Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It is not entirely clear what is going on here. If you look at the clock speed it is 2.4 Ghz not 3.2 Ghz, that reduction explains the lower performance on the "VirtualApple" device which is running at 75% of the M1s clock. This could be from a purposeful slowing of the clock for timing issues on Rosetta 2. It could be a weird reporting mechanism for a thermally limited M1. So is this legitimately a valid result, or have the testers limited performance by creating the thermal limitation? And if Apple limited the clock for timing, does that get better as Rosetta matures?

But just looking at all the applications recently released for Apple silicon, it looks like all the important apps will be native. If developers like Spotify or Microsoft don't get around to re-compiling for release, why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spock1234
This is all fake news until production units are in the hands of real users and YouTubers. Does anyone *actually* believe the gimped M1 with 8GB or 16GB of RAM is going to process video faster than an Intel blowtorch. Probably not. But the marketing is cute.

well since the A14 on an iPhone blows away the intel blowtorch in processing video, then it’s safe to assume the ‘gimped M1’ will run rings around it!
 
I just hope Apple is able to take advantage of its Apple Silicon strategy and I hope they don't price themselves out of the market. Apple actually has a decent chance to gain some market share if they make Apple Silicon Macs price-competitive. I don't expect Apple to build plastic laptops, but there are plenty of cheap people out there who don't want to pay more than $500 for a laptop. I would say Apple should shave off $100 from all the current M1 Macs, but that still doesn't come close to what Lenovo, Dell, Asus, or any of the other Wintel laptop makers are willing to charge. Many people don't care if their laptops are slow or poorly built and Apple will never get sales from those types of customers.

It looks as though Apple has a very good headstart with ARM-based Macs but they could blow this lead the same way they blew their iPhone lead as every Android smartphone manufacturer was able to build much cheaper smartphones and Android smartphone market share exploded.

I think Intel may struggle to build high-end x86 chips and sell them at rock-bottom prices but maybe Intel doesn't care. Maybe they believe they can still charge whatever the market can bear and keep the prices high. I don't want any computer product with an Intel Celeron, i3, or i5 processor. I'm going to switch over to Apple Silicon as soon as Apple can build a desktop or laptop with its own Apple Silicon discrete GPU. I'm guessing that will be sometime next year. I have no mission-critical work and just want a relatively fast non-x86 Apple computer that's part of their new strategy.
 
real world measures bananas, mac gets out the box apples to compare it to.
 
I just hope Apple is able to take advantage of its Apple Silicon strategy and I hope they don't price themselves out of the market. Apple actually has a decent chance to gain some market share if they make Apple Silicon Macs price-competitive. I don't expect Apple to build plastic laptops, but there are plenty of cheap people out there who don't want to pay more than $500 for a laptop. I would say Apple should shave off $100 from all the current M1 Macs, but that still doesn't come close to what Lenovo, Dell, Asus, or any of the other Wintel laptop makers are willing to charge. Many people don't care if their laptops are slow or poorly built and Apple will never get sales from those types of customers.

It looks as though Apple has a very good headstart with ARM-based Macs but they could blow this lead the same way they blew their iPhone lead as every Android smartphone manufacturer was able to build much cheaper smartphones and Android smartphone market share exploded.

I think Intel may struggle to build high-end x86 chips and sell them at rock-bottom prices but maybe Intel doesn't care. Maybe they believe they can still charge whatever the market can bear and keep the prices high. I don't want any computer product with an Intel Celeron, i3, or i5 processor. I'm going to switch over to Apple Silicon as soon as Apple can build a desktop or laptop with its own Apple Silicon discrete GPU. I'm guessing that will be sometime next year. I have no mission-critical work and just want a relatively fast non-x86 Apple computer that's part of their new strategy.
Those 500 bucks throw away laptops are not the market Apple is targeting at.
Same with iPhone. Not the biggest market share but look at the profit shares. It all goes to apple.
 
This does sound amazing.
Looking forward to receiving my partners 13” MBP for testing to see how it performs in the real world and compares to my 16” MBP
 
It wasn’t an accusation so check your statement please. It was a statement of fact that people online may not be who they say they are. Posting a link doesn’t matter. There are people in the world who spend their lives pretending to be someone they are not. Therefore your comments fall on deaf ears regarding who you are because, as stated, there is insufficient proof other than that you may have convinced others you are who you say you are. You seem to have taken offence in this. Don’t. It’s a fact of the online world. I don’t believe what most say online unless it can be independently verified by a trusted third party, and expect others to view anything I say in the same light.

