores.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Not really. You can always cut down power consumption by running them slower GHz. Among other tricks. As far as I'm aware, AMD EPYC continues to win performance/watt crown in practical server applications (servers also cut down on GHz to try to keep things power-efficient. Better to have many cores at lower GHz to win power-efficiency races). The interesting thing to me is die-area. Because that's what determines how many cores you get per chip.
  - xenadu02 4y ago
    > Not really. You can always cut down power consumption by running them slower GHz But that ruins the original argument... Not that any amount of down clocking can let Intel or AMD get close on the perf/power graph. Besides heat is the main bottleneck on data center density and operational cost. This is the denialist argument I keep seeing where people want to have their cake and eat it (or perpetually pin their hopes on Zen+1 that hasn't actually shipped). If Intel could match M1/M2 power/perf they'd do it. But they can't. They can win the perf crown by absolutely burning power or they can get massively trounced to kinda get close on power. Zen is better but still has the same fundamental trade off. Instead of saying M1/M2 are nothing special I'm super excited to see actual competition in the CPU space for the first time in a long time - competition that has proven a lot of conventional wisdom to be bunk.

wil421 4y ago

My M1 air is only a few minutes behind my old i7-7700k in handbrake encoding a 4k 10 bit HDR movie into a 1080p version. I still have a 2017 16inch MBP that throttles horribly on any major task. I’m going to some personal benchmarks for all all 3 machines plus my new Ryzen 7950x. It still amazes me the fanless M1 Air is nearly as fast as my old desktop and laptop.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygy_JfE0cMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygy_JfE0cMA i watched this long time ago and i have a new appreciation for "my phone", not to speak of other general computing devices like laptops or desktops
- wil421 4y ago
  I’m unsure of the quality of the hardware encoder for snapdragon. Intel QSV had noticeable changes and Nvidia’s nvenc is the worst.
helf 4y ago
Not to cause any arguments or anything but comparing an Apple Intel laptop go their new ARM units isn’t a great comparison because I swear apple started thermally gimping them several years before releasing the M1s to make them look even better. Seriously. The thermals the the last couple of intel apple laptops are atrocious. And I mean from a design standpoint point. With shitty coolers and fan arrangements etc. its kinda wild.
- marshray 4y ago
  Perhaps the simplest explanation is they just wanted to optimize for size and weight as much as possible, and the copper/aluminum budget is a natural target.
  - helf 4y ago
    Probably. But that’s not as fun of an answer! :)

api 4y ago

It's due to larger caches, memory bandwidth, and thermal throttling or lack thereof. Intel laptops tend to run hot and therefore tend to not reach peak performance for longer periods of time. With M1/M2 and especially with the pro laptops with fans you will get peak performance much or all of the time.

zX41ZdbW 4y ago

It can be about the memory bandwidth, but it matters mostly for hi-end data processing software. You can compare Threadripper (4-channel memory), Threadripper Pro (8-channel memory, same as for EPYC servers) and M1 by memory bandwidth. Example 1: https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-threadripper-5965wx/5 https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-threadripper-5965wx/5 - ClickHouse on Threadripper Pro with less number of cores but better memory bandwidth is faster than Threadripper with larger number of cores. Example 2: https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/hardware/ https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/hardware/ various servers, while Aarch64 servers have good places, the top results are from EPYC servers. Never EPYC servers have 12-channel DDR-5 memory - sounds like a heaven for ClickHouse :)