Apple M1 CPU

[mikehhhhhhh]

Mine looks reasonable

➜  ~ iostat -Id disk0
              disk0
    KB/t xfrs   MB
   23.85 44514119 1036644.46

 

[muziqaz]

https://twitter.com/never_released/status/1358539964460511233?s=19

 

[mikehhhhhhh]

https://twitter.com/never_released/status/1358539964460511233?s=19

It's the same figure

Data Units Written:                 2,015,586 [1.03 TB]

Interestingly, my Intel mac which is a few months older is a little higher but adjusted for time is probably using a bit less.

➜  ~ iostat -Id disk0
              disk0
    KB/t xfrs   MB
   56.44 2130478 117429.74

The M1 does seem high but is it enough to be a problem? I guess it'll take years to find out. It's going to be painful replacing your entire board for a failed SSD though.

We don't know how long the SSDs are rated for I suppose. I wonder if the iPhones and iPads operate in the same way given they have less ram?

 

[muziqaz]

Nah, yours seems reasonable, but a TB of writes in 2.5days is a bit scary

 

[mikehhhhhhh]

Nah, yours seems reasonable, but a TB of writes in 2.5days is a bit scary

I guess it depends what he's using it for.

If he's maxing out his RAM 24/7 then he's going to have a high swap usage. The more pertinent issue would be that he's using the wrong tool for the job.

If his ram never goes over 50% usage, then it's definitely worrying. I suspect the truth is closer to the former scenario, however.

 

[HACO]

Nah, yours seems reasonable, but a TB of writes in 2.5days is a bit scary

Not really unique to M1 or MacOS, this is a very common thing, when you use your 16GB machine as though it has 128GB, that happens. You can of course limit (or totally disable) swap usage if you want, but that usually comes at the expense of performance or stability. You'd see people posting very similar numbers for Intel macs or Linux/Windows machines (this is quite common when people DIY their old computer into a home NAS and run the OS off a small SSD).

Since M1 mac max out at 16GB but CPU performance is great, I'm guessing a lot of people who want the performance but actually need more ram are buying current models and therefore get themselves into situations like this. Should sort itself out once Apple releases higher end models.

 

[Grim5]

As of kicking Intel when it's down wasn't fun enough, how about throwing them off the cliff

Introducing the Apple M1X

5nm TSMC
12 Core CPU @ 3.2ghz
16 Core GPU (256EU) - rated at 5 Teraflop
Just 45w

And supports 32gb RAM

The M1X feature 50% more CPU cores and 100% more GPU cores than the M1

Damn Apple, you didn't even give Intel a chance to respond - the M1 already kicks their butt

https://wccftech.com/apple-m1x-leaked-specs-12-core-cpu-16-core-gpu-more/

 

[HACO]

As of kicking Intel when it's down wasn't fun enough, how about throwing them off the cliff

Introducing the Apple M1X

5nm TSMC
12 Core CPU @ 3.2ghz
16 Core GPU (256EU) - rated at 5 Teraflop
Just 45w

And supports 32gb RAM

The M1X feature 50% more CPU cores and 100% more GPU cores than the M1

Damn Apple, you didn't even give Intel a chance to respond - the M1 already kicks their butt

https://wccftech.com/apple-m1x-leaked-specs-12-core-cpu-16-core-gpu-more/

Seems sensible. I don't believe CPU-monkey or wccftech though, I think they're just making stuff up.

I think there will be 64GB option (a very overpriced one), they're certainly taking ram off-package to offer 32GB, there's no reason not to offer 64GB either, especially as they do offer it with the Intel 16-inch MBP.

 

[ChrisD.]

wccftech is usually a load of nonsense, I’ll believe it when I see it from a far more reputable source.

 

[muziqaz]

There is no reason to believe that Apple just stop with their M1. Now they have a winning formula, they can scale up easily. They can easily fit at least 64 cores into workstation TDP budget and knock the socks off anything intel has by large margin. They can also produce 12/16 core chips for their desktop market, and by the time those come out they would have majority if not all heavy workload programs ported. I believe 16 cores in 65/80W envelope would be easily achievable. Especially if you take out iGPU, and use external GPU.
Ever since M1 came out, it was obvious that Intel is out of Apple HQ for good

 

[smilingcrow]

As of kicking Intel when it's down wasn't fun enough, how about throwing them off the cliff.

Intel aren't the competition if you are looking for performance.
The question is how will Apple compare versus AMD in terms of performance and availability.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

Introducing the Apple M1X

I'm now just waiting until the March event before I buy a new Macbook. Here's hoping they launch an M1X system

I know the rumours are 3Q '21 for an updated 16" MBP and a new 14", but I can't wait that long. If there's nothing announced at the next event I'll grab a 13" and be happy.