I will note on the count of refuting arguments other than vague hand waving you haven’t really identified how other processors are all the same and following the same design path. You did state knowledge 1year ago of what Apple was going to do, but chip design is far more long term than that, so surely you knew years ago? It’s also of note that other cpu designers are stating some surprise at the design and apparent performance of the m1. This doesn’t really indicate that it’s the normal path of chip design.
In september 2014 I started making predictions about Mac’s moving to Arm, and why they would perform better.


So, yes, I knew for more than a year.

And I didn’t “hand wave.” You made the outrageous argument that what Apple is doing is outside the mainstream of CPU architecture. Your burden to explain why. And saying “the ram is on the chip” when that isn’t even true doesn’t help your arguments.

I named chips that do have the features you mentioned. I don’t understand how that is “hand waving.”

The fact is, everything Apple is known to be doing is stuff that is in the standard CPU designer’s toolbox, and stuff that you’d find in Hennessy and Patterson. Nothing outrageous.

The reason it is so fast is that they are using the same things we did at AMD to design x86’s, but doing it for a much cleaner RISC architecture.
 
I think it will have something to do with the lack of the 32GB RAM that so few people actually need.
people said the same thing to me in 2012 when i maxed my MBP to 16 GB. but 8.5 years later, i'm on the same machine, as fast as it ever was, running complex fill patterns in Crossfire without missing a beat. some day, 32 gigs of RAM will be the new baseline.
 
@cmaier didn't say that Rosetta can't run on multiple cores, just that it can't convert single-core code to run on multiple cores when it wasn't designed to.

Also, we wouldn't expect a multi-core score of 10504 (1313*8) because the cores are not identical. The 4 efficiency cores probably have only about 1/4 of the power of the 4 performance cores, so it's much closer to 5 performance cores (=6,565)
They Said that the low power cores are in fact faster than the cores in the existing intel MBA so those cores alone should get a GB score of around 3500 but the results seem to be more in line with GB only using the performance cores to get a result (7500ish) .. strange.
 
Last edited:
well since the A14 on an iPhone blows away the intel blowtorch in processing video, then it’s safe to assume the ‘gimped M1’ will run rings around it!
Can’t wait to see what CPU/GPU Apple designs for the 16” MacBook Pro, iMac and Mac Pro. I imagine Apple already has a prototype for the followup to the M1 already being tested and tweaked. Might see a 12 core CPU with a 12 core GPU for the next one.
 
Last edited:
No, they never said it would run windows virtualization. They said they will add virtualization support, but that only lets you run Arm operating systems (and only if those operating systems are licensed to run on Apple hardware, which, at the moment, the Arm version of windows is not).

They have *never* mentioned Windows virtualization. If you believe the contrary, please provide a source.
Parallels developers told that they are indeed completing a port of Parallels for the Apple Silicon architecture. It will be able to run Windows for Arm. They also said that Windows for Arm, according to Microsoft, is going to support soon the ability to run X86 64 bit Windows apps (perhaps Microsoft is developing something like Rosetta for Windows), so Parallels in a few months, when equipped with Windows for Arm, will be able to run X86 64 bit apps. Of course the bad news is that a lot of Windows apps are still 32 bit only, so it may happen that many people still won't be able to run them. Anyway I believe that there is market for X86 emulators, just as we had them back in the PPC and 68K days.
 
Wrong. AMD had HSA based SoC back ten years ago. The problem with this approach is the Memory is Fixed width, a.k.a not expandable or scalable. The M1 has a subset of processes and applications spaces it shows promise in single core performance.

In reality, every applications running today is multi-core/multithreaded and large applications that require large data sets and are memory and computational intensive this CPU will not be used on. It would crash.

We have a fixed 16GB shared memory space. That's it. I routinely run 30GB rendering samples. This CPU would crash in Blender.

AAA games now requiring 12GB in dedicated VRAM for 4K Godsplay this CPU would crash and lock up the entire system.

These systems are disposable consumable, low power, low processing little efficient boxes for basic Web Browsing, Office Work. Heavy intensive, high core/high thread, memory intensive applications that thrive the more resources you throw at them--Computational Fluid Dynamics, Finite Element Analysis, large data sets that need to be stored in memory none of these and more will work with the M1.

If you're betting this solution has some linear scalable 1:1 capability of adding more cores, more shared memory as if the memory is limited on the SoC by your imagination then you'll be sorely disappointed.

