Apple Silicon M1 Compiles Code as Fast as 2019 Mac Pro and With Minimal Battery Life Impact

[RalfTheDog]

I am very curious about the higher end processors. More cores? What configuration? 4 ice + 8 fire? GPU with more cores? More cache?

Higher clock frequency is unlikely, as it already is very high. The memory bus is already very fast.

I guess Apple can still do something more — but what? Keeping thermal limitations in mind.

More memory, PCIe bus for external hardware and more TB ports would be a very good start.

 

[scartart]

Too bad the new laptops can't run Word for Mac 2011 and Excel for Mac 2011!

Excel on the Mac has never matched the Windows version but the current iteration is sooo much better than the rubbish 2011 version. Word is better too, it at least runs most of the VB script that was developed on Windows where the 2011 version would just bomb out all the time.

 

[G5isAlive]

These are the specs of the Mac Pro that was used

• 2019 Mac Pro 12-Core 3.3GHz 48GB w/AMD Radeon Pro Vega II 32GB

48 Gb of RAM for the intel machine versus how much do we think in the M1s? Stock 8 (since this just came out)? How memory intensive are these compiles? Any idea? Some folks in another thread are arguing that there is no magic wand, that M1 RAM usage just isn't that much more efficient than Intel chips, so even 16 gb is just not enough. Others insist you can not directly compare RAM usage between the two. Do these findings shed any light on that debate?

 

[dinobear]

wow.

Can't wait to see what apple does with the GPU. That's the biggest mystery at this point for them to be able to compete with the intel Macs (16", iMacs, and Mac pros).

 

[TheWatchfulOne]

Excuse me, is this even real or it’s just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality? 😉

 

[ikramerica]

I am very curious about the higher end processors. More cores? What configuration? 4 ice + 8 fire? GPU with more cores? More cache?

Higher clock frequency is unlikely, as it already is very high. The memory bus is already very fast.

I guess Apple can still do something more — but what? Keeping thermal limitations in mind.

I would expect 4/8 like you said, with 12 or 16 gpu cores for their M1Pro chip but same clock. It would depend on many factors.

If there is also a D1 chip for iMacs and Pro towers, that might be a whole different ball game.

 

[mannyvel]

wow.

Obviously however the RAM is used, pros are gonna need more. And that time will come for the pro machines.
Can't wait to see what apple does with the GPU. That's the biggest mystery at this point for them to be able to compete with the intel Macs.

If the app supports it, more RAM means you can crank through things more quickly. The app has to be written to do that, though. For example, photoshop will run in 8GB or 16GB of RAM. With 16GB of ram it can load more of the image into RAM and process it, which generally means it'll be faster in 16GB. Of course if it goes to the GPU it won't matter.

I think DAW stuff tends to be more RAM-based. Photoshop et al were written back in the day when RAM sizes were smaller, so they're better at paging.

 

[Moyapilot]

I want to get a Mac Mini but kind of waffling on the ram. I have an instinctual issue with spending $200 for an extra 8gb of ram. I recently bought 32gb of 3200mhz ram for my windows machine for under $130.

I realize that hardware profits make the Apple train run so the unified ram may make the difference for my fairly light use or maybe I'll over ride my instincts and spend the extra $200 anyway.

I totally feel your dilemma. Apple always comes out with the most amazing stuff, but then purposefully and slyly just punch you in the family jewels in the end with the ram/storage upgrade 'fee'. And we line up to let them do it

Who's with me: 14" MBP with a redesigned body (no bezels), a decent camera (for once), 120hz ProMotion and we're unable to say no!

 

[pawkor]

Too bad the new laptops can't run Word for Mac 2011 and Excel for Mac 2011!

Seriously... I’m not kidding.

The last time I played around with a recent version of Word or Pages, or even the two leading Open Office suites, I was underwhelmed. Key features, extensive customizing, etc. were missing. Screwed up my writing and data analysis workflows.

Clearly, I’m going to have to give them another whirl — or, remain content with older hardware that still works amazingly well, and speedily!

Can't? Why? Those will run under Rosetta.

 

[John Calvin Young]

I wouldn’t buy a computer with less than 16 GB RAM, but...

My previous MBP had 16 GiB, and the current one 32 GiB. I was almost certain the difference would be huge, but to be honest, I have not noticed any difference with my workloads. I handle some rather large datasets and occasionally edit videos in 4k.

I think part of the story is the very fast SSD we have nowadays. Of course, fast SSD is 2 GB/s, whereas fast RAM moves the decimal point by at least one digit. Still, unless your algorithms require random access to the data, many things including video editing are acceptably fast even with some of the data on the disk.

I have never had a computer with too much RAM. However, 16 GiB may actually be a bit more than it used to be a few years back. (YMMV, of course; a billion point FFT screams for 32 GiB RAM.)

Considering my 16GB 2017 MBP15 is paging many gigabytes to the SSD most days with my workload... My next machine will have 64GB. Either Intel or AS, but either way--I could happily be using 24-32GB today and I expect to keep it for at least 3 years.

My punchlist:

- >5600M GPU performance, supporting minimum 2x 6k displays external
- 16"+ screen size
- 2TB SSD
- 64GB RAM

I'd like to be shopping for AS, but TBH I'm not sure I'm ready to walk away from Windows virtualization and BootCamp quite yet. And I know the software support isn't there yet, either way.

 

[cmaier]

Can't? Why? The will run under Rosetta.

No they won’t. 32-bit.

 

[pawkor]

No they won’t. 32-bit.

So it's not new Mac issue but new OS that doesn't support 32 bit apps.

 

[cmaier]

So it's not new Mac issue but new OS that doesn't support 32 bit apps.

