Apple Silicon M1 Emulating x86 is Still Faster Than Every Other Mac in Single Core Benchmark

[thecombatwombat]

I think some really wrong conclusions are being drawn from these numbers.

First, important to note. Rosetta is not emulation. It is essentially translating the binaries from one format to another, and then running them. All this really tells us is the overhead from Rosetta on this synthetic benchmark is really low. Which while neat, it that's all it says.

Because important point #2, the "virtual" chip is cloked at 2.4 vs the physical test at 3.2.

At 3.2 it scores 1712, at 2.4 it scores 1313.

In otherwords:

>>> 3.2 / 2.4
1.3333333333333335
>>> 1712 / 1313
1.3038842345773038

It's neat, but the comments here about Apple having a crazy, otherworldly technology lead? I mean maybe, but not from these numbers.

 

[shplock]

I’m definitely not an apple hater and these M1s look genuinely amazing. But, I rely on an x86 windows app for work. Currently use Parallels for it. Something will have to give when I next need a new computer.

Most of you all seem to be unable to do basic research(no offence). Windows virtualisation WILL work a super Apple's own words!

 

[shplock]

If you need windows, then you will eventually likely need a windows machine. Luckily for Apple, only 1% of users use bootcamp, and something like 5% use VMs, so even if they lose those customers, they will more than make up for it with new buyers who want to run iOS software on their laptop or desktop.

Apple Silicon WILL run Windows virtualisation as per Apple's own words. Why can none of you do basic research?

 

[cmaier]

If by "closed", you mean the RAM being in the SOC... can you REALLY look at these benchmarks and say "seemingly no good reason"??? Putting everything on the chip is very likely a part of how Apple is achieving this.

There is no RAM on the chip.

The RAM is on separate chip(s) in the same package.

 

[shplock]

How about the width compared to other silicon (and yes, I’m aware x86 struggles on width due to its instruction set baggage), the massive reorder buffer, the large number of dedicated units for processing or accelerating single tasks in parallel with the cpu, the on die memory? There are other deviations too, but then again you can easily educate yourself on that if you so wish without me spouting off about it. There are large deviations in this chip from the normal train of thought and standard processor design. But feel free to inform me of chips that have this style of architecture if you know of any, I’m happy to see hard facts.

How about the fact that the proof speaks for itself and the M1 is far and above whatever Intel has at the moment, though I do not wish to spout off and educate you.

 

[cmaier]

Apple Silicon WILL run Windows virtualisation as per Apple's own words. Why can none of you do basic research?

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.

 

[Fomalhaut]

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.

... They'll have to offer a completely different Workstation class set of chips for that to ever become a reality.

...

People seem to delude themselves that this SoC is the future when it's a specialized solution.

Why would the M1 architecture not be scaleable in the same way the larger Intel Xeon and AMD Threadripper/Rome CPUs are?

Sure, it doesn't have any multi-socket support yet, but I would expect it could add enough cores to be competitive with Intel / AMD in the high-end workstation market. Marvell, Ampere and Amazon all offer 80+ core ARM-based server CPUs, so I don't see any immediate technical limitation as to why Apple can't do something similar.

There are obviously limits to die and package size, so for large core counts we might see a multi-chiplet design, and maybe on-package RAM will need to move off-package (e.g. to match current 1.5TB capacity of the Mac Pro)

The M1 is still a general purpose CPU - but optimized for Apple Hardware. I don't think Apple has any intention of licensing this, or in returning to the Server market, so they don't need to make it a completely open architecture. That is the role ARM with their various reference designs.

 

[pmasters]

The numbers look great but the real tell will be the true performance in video applications and encoding. We don't need beast machines to browse the net, check email, or even watch/stream. If Apple can provide faster performance and exports in video apps and hopefully increase the amount of RAM while keeping the costs at current levels or below, this could potentially kill off the PC market while bringing us pros that have migrated away over the years. Im hopeful but I have learned to not let it get my hopes up to high because Apple has consistently disappointed me and others in the past.

 

[njmh]

Without a full version of Windows OS for ARM (which MS has no financial incentive to produce beyond Windows for their tablets), silicon Mac’s don‘t seem appealing. Yes, they’re more power efficient and Apple will have better control over CPU production but at what cost? Back when Apple moved to Intel, a big selling point for consumers switching was the ability to boot into Windows or Windows virtualization as PPC Mac’s didn’t run a lot of applications they needed. The iPod and iPhone gave people a taste of OS X but the big selling point was having two systems in one.