Back in 2019 when Apple Demoed the Mac Pro onstage with 1024 channel strips running a full 100 unit orchestra w/o taxing a 28 core Xeon with 56 threads, an Afterburner and Dual Radeon Pro Duos with 128GB of HBM memory they could max Logic Pro [X at the time 10.5] without barely pushing all 28 cores, but it utilized all 28 cores.

That same score wouldn't even load in any of today's or for years to come M series SoCs. They'll have to offer a completely different Workstation class set of chips for that to ever become a reality.

By the way, AMD's Zen 4 is including their own Neural Engine FPGAs drawing upon the Xilinx merger, their own Tensor Cores, RDNA 3.0 based 5nm fab SoC that won't be limited to 16/32/64/128GB of HBM2e memory [that they can leverage even now seeing as they were first to market to use such]. Zen has a present limit of 2TB and the Zen 4 on DDR5/LPDDR5 will expand that memory footprint for the supercomputing markets, big data center markets.

People seem to delude themselves that this SoC is the future when it's a specialized solution.
Great comment. However, it remains useful to remember that for 99% of the world's computing population, myself included, these machines are more than adequate.

People often overestimate what hardware they require.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and smulji
123.JPG


List: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=MacBookAir10,1

Full Details: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=MacBookAir10,1

Even the lowest clock speed is faster than most of the computer.
 
Parallels developers told that they are indeed completing a port of Parallels for the Apple Silicon architecture. It will be able to run Windows for Arm. They also said that Windows for Arm, according to Microsoft, is going to support soon the ability to run X86 64 bit Windows apps (perhaps Microsoft is developing something like Rosetta for Windows), so Parallels in a few months, when equipped with Windows for Arm, will be able to run X86 64 bit apps. Of course the bad news is that a lot of Windows apps are still 32 bit only, so it may happen that many people still won't be able to run them. Anyway I believe that there is market for X86 emulators, just as we had them back in the PPC and 68K days.

That’s great, though i still am not sure i heard anyone say microsoft will actually license it and provide it for download.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sfwalter
But what are all the Apple-haters and Me-doubters going to complain about if that’s the case?

Oh, I know. They’ll fall back to “but it doesn’t virtualize x86.”

Anyway, that’s actually more of a Rosetta-speed hit than I expected, but we’ll see when we get real world data.
*paging Linus*
 
So the article keeps saying this is a benchmark where the M1 “emulates” an x86 using Rosetta 2

But to my understanding, Rosetta2 does not emulate an x86 - it is not reading the x86 code and running ARM instructions to emulate the individual x86 opcodes, while keeping track of the register state of a virtual x86....

Rather, it’s translating the x86 code into equivalent ARM instructions, as a one-time thing, and then it runs the resulting ARM code at full speed.

This is also impressive, and is the right way to go about things, but it’s not the same workload as emulating an x86 (x86_64) chip.

Or am I misinformed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage and Aries79
Out of every detail presented in the last week, the 5nm process, when announced, was the most impressive and likely the most important.

Still blown away by that being employed on such a large scale.

Next up, 3nm in 18 to 24 months.
 
Rosetta2 is not emulation its more like IBM TIMI which does a one time conversion of the application binary into native ARM binary. Its an impressive capability.

Nitpick with the headline "Apple Silicon M1 Emulating x86 is Still Faster Than Every Other Mac in Single Core Benchmark", though:

Rosetta is not an emulator, at least in the standard technical use of the term. This kind of performance out of an emulator would be mind-boggling. Rosetta is a dynamic binary translator, which is a big reason the performance hit is so minor, but also why it only works on certain things.
Rosetta is both: If the code is JIT, it'll need to do emulation. I can see applications like Wine and complex emulators needing to do dynamic emulation instead of static recompilation due to their natures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
So the article keeps saying this is a benchmark where the M1 “emulates” an x86 using Rosetta 2

But to my understanding, Rosetta2 does not emulate an x86 - it is not reading the x86 code and running ARM instructions to emulate the individual x86 opcodes, while keeping track of the register state of a virtual x86....

Rather, it’s translating the x86 code into equivalent ARM instructions, as a one-time thing, and then it runs the resulting ARM code at full speed.

This is also impressive, and is the right way to go about things, but it’s not the same workload as emulating an x86 (x86_64) chip.

Or am I misinformed?
Correct. Not clear what this data really means or where it comes from, but Rosetta mostly statically-translates (with some exceptions).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.