6 ms·

What does AI performance even mean for intel based mac systems.. The last one was like 5 years ago?

XelNika 1y ago
> production 1.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645, 16GB of RAM, and 2TB SSD https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/#footnote-4 https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/#footnote-4 So yes, that is compared to a very old 14 nm design, presumably the i7-8557U per Wikipedia.
- zingar 1y ago
  Your comment implies that it’s obviously not this spec that they compare against. Could you spell it out for the ignorant like me? What about that config makes it definitely not the thing that is 86x slower?
  - jdiff 1y ago
    I don't see anything in the GP that implies that. It's simply a CPU that was released before an entire AI economic bubble was a twinkle in Jensen Huang's eye. Of course it has piss-poor AI performance vs something with hardware dedicated to accelerating that workflow. It's not that the comparison is incorrect, just that it's a silly and unenlightening statement, bordering on completely devoid of meaning if it weren't for the x86 pun.
- Aperocky 1y ago
  They'll be the only people running this thing in 2030 so they can produce 286x and 386x and maybe 80286x performance gains by then.
bapak 1y ago
Check all the comparisons on their website. They're not comparing their products to the previous gen, they're comparing them to years-old system. They could sell you a downgrade and still stay 2x M1 Pro performance (it was 4x from last year) Apple is a marketing company made to sell stuff.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  > Apple is a marketing company made to sell stuff. That's like... every company? Are you saying they don't have good tech?
  - dimator 1y ago
    Gp is saying their primary expertise is advertising. It's hard to watch any apple announcement and not notice how utterly hyperbolic they are at touting their own achievements. Ya sure, you can say that every company must do that, but apple are exceptional at it. Once you start noticing the unlabeled performance charts, the missing baselines, the comparing with ages old models, the disingenuous "86x" metrics, the whole show becomes cringe worthy.
  - bapak 1y ago
    Marketing companies don't sell their own stuff, they sell others' stuff.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > Are you saying they don't have good tech? I will, yes. If macOS supported Vulkan, then those Intel Macs would have GPU acceleration too, and thus it would be a fair fight comparing it to MPS. Apple's tech stack is so miserly and poor that they never supported the common GPGPU libraries that literally every single OEM is and was shipping. Apple's tech is appalling. Are you saying they exercise good judgement on behalf of their users?
    - nielsbot 1y ago
      I see this is them following their own differentiation and integration which I'd say is good for their users. (Personally I don't care about Vulkan support for example.) So saying their tech is "appealing" is a matter of opinion and I'd argue something a small minority of their users care about. But I don't know.
- _kidlike 1y ago
  I've always disliked Apple because of its aggressive marketing..

> production 1.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645, 16GB of RAM, and 2TB SSD https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/#footnote-4 https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/#footnote-4 So yes, that is compared to a very old 14 nm design, presumably the i7-8557U per Wikipedia.

zingar 1y ago
Your comment implies that it’s obviously not this spec that they compare against. Could you spell it out for the ignorant like me? What about that config makes it definitely not the thing that is 86x slower?
- jdiff 1y ago
  I don't see anything in the GP that implies that. It's simply a CPU that was released before an entire AI economic bubble was a twinkle in Jensen Huang's eye. Of course it has piss-poor AI performance vs something with hardware dedicated to accelerating that workflow. It's not that the comparison is incorrect, just that it's a silly and unenlightening statement, bordering on completely devoid of meaning if it weren't for the x86 pun.
Aperocky 1y ago
They'll be the only people running this thing in 2030 so they can produce 286x and 386x and maybe 80286x performance gains by then.

bapak 1y ago

Check all the comparisons on their website. They're not comparing their products to the previous gen, they're comparing them to years-old system. They could sell you a downgrade and still stay 2x M1 Pro performance (it was 4x from last year) Apple is a marketing company made to sell stuff.

nielsbot 1y ago
> Apple is a marketing company made to sell stuff. That's like... every company? Are you saying they don't have good tech?
- dimator 1y ago
  Gp is saying their primary expertise is advertising. It's hard to watch any apple announcement and not notice how utterly hyperbolic they are at touting their own achievements. Ya sure, you can say that every company must do that, but apple are exceptional at it. Once you start noticing the unlabeled performance charts, the missing baselines, the comparing with ages old models, the disingenuous "86x" metrics, the whole show becomes cringe worthy.
- bapak 1y ago
  Marketing companies don't sell their own stuff, they sell others' stuff.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > Are you saying they don't have good tech? I will, yes. If macOS supported Vulkan, then those Intel Macs would have GPU acceleration too, and thus it would be a fair fight comparing it to MPS. Apple's tech stack is so miserly and poor that they never supported the common GPGPU libraries that literally every single OEM is and was shipping. Apple's tech is appalling. Are you saying they exercise good judgement on behalf of their users?
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    I see this is them following their own differentiation and integration which I'd say is good for their users. (Personally I don't care about Vulkan support for example.) So saying their tech is "appealing" is a matter of opinion and I'd argue something a small minority of their users care about. But I don't know.
_kidlike 1y ago
I've always disliked Apple because of its aggressive marketing..