Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
Could you explain why this statement is true? I believe you, I just don’t understand the connection.

The ratio of performance to efficiency cores that optimize overall performance is carefully chosen based on the capabilities of the cores and the nature of the workload (i.e. how the OS and applications behave).

The latter hasn’t changed. But now we are allegedly going to have just two cores doing the same work that 4 cores did on M1. And the ratio is changing from 1:1 to 4:1 - a big jump. That suggests to me that the new efficiency cores are more capable than the old ones - in other words, the gap in performance between efficiency and performance cores appears to have decreased for some reason.
 

panjandrum

macrumors 6502a
Sep 22, 2009
709
881
United States
Sounds like good news, especially if these cores are a newer generation. I'm very curious to see how well apps easily scale across multiple cores (CPU and GPU). This has been a major limitation in the past of systems that rely of large numbers of cores; if the software can't be *easily* written to take advantage of them then a vast swath of software simply won't run anywhere near as fast as it could (the devs simply won't or can't invest the time and money to optimize it.) Look at how slow iMovie encoding can be compared to Handbrake (iMovie uses a maximum of around 4 cores, making it much slower to encode than Handbrake can be). The PS3 also had this problem (which is why some games looked and performed incredibly poorly (FO3, looking at you here) and a handful were so good they still look great today (GT5 even does stereoscopic gameplay while looking downright splendid.)

I'm very much hoping that Apple has figured out a way around this so that nearly anything, no matter how poorly coded, will make use of as many of the CPU and GPU cores as possible. I'm *guessing* that this will be especially important with the machine with a high-number of GPU cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roadster Lewis

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
Sounds like good news, especially if these cores are a newer generation. I'm very curious to see how well apps easily scale across multiple cores (CPU and GPU). This has been a major limitation in the past of systems that rely of large numbers of cores; if the software can't be *easily* written to take advantage of them then a vast swath of software simply won't run anywhere near as fast as it could (the devs simply won't or can't invest the time and money to optimize it.) Look at how slow iMovie encoding can be compared to Handbrake (iMovie uses a maximum of around 4 cores, making it much slower to encode than Handbrake can be). The PS3 also had this problem (which is why some games looked and performed incredibly poorly (FO3, looking at you here) and a handful were so good they still look great today (GT5 even does stereoscopic gameplay while looking downright splendid.)

I'm very much hoping that Apple has figured out a way around this so that nearly anything, no matter how poorly coded, will make use of as many of the CPU and GPU cores as possible. I'm *guessing* that this will be especially important with the machine with a high-number of GPU cores.

We already know how things scale, since we have mac pros with many more cores than these. Should see some nice performance boosts.
 

JMacHack

Suspended
Mar 16, 2017
1,965
2,420
The ratio of performance to efficiency cores that optimize overall performance is carefully chosen based on the capabilities of the cores and the nature of the workload (i.e. how the OS and applications behave).

The latter hasn’t changed. But now we are allegedly going to have just two cores doing the same work that 4 cores did on M1. And the ratio is changing from 1:1 to 4:1 - a big jump. That suggests to me that the new efficiency cores are more capable than the old ones - in other words, the gap in performance between efficiency and performance cores appears to have decreased for some reason.
Does this mean that Apple isn’t binning M-series chips like other manufacturers do? Do they just not use any “subpar” parts?
 

berrymetal

macrumors regular
Jul 25, 2017
211
1,512
tim.gif
 

kazmac

macrumors G4
Mar 24, 2010
10,086
8,627
Any place but here or there....
I’d wager thousands of wallets will cry out in terror at the price of the top specc’d 14” and 16” MBPs though. ?Sound like interesting machines if true.

These spec rumors bode well for the larger iMac and higher specc’d Mac Mini too.
 

Ion-X

Cancelled
Oct 23, 2017
303
1,425
Glad to hear they are bumping up the GPU cores and memory. Those were the big bottlenecks in my view, given how the CPU of the throttled MBA beat the 16” Intel MBP in many benchmarks.
 

Ion-X

Cancelled
Oct 23, 2017
303
1,425
Feels like an intentional leak this time to counteract the fake news.
What makes you think this rumor is more believable than the other?

Given the fact that the largest Mac in existence (the iMac) lacks any ports besides USB-C and aux, it seems Gurman is off with his information in significant ways. He also claims the Mac Pro will have an all-new design even though it was just leaked that it will still use Intel. Really, Apple is going to design an entirely new chassis for a processor that they are going to immediately deprecate? Intel processors require significantly more heat dissipation for the same level of performance so it would be an utterly bizarre engineering decision.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.