LeeW
macrumors 601
This, you will still get more out of the 10 core, whether you need it is an individual choice. I think people just want others to tell them it's not worth it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Purchase 8 Core or 10 Core GPU ?
- Thread starter harleymhs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This, you will still get more out of the 10 core, whether you need it is an individual choice. I think people just want others to tell them it's not worth it.
If it is the same YouTube video, the test was cherry picked to show what the YouTuber wanted shown. He stopped the test after about 2.5 minutes when the 10 core was heat soaked and the 8 core had yet to heat up to its max. And even then the FPS were the same with the 8 core having rendered a few dozen more frames (well within any margin of error).
There are plenty of benchmarks that can be run to show how the 8 and 10 core GPUs compare but I don’t see anyone talking about those.
Yes, that’s why I caveated my statement. I also think he should redo his SSD test. I have the 512GB version and was running a file copy test. One time it took nearly a minute to copy a 37GB file. A 28GB file copied in 15 seconds so I retried the 37GB file and it copied over in 25 seconds. Perhaps something interfered with the buffering the first time.
Notebookchecks review came out and as far as gaming goes the m2 is not performing much better than M1 if at all in the two games they tested. It would remain to be seen if under combined load the machine can actually perform better as the performance per watt is significantly lower than m1 according to that review. Short bursts obviously it’s better and even absolute cpu in sustained loads it’s better. Guess we will have to wait for more info.
Is it my opinion? I said according to the review not in my opinion. Just look at the review and see. I’m not a chip specialist so my only recourse is to look at reviews by people that have experience in that stuff. Maybe ananadtech will do a more in depth analysis at some point.
Probably because M1 was scaled at the ideal clock speed to achieve maximum power-per-watt for the 5nm node. M2 is pushing power up 20-30% to achieve the maximum possible power (or as close to it as possible) for the node. M3 and possibly M2 Pro/Max/Ultra will be built on a 3nm node, so we should see less throttling.
The M2 is clocked higher than the M1 and in general that takes more power when it is done a similar node (in this case TSMC N5 and N5P.) The increase in power vs. clock is never linear so when you clock a CPU higher to gain performance it is going to lower your performance per watt.
Thats interesting.
So in general, when there is a node size reduction is when there will be the best performance per watt chip? Because chips with the same node size after that will always be clocked higher to boost performance each year?
Like when intel moved to 14nm with Broadwell. Does that mean Broadwell was the chip with the highest performance per watt compared to the subsequent 14nm chips like Skylake, Kabylake, Coffee lake?
Sorry I meant what is your opinion on why that is a fact. I am not a native english speaker, my question was not clear 😁
This is new knowledge to me. Next time I will try to buy computers right at the first chip after node size shrink to get the best battery life and lowest heat!
Does this mean that in general, fanless devices will benefit the most on high performance per watt, while this is not as big of a factor on devices with fans (like intel laptops with 14nm vs 14++++nm) because the active cooling delays and hides this factor?
So like my comment above, is it best to buy a fanless device right after a size node reduction due to that chip having the lowest clock speed for every chip that will exist for that particular node size? Since the subsequent same node size chip will always see a clock speed increase.
jav6454
macrumors Core
Yeah - Apple can't escape the laws of thermodynamics: you want more top-end performance on the same node size --> you need to up the frequency, pump in more power, accept the hotter SoC and non-linear returns.
Once the node size shrinks next cycle Apple again, in principle, gets to choose either increased performance or more efficient chips.
That said, Apple did improve efficiency of the CPU package on the M2 vs the M1: data from Max Tech shows that when constrained to around 10 watts, the M2 performs some 10-15% better than the M1 on same watts. Also when running non-max. scenarios, the M2's CPU package runs cooler overall.
Notebookcheck's article also gave us good insights into throttled performance (M2 > M1), comparable surface temperatures, watts at idle etc., even if their main conclusion was pretty Captain Obvious-material 😀
Once the node size shrinks next cycle Apple again, in principle, gets to choose either increased performance or more efficient chips.
That said, Apple did improve efficiency of the CPU package on the M2 vs the M1: data from Max Tech shows that when constrained to around 10 watts, the M2 performs some 10-15% better than the M1 on same watts. Also when running non-max. scenarios, the M2's CPU package runs cooler overall.
Notebookcheck's article also gave us good insights into throttled performance (M2 > M1), comparable surface temperatures, watts at idle etc., even if their main conclusion was pretty Captain Obvious-material 😀
It can get complicated but in general, yes a higher clock results in less efficiency. Higher clocks don’t necessarily have to only come on a second generation but the reality is that companies need to produce new products on a regular schedule. If they can’t get a substantial enough boost from an architecture change, then boosting clock speeds is a common alternative until the next node shrink is ready.