Yep

 

[Branmonkey]

Wow... now I'm legit thinking I just sell my MacBook Pro right now and get this one... even if it's just interim till the redesign (which sounds won't be till later in 2021). The results are legit insane!

 

[MacBH928]

Lisa Su and Bob Swan should walk down Silicon Valley streets with someone ringing a bell and people screaming at them "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!".

No honestly, I don't know how Apple beat them at their own game. They didn't release something equivalent or slight better. This is exponentially better.

 

[CJ Dorschel]

I am very curious about the higher end processors. More cores? What configuration? 4 ice + 8 fire? GPU with more cores? More cache?

Higher clock frequency is unlikely, as it already is very high. The memory bus is already very fast.

I guess Apple can still do something more — but what? Keeping thermal limitations in mind.

AMD has a 128-Core ARM Server grade CPU already. I haven't seen any real world tests but that info blew me away.

 

[Fowl]

It’s not necessarily using more power. It has a smaller battery.

Not that small. And also, how did it use up 75% of its battery in 45 minutes?? That's impossible with a Macbook in good condition.

 

[arn]

Not that small. And also, how did it use up 75% of its battery in 45 minutes?? That's impossible with a Macbook in good condition.

The 13" battery is significantly smaller than the 16" and it took twice as long to run. Seems proportional.

arn

 

[Hero2050]

I’m genuinely curious to know why they have not introduced a 16” version of this. Or let alone a timeline for an iMac version of this. I mean it certainly seems like a very viable alternative. Or maybe there is some catch. Or do they plan to just cause all of us to collectively **** our pants when they do bring out the new Pro-line M1s with double the performance over anything current at the time?

I think Apple wanted to give developers time to port over apps to AS (Apple Silicon) and work out any bugs, and inconsistencies in the early transition phase before they start selling the high end pro gear. Also, transitioning their existing A14 chip into the M1 would have been a relatively straightforward project, versus having to substantially beef up the A14 for use in their high performance pro-gear.

 

[theorist9]

I’m genuinely curious to know why they have not introduced a 16” version of this. Or let alone a timeline for an iMac version of this. I mean it certainly seems like a very viable alternative. Or maybe there is some catch. Or do they plan to just cause all of us to collectively **** our pants when they do bring out the new Pro-line M1s with double the performance over anything current at the time?

The "conventional wisdom" is that that a 16" AS MBP would need to equal the I/O (4 TB ports) and RAM options (up to 64 GB) of the Intel 16", while beating the graphical power of its dGPUs, and also offer higher CPU performance than the AS MBA/lower-end 13" MPB (more high-power cores and/or even higher single-core performance than the M1). Most or all of these require a higher-end chip than the M1, and it's assumed Apple was not quite yet ready with that.

 

[theotherphil]

The fact that Apple replaced just the lower end 2-port MPB and not the 4-port model as well implies to me that it might be a hardware constraint, especially since the M1 can clean the clock of any U-series 10th gen Intel chip in the MBP 13 right now. It just doesn't make sense that Apple wouldn't have updated the entire 13" line with more ports or RAM options (which would have also benefited the Mini) if the chips were capable of it. The M1 itself seems like it might simply be a rebranded A14X in disguise so maybe the limitations make sense given that an iPad doesn't need that level of I/O.

That’s exactly my point though...Apple already had product separation; a 2 port, 16Gb max MBP 13” as well as a 4 port, >16Gb, beefier CPU MBP 13”.

They could easily be keeping the M1 laptops to theses specs for product separation and not because of any actual hardware limitations that numerous people have claimed without any direct evidence. Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

 

[atomic.flip]

Is 8GB going to be a problem if I get one?

For certain apps yes. But those apps would be things you use as a creator or professional developer or a gamer. Outside of that the machines seems more than capable for 99.9

The "conventional wisdom" is that that a 16" AS MBP would need to equal the I/O (4 TB ports) and RAM options (up to 64 GB) of the Intel 16", while beating the graphical power of its dGPUs, and also offer higher CPU performance than the AS MBA/lower-end 13" MPB (more high-power cores and/or even higher single-core performance than the M1). Most or all of these require a higher-end chip than the M1, and it's assumed Apple was not quite yet ready with that.

All valid points and I also conceded the same thoughts. Yours is the most likely scenario. Still, it’s a damn impressive CPU. I do look forward to what they may bring into the higher end fray.

 

[atomic.flip]

I think Apple wanted to give developers time to port over apps to AS (Apple Silicon) and work out any bugs, and inconsistencies in the early transition phase before they start selling the high end pro gear. Also, transitioning their existing A14 chip into the M1 would have been a relatively straightforward project, versus having to substantially beef up the A14 for use in their high performance pro-gear.

It’s certainly a possibility and likely a consideration that has passed the minds of the product managers at Apple. However one thing I can tell you is that the M1 is absolutely not just an A14 popped into a larger computer / form factor.

They made some significant architectural changes (not divergent mind you) but performance improvements with a 128bit memory bus (vs 64bit on the A14) and also included the RAM right in the CPU package. Not to mention the frequency it operates at. And many more changes that make it truly a desktop grade cpu. Anandtech.com has a great write up on the architecture (if you can stomach the details).

 

[upgradeordie]

I know, that’s literally what I said.

And this is why meetings last so long

 

[Hero2050]

It's clear that this is the basic entry level chip. In fact, the not redesigning anything physical re-inforces for the base consumer that this is nothing different from the intel mac.

It's clear the iMac is getting a physical redesign, and that the regular MacBook pro's (not this non-pro 2 port 13inch one)/mac pro's are getting a much much better chip. My guess is that the iMac's will offer the M1 AND the pro chip in the relative price tiers so they couldn't release the iMac's till the pro chip comes out.

Yeah, they’ll probably introduce the regular iMac and the iMac Pro at the same event.