8 ms·
Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade. Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better? I th
by photonerd 3y ago
Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade.
Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better?
I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly Mhz Myth already?
- throwaway2037 3y agoLet me re-write your post with the opposite view. Both are unconvincing. << Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade. Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more MHz always === better? I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly cores Myth already? >>
- akerl_ 3y agoI think you're misreading the comment you're replying to. Both "more cores is always better" and "more MHz is always better" are myths.
- photonerd 3y agoYup, exactly what I was saying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 3y agoThat makes less sense because the MHz marketing came before the core count marketing. I agree with GP that we should rely on real measures like "is it faster", but maybe the goal of exchanging performance cores for efficiency was to decrease power consumption, not be faster?
- photonerd 3y agoProbably a balance of both tbh, as it appears to be both faster AND around the same performance per watt.
- photonerd 3y agoThat's... the same view, just applied to a different metric. Both would be correct. Your reading comprehension needs work, no wonder you're unconvinced when you don't even understand what is being said.
- dimask 3y agoYes, but the number of cores in similar cpus do provide a good comparison. For example, with base M2pro at 6 p cores and base M3pro at 5 p cores, one would want ~20% faster cores to compensate for the lack of one core in parallel processing scenarios where things scale well. I don't think M3 brings that. I am waiting to see tests to understand what the new M3s are better for (prob battery life).
- rewmie 3y ago> Depends. Is it faster? The devil tends to be in the details. More precisely, in the benchmark details. I think Apple provided none other than the marketing blurb. In the meantime, embarrassingly parallel applications do benefit from having more performant cores.
- photonerd 3y agooh absolutely, I can't wait to see the benchmarks. Per the (non-numerical data) benchmarks in the video tho - it is faster. So... until other evidence presents itself, that's what we have to go on.
- grupthink 3y agoHeh, I recall seeing many posts arguing against benchmarks when all Macs equipped with an M2/8GB/256GB SSD scored much, much lower than the M1/8GB/256GB SSD. People said the synthetic benchmarks were not representative of real world use and you'd never notice the difference. 'Twas a battle of the optimists, pessimists, and realists. In reality, 'twas just Apple cutting costs in their newer product.
- rewmie 3y ago> Heh, I recall seeing many posts arguing against benchmarks (...) It's one thing to argue that some real-world data might not be representative all on itself. It's an entirely different thing to present no proof at all, and just claim "trust me, bro" on marketing brochures.
- saagarjha 3y agoFaster than what? M1 Pro? Just barely.
- meflou 3y agoReference should be M2 pro
- saagarjha 3y agoI suspect it's about equal or perhaps even slower.
- photonerd 3y ago2.5x is "just barely"? lol k.
- saagarjha 3y ago20%
- selcuka 3y ago> 2.5x is "just barely"? lol k. That's only rendering speed, and M3 Max vs M1 Max (not Pro). M3 Pro is only 30 percent faster: > The 12-core CPU design has six performance cores and six efficiency cores, offering single-threaded performance that is up to 30 percent faster than M1 Pro.
- polishTar 3y agoI guess we'll have to wait for benchmarks but I did find this interesting: Apple's PR release for M2 pro: "up to 20 percent greater performance over M1 Pro" Apple's announcement for M3 pro: "up to 20 percent faster than M1 Pro" (they didn't bother to compare it to M2 pro)
- fastball 3y agoSure, that's the title, but at least in this PR they immediately show a graph with a comparison to both. Presumably it makes more marketing sense to compare to the M1 family up front because most people that bought an M2 last year are probably not going to be upgrading to M3. They are speaking to the people most likely to upgrade.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- parl_match 3y agofwiw, i cant remember the last time i saw a company go back more than a generation in their own comparison. Apple is saying here as much as they're not saying here. M2->M3 may not be a compelling upgrade story.
- sudhirj 3y agoIt’s absolutely not, and that’s fine. The video has statements that the machines are made to “last for years” and they want to save natural resources be making long lasting machines. I’m currently at 4 to 5 years on laptops and 3 to 4 years on phones, and even then I hand them over to kids/friends/family who get a bit more use out of them.
- parl_match 3y ago> they want to save natural resources be making long lasting machines. Apple always comes from a position of strength. Again, they're saying as much as they're not saying. Also, if they really cared about long lasting machines: slotted ram and flash please, thanks!
- trostaft 3y agoI find that frustrating with how intel markets its desktop CPUs. Often I find performance enhancements directly turning off efficiency cores...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nabakin 3y ago> Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better? I thought this at first then I realized the cost-performance benefit gained from adding more cores often outweighs just improving the performance of single cores. Even in gaming. I think this is what led AMD to create their Ryzen 9 line of CPUs with 12 cores in 2019. That being said, I abhor the deceptive marketing which says 50% more performance when in reality, it's at most 50% more performance specifically on perfectly parallel tasks which is not the general performance that the consumer expects.