3 ms·

These statements are orthogonal though i.e. 2300->3800 is still less than 20% per generation (17% per if you use the exact single core numbers for the M1 vs M4

These statements are orthogonal though i.e. 2300->3800 is still less than 20% per generation (17% per if you use the exact single core numbers for the M1 vs M4 iPad). That might be meaningful for your workload but it also means 20-30 percent per generation is quite a bit off.

ksec 2y ago
I am sorry I have to say this out loud. But seriously? We expect 20% per generation? When the word generation used to mean 2 years in CPU terms because that was what Moore's law or Intel's tick tock dictate. Even ignoring the word generation, For the past 20 years how many times did we see a successful uArch bringing 20% IPC improvement over the current leading IPC? Where did that 20-30% per gen coming from. The worst part about Apple, its media is that it seems we have a whole generation of people who were never interested in CPU performance suddenly coming up with these expectation and figures.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  On the contrary, _not_ expecting at least 20% per year (more for generations farther apart) is actually only a recent take for CPUs [1][2] which formed in what I like to call "the great stagnation" of the mid 2010s where AMD bombed, ARM was still a low performance mobile play, and Intel didn't have any stiff competition. After that things have started to pick up a little again now that there is innovation on said fronts [3] I remember there was even a period Moore's law was commonly conflated with "a doubling in performance every 2 years" (implies people being used to an increase of at least 41% per year) instead of a doubling in transistor count. Because Intel's tick-tock model started ~5 years prior to the great stagnation people commonly claimed it's the end of Moore's law and that's why we have tick-tock's now. Of course these days it's common knowledge that Moore's law (the actual transistor count version) has been holding steady all these years still and that the performance lull wasn't related to hitting and innate technical scaling barriers. Marketing departments are definitely going to be marketing departments but they aren't the origin of the idea CPUs can have more than minor increments in performance each year. [1] https://preshing.com/images/integer-perf.png https://preshing.com/images/integer-perf.png [2] https://preshing.com/images/float-point-perf.png https://preshing.com/images/float-point-perf.png [3] https://i.imgur.com/HlGbJE9.png https://i.imgur.com/HlGbJE9.png (note this chart is linear not log)
  - ksec 2y ago
    Are those numbers in absolute performance inclusive of clock speed improvement or IPC ( Instruction per Clock ) ? I am inclined to think [1] and [2] are the first and not the latter.
TylerE 2y ago
What increase has intel made over the same time period? Feels like a lot less. CPUs are mature technology.
- qwytw 2y ago
  > Feels like a lot less I think quite a bit more. Meteor Lake seems to have faster ~100% multicore and ~25% single core performance and better battery life.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    Still have double the power draw of my entire desktop mac. For a supposed mobile chip. Intel power consumption/heat is terrible
    - qwytw 2y ago
      That wasn't the question, they did improve tremendously over the last 4 because the were basically not doing anything 4 years prior to that... To be fair desktop Macs these days are just laptops without a screen so it's not that surprising. Of course they are significantly more power efficient but also much slower than high end AMD/Intel chips (if you don't care about heat/power usage that much like a lot of desktop users). Also even on mobile 165H seems to be not that far from M3 e.g. 10-20% worse battery life, slightly slower single core but faster multi-core. Not ideal but considering where Intel was when M1 came out not that bad either.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        You’re the one that brought battery life into it, which certainly does put power consumption in play.
        qwytw 2y ago
        Well yeah... I was saying that they improved power consumption massively compared to Apple since 2020. Which is true. 10th gen was horrible and now they have almost caught up with the M series.

ksec 2y ago

I am sorry I have to say this out loud. But seriously? We expect 20% per generation? When the word generation used to mean 2 years in CPU terms because that was what Moore's law or Intel's tick tock dictate. Even ignoring the word generation, For the past 20 years how many times did we see a successful uArch bringing 20% IPC improvement over the current leading IPC? Where did that 20-30% per gen coming from. The worst part about Apple, its media is that it seems we have a whole generation of people who were never interested in CPU performance suddenly coming up with these expectation and figures.

zamadatix 2y ago
On the contrary, _not_ expecting at least 20% per year (more for generations farther apart) is actually only a recent take for CPUs [1][2] which formed in what I like to call "the great stagnation" of the mid 2010s where AMD bombed, ARM was still a low performance mobile play, and Intel didn't have any stiff competition. After that things have started to pick up a little again now that there is innovation on said fronts [3] I remember there was even a period Moore's law was commonly conflated with "a doubling in performance every 2 years" (implies people being used to an increase of at least 41% per year) instead of a doubling in transistor count. Because Intel's tick-tock model started ~5 years prior to the great stagnation people commonly claimed it's the end of Moore's law and that's why we have tick-tock's now. Of course these days it's common knowledge that Moore's law (the actual transistor count version) has been holding steady all these years still and that the performance lull wasn't related to hitting and innate technical scaling barriers. Marketing departments are definitely going to be marketing departments but they aren't the origin of the idea CPUs can have more than minor increments in performance each year. [1] https://preshing.com/images/integer-perf.png https://preshing.com/images/integer-perf.png [2] https://preshing.com/images/float-point-perf.png https://preshing.com/images/float-point-perf.png [3] https://i.imgur.com/HlGbJE9.png https://i.imgur.com/HlGbJE9.png (note this chart is linear not log)
- ksec 2y ago
  Are those numbers in absolute performance inclusive of clock speed improvement or IPC ( Instruction per Clock ) ? I am inclined to think [1] and [2] are the first and not the latter.

TylerE 2y ago

What increase has intel made over the same time period? Feels like a lot less. CPUs are mature technology.

qwytw 2y ago
> Feels like a lot less I think quite a bit more. Meteor Lake seems to have faster ~100% multicore and ~25% single core performance and better battery life.
- TylerE 2y ago
  Still have double the power draw of my entire desktop mac. For a supposed mobile chip. Intel power consumption/heat is terrible
  - qwytw 2y ago
    That wasn't the question, they did improve tremendously over the last 4 because the were basically not doing anything 4 years prior to that... To be fair desktop Macs these days are just laptops without a screen so it's not that surprising. Of course they are significantly more power efficient but also much slower than high end AMD/Intel chips (if you don't care about heat/power usage that much like a lot of desktop users). Also even on mobile 165H seems to be not that far from M3 e.g. 10-20% worse battery life, slightly slower single core but faster multi-core. Not ideal but considering where Intel was when M1 came out not that bad either.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      You’re the one that brought battery life into it, which certainly does put power consumption in play.
      - qwytw 2y ago
        Well yeah... I was saying that they improved power consumption massively compared to Apple since 2020. Which is true. 10th gen was horrible and now they have almost caught up with the M series.