Apple seems to have focused their architecture changes on their efficiency cores this time around so their performance cores are the ones with higher clock but less performance per watt.
On an Air, it really makes marginal difference as I'd doubt anyone buys an Air to render animation or use it for 8K video editing etc - you'd be far wiser getting the 14" MBP if that's your goal.
The Air is supposed to be a light, simple, quiet device for using on the move, or is in my eyes. I use my 16" MBP most days and the Air when I'm travelling.
No need for 10 core GPU. You're wiser spending your case on 24GB of RAM.
8c/16GB/512SSD is the sweet spot for what the Air should be used for
If you need more than this, the Air is not for you.
Imagine if you had 4 kids and needed a vehicle with a third row, but you buy a Rav4 and then complain all your kids don't fit inside. Maybe should have bought the Highlander instead since it's more appropriate.
If you need more than this, the Air is not for you.
Imagine if you had 4 kids and needed a vehicle with a third row, but you buy a Rav4 and then complain all your kids don't fit inside. Maybe should have bought the Highlander instead since it's more appropriate.
Why only 512 GB? Maybe you have a large media library and want/need 2 TB. Why only 16 GB? I might need extra RAM for things you don't use like VMs and containers. Trying to force your opinion on what others require in a computer is futile. You can't know what others need or value. The 10 core GPU might be the only thing that could be of dubious value. I'm bought the 10 core but I willing to concede that it might have been a waste of (a small amount) money.
My purchase of 8 CPU/10 GPU/24 GB/1 TB was carefully considered for my personal requirements and I don't have any kids.
Last edited:
I said that config the sweet spot for the Air. If you have a large media library, you should be using a NAS/Media server. Why on Earth would anyone run multiple VMs on an Air? 16GB is enough for what anyone should be doing with the Air. If you're editing 8k videos on the regular, the Air is not the machine for that person and there's more value to be had with the MBP. Obviously, people can spend their money however they want, but that doesn't mean they're spending it efficiently. For what it's worth, I grabbed the 10c, 16GB, 256 though if I could make one change it would be to cut down to 8c and up to 512, but for what I'm going to be using the Air for I'll probably never hit those bottlenecks.
It's in my opinion that you would have been better off with an MBP, but enjoy the lighter machine I guess.
See that's exactly it. I want a lighter machine that meets all my requirements. Certainly the bigger and heavier 14" MacBook Pro meets and exceeds most of the technical requirement that I have but not the preferred physical requirements. And it is at least $500 more expensive to get the amount RAM that I need (which in the case of the M1 Pro is 32 GB). All for a bit more performance with 6 M1 performance cores vs 4 M2 performance cores. And then it will still get worse battery life. Anyone who thinks that one size fits all is fooling themselves.
As for why I would run VMs on an Air, because that is how Docker works. Right now I limit the containers to one because I don't want to put pressure on my 16 GB but I could probably improve my build environment with at least 1 more container and maybe 2. The 24 GB will probably allow me to do that. The containers take up RAM but when they aren't in use they don't take up much CPU and no GPU at all. As for a NAS, why would I spend $100s for functionality that is built into my notebook. A NAS might be appropriate for you but I don't need one (actually I don't have a large media library myself so it was a hypothetical.)
Last edited:
febLey
macrumors member
I think I'm going crazy.
I ended up ordering the 10 core model, received it today and I really like the device so far.
But yesterday I just discovered the video by GregsGadgets and I'm seriously considering returning it for the 8 core model.
The 100 bucks doesn't hurt me, I don't even plan the games on the MBA, but I didn't need to 10 cores to begin with.
Please beat some common sense into me.
Apple_Robert
Contributor
Keep what you have and stop stressing over YouTube videos. Greg is a nice guy but, he has allowed himself to become another clickbait YouTuber. He made much ado about nothing with that video.
Unless the extra $ is something you cannot in any way afford or save up more I would never get less than the most. Perhaps not for now but for future proofing (as best that can be done here anyway).
jav6454
macrumors Core
If you got the 10-core one, stick with it. Don't over think things now. That stage was before purchasing.
febLey
macrumors member
Had a closer look at the Notebookcheck review, which brought my mind to peace.
The only difference is that the 10 core throttles a bit earlier, but should always outperform the 8 core, when both are running for the same duration.
No idea how this guy tested to get these results, but I trust Notebookcheck a lot more than him ^^
So if you were to game on either of these models, you will be throttled no matter what and in the end you'll still should have better performance on the 10 core over the 8 core.
Apple MacBook Air M2 Entry Review – A very good, but too expensive daily MacBook
Notebookcheck reviews the new Apple MacBook Air M2 Midnight in the base-level spec with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD storage.
Last edited: