4 ms·

All his tests are published here: https://github.com/geerlingguy/top500-benchmark?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/geerlingguy/top500-benchmark?tab=readme-

All his tests are published here: https://github.com/geerlingguy/top500-benchmark?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/geerlingguy/top500-benchmark?tab=readme-o... He does test some N100 machines. TL;DR: The M4 blows everything away, but isn't a general purpose machine. The N100 is slightly better than 50% of the power efficiency of the remainder. It's also slightly faster despite having less cores. Single core speed is looks to be twice the speed of ARM. An N100 box with 16GB of RAM and 1TB of NVME is around the USD$200 mark, which is far cheaper than the Mac or Ampere, but in line with the other ARM options. It comes in more form factors with more customisability options than you can poke a pointed stick at. All in all, it doesn't fair too badly. The low price, fast single core speed, and compatibility with everything makes up for a lot of sins.

rty32 2y ago
A few x86 CPUs used are 4-7 generations old. Not sure what to make of that.
rstuart4133 2y ago
I'm pondering the down votes. My current theory is they are over this: > The M4 blows everything away, but isn't a general purpose machine. Perhaps that upset Apple fans. My definition of "general purpose machine" is one that I can realistically write software for. I written operating systems (with a custom network and GUI stack) in the past. Doing that requires hardware that isn't locked down, and somewhat less obviously is well documented. As in "Intel Architecture Manual" style documented, or failing that at least open source drivers like the Linux i915 driver. Apple doesn't come close to meeting that criteria. That's a shame, because their consumer hardware is stellar. If it was open, I would chose it over anything else.
- dangus 2y ago
  I’m sorry but in what universe is writing operating systems “general purpose?” That’s about the most niche computing task I can think of.
  - rstuart4133 2y ago
    > That’s about the most niche computing task I can think of. You must run a lot of niche computers in that case, because every one of them has an OS, mostly specialised to their use case, written by people like me. I'd wager there are more OS's our there than paint programs. Every computing device you have runs one - watches, irrigation controllers, power box meters, high speed USB cables, modems, disk drives, USB sticks, washing machines, car ECU's (did you know your average car has over 100 computers, echo with their own OS)? Hell, even a modern super scalar CPU under the hood has a horde of smaller CPU's you aren't aware of doing their house keeping. OS's are a bit like dirt. They are the foundation everything else stands on, but most people dismiss dirt as the thing that makes other things dirty, just as you are dismissing OS's. Just as there are almost unimaginable number of types of dirt, some that grow trees, so that can support dams, there are a huge number of OS's out there. Which means there almost certainly are far more OS programmers out there that write OS's than there are programmers who write paint programs, but it appears the paint programmers are the rock stars and we get to toil away in the dark. You'll get no argument from me about the quality of Apple's hardware. It's stellar. The M series in particular is so good people are trying to put them to uses Apple didn't have in mind. But so far without much success, because unlike Intel's N100 it isn't designed to be a general purpose computing platform that can be put to any use you cam imagine. Instead Apple wants it's products to be locked into their ecosystem, and only put to uses they can imagine.
dangus 2y ago
I do indeed appear to be the idiot who missed the link within the article that had exactly what I was looking for.

rty32 2y ago

A few x86 CPUs used are 4-7 generations old. Not sure what to make of that.

rstuart4133 2y ago

I'm pondering the down votes. My current theory is they are over this: > The M4 blows everything away, but isn't a general purpose machine. Perhaps that upset Apple fans. My definition of "general purpose machine" is one that I can realistically write software for. I written operating systems (with a custom network and GUI stack) in the past. Doing that requires hardware that isn't locked down, and somewhat less obviously is well documented. As in "Intel Architecture Manual" style documented, or failing that at least open source drivers like the Linux i915 driver. Apple doesn't come close to meeting that criteria. That's a shame, because their consumer hardware is stellar. If it was open, I would chose it over anything else.

dangus 2y ago
I’m sorry but in what universe is writing operating systems “general purpose?” That’s about the most niche computing task I can think of.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  > That’s about the most niche computing task I can think of. You must run a lot of niche computers in that case, because every one of them has an OS, mostly specialised to their use case, written by people like me. I'd wager there are more OS's our there than paint programs. Every computing device you have runs one - watches, irrigation controllers, power box meters, high speed USB cables, modems, disk drives, USB sticks, washing machines, car ECU's (did you know your average car has over 100 computers, echo with their own OS)? Hell, even a modern super scalar CPU under the hood has a horde of smaller CPU's you aren't aware of doing their house keeping. OS's are a bit like dirt. They are the foundation everything else stands on, but most people dismiss dirt as the thing that makes other things dirty, just as you are dismissing OS's. Just as there are almost unimaginable number of types of dirt, some that grow trees, so that can support dams, there are a huge number of OS's out there. Which means there almost certainly are far more OS programmers out there that write OS's than there are programmers who write paint programs, but it appears the paint programmers are the rock stars and we get to toil away in the dark. You'll get no argument from me about the quality of Apple's hardware. It's stellar. The M series in particular is so good people are trying to put them to uses Apple didn't have in mind. But so far without much success, because unlike Intel's N100 it isn't designed to be a general purpose computing platform that can be put to any use you cam imagine. Instead Apple wants it's products to be locked into their ecosystem, and only put to uses they can imagine.

dangus 2y ago

I do indeed appear to be the idiot who missed the link within the article that had exactly what I was looking for.