Many still need Windows for work. MacBook’s offered the perfect solution for those who wanted a Mac for personal use while not needing to own a Windows system for work. I know it’ll be a few years before the full transition but it already has businesses weary of investing time and money into Mac’s that will offer less options and flexibility and consumers don’t want to spend $2499+ on a MacBook Pro when they will need a Windows system as well.

Virtualization software won’t matter when it still depends on MS to produce a full version of Windows for ARM and virtualization will have to process more for Windows to run. It’s a shame that Cook cut Apple’s in-house departments that worked with Intel to focus on ARM systems for iPhones and iPads as that partnership with Intel since the mid-2000’s was a big factor in Intel’s production. Couple that with Intel’s unfortunate leadership - it makes me wonder if Intel could have produced better CPU’s and avoided another transition. As it stands, Mac’s are headed towards the PPC era even with Rosetta 2 and Catalyst.

I know some may disagree but this transition does have many thinking twice about investing money and time in systems that will offer less long term. I know engineers at AutoDesk have said they aren’t porting their products to ARM as they’re already juggling Windows and Mac Intel versions as it is and with the uncertainty of discrete GPU support, the current graphics power simply isn’t there for workstations and Pro systems.

Time will tell. I just don’t like the direction Apple is heading especially as Big Sur is just more iOS/iPadOS running on a Mac.

Man, you seem to think the majority of Mac users require the ability to run Windows as a core requirement. Maybe in your line of work that's true, but that's simply not the case for the majority. Outside a few niche use cases, lack of Windows support is irrelevant.

Personally for me, the only areas I've witnessed where this would be a concern is .NET software development shops (which with the rapid adoption of .NET core is becoming less of an issue) and niche industrial or scientific workplaces that rely on legacy or very specific proprietary tools... in which case they would have ways of working around those limitations, or you know, have never and will never buy Macs anyway.

 

[shplock]

I think it will have something to do with the lack of the 32GB RAM that so few people actually need.

Might have something to do with lack of education. You do all know that...

1) This is the MacBook Air and thus does not need 32GB RAM

2) These are ARM machines and as such are more efficient than X86 which is a notorious memory hog!

3) The clue is in the name, Unified Memory Architecture!

4) I am sure that other Macs such as the 16" MacBook Pro and iMacs etc will all have more RAM available to soothe the fevered brows of those who either do not understand these things or maybe do need a bit more memory.

 

[shplock]

That is super zippy for entry level machines.

Those scores don’t mean I can load up one of my 50-60 layer After Effects projects though. Even a dedicated ultra fast desktop with an RTX card struggles with this load. Lots of RAM and a discrete GPU are the only choice until SOCs take a much more gigantic leap forward.

This is just the entry level ,machine as you point out. The more powerful machines such as Iamcs etc will easily do what you say I am sure.

 

[aleni]

The problem is, will rosetta work with vmware fusion 12 that emulates windows xp? I need one small program to run that only runs on windows xp.

 

[Fomalhaut]

this 16gig limit on the 13in mbp has been around since 2011. Dang near 10 years. Apple needs to figure this out.

I don't think there is any "figuring out" to do. The limit of 16GB is based on the size of the SoC package and the available density of the RAM chips and the required price point.

There may be more-dense RAM (I think there are 16GB stacked LPDDR4X RAM chips - and the M1 uses 2 chips, so conceivably it could have had 32GB), but perhaps these are unsuitable for some reason. Or Apple just thought that 16GB is enough for this level of machine, which is entry-level.

The next Apple Silicon will almost certainly add more CPU and GPU cores, so the whole thing will get larger, and there will be more space on the SoC for RAM.

I know we want everything available now, but the reality is that this is a continuum of development and we'll just need to be patient. It's a given that there will be new chips that are more powerful, and that we'll probably see some of these within the next 4-8 months (Northern Spring or WWDC)

 

[nathansz]

Apple M1 Macs: Fastest Intel Mac you will ever have.

my i5-9600k hackintosh is faster

those native scores are insane though. i’m very curious to see how logic performs

 

[TheGenerous]

The problem is, will rosetta work with vmware fusion 12 that emulates windows xp? I need one small program to run that only runs on windows xp.

please tell me which one

 

[Homy]

The integrated GPU in the M1 is pretty impressive as well.

MacBookPro17,1 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a MacBookPro17,1 with an Apple Silicon processor.

browser.geekbench.com

In graphic (not compute) tasks, the M1 could be on par with the Radeon Pro 570X (and way ahead of the 560X). The TBDR architecture of the M1 (for which Metal has been tailored) benefits graphics more than it benefits compute. Also, Apple GPUs can use 16-bit AND 32-bit numbers in shaders, for precision and to boost efficiency, which PC GPUs can't.