 

[muziqaz]

Intel aren't the competition if you are looking for performance.
The question is how will Apple compare versus AMD in terms of performance and availability.

Intel is the competition, because Apple is replacing Intel with their own stuff. Apple doesn't need to compare to AMD, since there is no single market where they both sell their products to. When Apple has their server CPU, then maybe comparisons can be made, but still Apple won't have any significant volume to challenge Intel/AMD in enterprise. We can do comparisons just from curiosity or technological point of view and that will be the end of it.
I don't understand people claiming that Intel and AMD are in big trouble because M1. Intel is influenced by this because they lost Apple as heir customer, but other than that nothing changes, especially for us, PC users

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Arm is absolutely a strategic thread to both AMD and Intel. I’d argue ARM are a bigger strategic than they are to each other because once you start losing customers to another platform, it’s much harder to win them back.

AMD/Intel are very much interchangeable depending on who gives the best performance per £/W or a combination of the two depending on the form factor.

What ARM offers it’s own USP which both AMD and intel are struggling to compete with and it’s why ARM is a huge strategic threat. Particularly if Microsoft pull their finger out and get Windows into the same state as MacOS in terms of being able to seamlessly run ARM and X86 code on the same hardware and developers get onboard with supplying universal binaries.

To note, I’ve not mentioned Apple in the whole of the above, they are not the only company making ARM processors. But they could well be the catalyst ARM needed to make them mainstream in devices outside of the phone/tablet space. That’s why people cite the M1 as a real issue for Intel and AMD. Not because the likes of Dell are going to use M1 chips but because they will no doubt be putting pressure on the likes of Qualcomm and Microsoft to put something out there they can use to compete with Apple. Once they do, Intel and AMD will really be in trouble if they haven’t got an X86 competitor for the laptop space.

 

[smilingcrow]

Intel is the competition, because Apple is replacing Intel with their own stuff.

Not really, as you say, they are being replaced, it's a done deal, no competition.

 

[muziqaz]

Not really, as you say, they are being replaced, it's a done deal, no competition.

by "competition" I meant indirect way. As in, I understand why everyone kept comparing M1 to Intel and ignoring AMD.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

I don't understand people claiming that Intel and AMD are in big trouble because M1.

Because x86 has dominated for the last couple of decades, with other contenders for the performance crown (IBM Power at various points? That's about it in terms of raw performance) being massively expensive and not well supported.

Apple is showing that 1. x86 Price/Performance can be contested and 2. Continued x86 dominance is not assured just because of market inertia.

Intel are losing their grip even on the x86 space, and that space is looking like no longer being 99% of the picture for performance processors, so this is a real bad time for them.

 

[muziqaz]

Apple is showing that 1. x86 Price/Performance can be contested and 2. Continued x86 dominance is not assured just because of market inertia.

Intel are losing their grip even on the x86 space, and are not really winning in that space anyway, so this is a real bad time for them.

Apple and price/performance in the same sentence? Are you ok?

ARM has shown they can challenge x86 in theory, but that's not what drives the industry. Look how bad AMD is beating intel for several years running in server market, yet here we are with minimal gains from AMD in market share. And AMD has much better software stack than ARM on server side. Does Apple have anything related to Servers at all?
From what I see, Apple is just trying to be independent from anything external to maximize and control the profits. I doubt their initial aim is to take over the world

 

[smilingcrow]

by "competition" I meant indirect way. As in, I understand why everyone kept comparing M1 to Intel and ignoring AMD.

Comparing with Intel will artificially make M1 look a lot better than it is in the real world.
Intel are stuck in the past due to major issues.
AMD are the benchmark to see how good your chips are.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

Apple and price/performance in the same sentence? Are you ok?

Yes, in the context of POWER systems which cost tens of thousands of pounds, an M1 laptop priced at £999 with a high performance chip in it does indeed challenge intel on price/performance.

ARM has shown they can challenge x86 in theory

No, the theory time is over, it's now happening in practice.

Does Apple have anything related to Servers at all?

No, but amazon do - https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/graviton/

From what I see, Apple is just trying to be independent from anything external to maximize and control the profits. I doubt their initial aim is to take over the world

Of course - but that doesn't mean that it's still all roses for intel. They're losing the most valuable tech company on the planet as a customer, their tech is losing its competitive edge to AMD and the market is diversifying away from x86. I'm not sure how you could look at that and not say it's worrying for Intel.