That's great! I suspected that since it can render more pixels/s:

M1 41 GPixel/s, 82 GTexel/s
Pro 560X 16.06 GPixel/s, 64.26 GTexel/s
Pro 570X 35.36 GPixels/s, 123.8 GTexel/s
Pro 580X 38.4 GPixels/s, 172.8 GTexel/s
Pro 5300 52.8 GPixels/s, 132 GTexel/s
Pro 5500 XT 56.22 GPixels/s, 168.7 GTexel/s
Pro 5700 86.4 GPixels/s, 194.4 GTexel/s
Pro 5700 XT 95.94 GPixels/s, 239.8 GTexel/s

 

[R3DH3R0]

Impressive. I need to go back and see what my single core score is, but on my Asus Zephyrus G14 with the Ryzen 7, the multicore is around 7900. Unfortunately intel has such a pull on the laptop market that there aren't a ton of Ryzen machines.

 

[cmaier]

Might have something to do with lack of education. You do all know that...

1) This is the MacBook Air and thus does not need 32GB RAM

2) These are ARM machines and as such are more efficient than X86 which is a notorious memory hog!

3) The clue is in the name, Unified Memory Architecture!

4) I am sure that other Macs such as the 16" MacBook Pro and iMacs etc will all have more RAM available to soothe the fevered brows of those who either do not understand these things or maybe do need a bit more memory.

The Mac will use around the same amount of memory on x86 or Arm. The amount of memory used is determined by the data needs of the software run, and the same software compiled for Arm or x86 will use around the same amount of memory (with some differences caused by compiler optimizations and the fact that Arm uses around 20% more bits of instruction memory per x86 instruction).

OS 11 and iOS use less memory than, say, windows, but that’s because of the architecture of the OS and not because x86 vs Arm has anything to do with it.

 

[cmaier]

The problem is, will rosetta work with vmware fusion 12 that emulates windows xp? I need one small program to run that only runs on windows xp.

No, rosetta won’t allow x86 windows to run (via fusion), and windows xp will never run that way. You’ll have to wait for an emulation solution, and some are coming.

 

[shplock]

Yes, but the issue here is you are looking at the cpu only. Apple is delivering a package. Now you may or may not have experience in this field and as it’s the internet anyone can claim to be anything, but you are narrowing the focus onto the cpu design. The specific core. The fact of the matter is that a computer is the sum of its parts which you should well know. Apple packaging everything together applies efficiencies that other chips do not have and are outside the norms of computer design. Perhaps I should have said it that way rather than give the impression I was talking merely cpu core design. This influences benchmarks. Whether just the cpu is similar or not isn’t really the point, it’s the bigger picture.

Also not to be harsh, but ultrasparc v was cancelled. Are there shipping processors with that sort of design? It may have been planned to be similar but if it never shipped it doesn’t show that design shifted that way at all. Unless of course features of that were incorporated in other designs, for that I would have to defer to you.

Who cares less how Apple have achieved what they have? Who cares whether or not the CPU is different in fundamental design or not to Intel X86 CPUs?
The only things that matters are can it do what Apple claim? Does it work? Can it allow users to achieve all they need to do? etc

 

[shplock]

If you need x86 virtualisation. Or if you need compatibility with macOS older than Big Sur (As M1 machines won't even run previous versions in a Virtual Machine).

That's pretty much the only reason.

Nope! Parallel are going to release a version of their virtualisation software that runs on the M1!

 

[UltimateSyn]

Might have something to do with lack of education. You do all know that...

1) This is the MacBook Air and thus does not need 32GB RAM

2) These are ARM machines and as such are more efficient than X86 which is a notorious memory hog!

3) The clue is in the name, Unified Memory Architecture!

4) I am sure that other Macs such as the 16" MacBook Pro and iMacs etc will all have more RAM available to soothe the fevered brows of those who either do not understand these things or maybe do need a bit more memory.

You know I wasn't critiquing that aspect, right? Just saying that other people would harp on it even though it doesn't make sense, because of all the reasons you listed.

 

[matrix07]

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.

What’s your username on Parler?

 

[cmaier]

Nope! Parallel are going to release a version of their virtualisation software that runs on the M1!

Unless Windows license Windows on ARM for use in VMs or on M1, it will do no good. Parallels has not promised emulation support, but instead is hinting that the user would have to rely on emulation support built into Windows on Arm

 

[cmaier]

What’s your username on Parlor?

I think it’s Parler with an “e?” I hope so - important to know what to block in pi-hole