I've not noticed any lag at all, ever on the Air M1...Rosetta definitely lags versus native, even for basic consumer apps, e.g., Messenger, Spotify
I've not noticed any lag at all, ever on the Air M1...Rosetta definitely lags versus native, even for basic consumer apps, e.g., Messenger, Spotify
I don't think you truly realize just how much of a hit a pure software emulator is -- there is VERY much a penalty. An M1 is not fast enough to emulate an early pentium PC running Windows XP, not really even close, and that's a 20-25 year old machine, and it wouldn't use DOSBox, it needs a full x86 emulator. I tried, it didn't work near well enough to be useful.Old systems using software relying on x86 arch might as well be emulated on whatever architecture because they will never "feel" the performance penalty for emulation.
You can, but is it a useful measure -- I'm not so sure it means anything at all. Remember these things are to run software, that's their only purpose, and the amount and quality mean way more than just performance in a benchmark.Are you suggesting that comparing performance between different architectures is not possible? That's a very radical viewpoint.
Your previous post gives me the impression that to take advantage of new hardware, a complete rewrite is necessary. It’s not the same thing as providing compatibility.Why would you need to do a complete rewrite? As a dev, I find what you say extremely puzzling.
That's viewing what a computer can do with what's possible today. We are still quite a ways away from a true personal digital assistant that understand what we say and can act on what we intend for a computer system to do ... think Jarvis in the Avenger movies. And this is just one of the many applications.The only problem Apple has is that fewer and fewer people will need all this CPU horsepower. Most ppl just wanna browse the web and do some Google sheets.
What I’m talking about is not macOS apps. I’m talking about full fledge emulation of any x86 hardware with full performance running Windows. This virtual machine would function like any other, but instead of relying on hardware virtualisation, it completely uses software. M1 is not there yet.The thing is that for a lot of software Rosetta2 emulation/translation is allready good enough. As long as you don’t do stuff that requires long cpu times (like rendering) you can not tell if the software runs rosetta or is native.
Opening x86 apps remains painfully slow for me on the new MBP 16I've not noticed any lag at all, ever on the Air M1...
To me it is not enough. The remote control software I’m using doesn’t natively support apple silicon yet, and who knows when it will be there. VS Code somehow triggers “this app will not be compatible with future version of macOS” every time I launch despite being native to apple silicon. Battle.net is Intel only atm, and StarCraft 1 and 2 prolly will never receive apple silicon port. Those “major apps” you are talking about only counts for a tiny bit of macOS software library. Way more macOS apps are gonna be left behind than those that do get support, especially games.Can you elaborate this last statement? I think the software transition has been a tremendous success. Majority of libraries, developer toolchains and popular commercial apps were fully native by spring 2021. There is still some lack of support for Apple proprietary technology but these things obviously take longer.
I’m talking about applications, not libraries.And anyway, what libraries are you talking about? Even Intel own high-performance numeric libraries such as embree are natively supported on M1 hardware.
Even if it's fun when apps just pop up as you click on them that really isn't what counts. It's if they work well when you actually use them.Opening those apps remains painfully slow for me on the new MBP 16
To me it is not enough. The remote control software I’m using doesn’t natively support apple silicon yet, and who knows when it will be there. VS Code somehow triggers “this app will not be compatible with future version of macOS” every time I launch despite being native to apple silicon. Battle.net is Intel only atm, and StarCraft 1 and 2 prolly will never receive apple silicon port. Those “major apps” you are talking about only counts for a tiny bit of macOS software library. Way more macOS apps are gonna be left behind than those that do get support, especially games.
You can, but is it a useful measure -- I'm not so sure it means anything at all. Remember these things are to run software, that's their only purpose, and the amount and quality mean way more than just performance in a benchmark.
Your previous post gives me the impression that to take advantage of new hardware, a complete rewrite is necessary. It’s not the same thing as providing compatibility.
Your pov is so weird would it not be the same for the 4K windows laptops ? A laptop is more then it’s SoC , but putting that aside , let’s see those alder lakes in a 700$ laptops , the cooling and GPU needed to make it competitive not to mention screen will push it way over 700 , those desktop water cooled cpus that are now out are nothing to be proud of, when apple release their own halo desktop product we can look at the alder lake posts with a laugh.Why not compare to the i5 and i7 12th gen cpus? The i5 pulls 125watts and still beats the m1 in single core. There will be 700 dollar laptops out soon that will go head to head with 3k Mac books
Well, you'll have to laugh at Raptor Lake or Meteor Lake posts by then.Your pov is so weird would it not be the same for the 4K windows laptops ? A laptop is more then it’s SoC , but putting that aside , let’s see those alder lakes in a 700$ laptops , the cooling and GPU needed to make it competitive not to mention screen will push it way over 700 , those desktop water cooled cpus that are now out are nothing to be proud of, when apple release their own halo desktop product we can look at the alder lake posts with a laugh.
Agree...for PC Intel still is an option...but for laptops if you can go with mac, its superb, if you dont, amd is a better overall packageYou know, I may actually build an Alder Lake i5 PC for Linux experiments. There’s a mobo with some features that I really like (for 11th gen, but I expect a z690 version to have feature parity) the cpu seems to be decent cost wise vs Ryzen 3.
Though it’s gonna be in an old PowerMac G4 MDD case, so I’m concerned about the heat. I may try to underclock it.
The power consumption figures are astonishing though. It makes me wonder why Intel bothered with e-cores at all. 10nm is roughly equivalent to tsmc 7nm, and Zen consumes half the power in benchmarks, for comparable performance. Maybe AMD has a pure architecture advantage?
Though it’s gonna be in an old PowerMac G4 MDD case, so I’m concerned about the heat. I may try to underclock it.
None of my x86 apps like VLC player open slowly on my M1Pro. Are you sure that you don’t have the dreaded memory leak problem? Check Activity Monitor and see if something has grabbed all your available RAM.Opening x86 apps remains painfully slow for me on the new MBP 16
According to what benchmark? In Cinebench R23, the M1 Max doesn't come close to the i5 (~1600 single/12,000 multi vs ~1900 single/17,000 multi).The desktop i5 is 150W at Turbo, 125W at base and it’s MSRP is $264-$289 depending on igpu or no. It beats the M1 max by 5% in single core and by 0.7% in multicore. To accomplish this feat, it is burning 300-500% more energy. A 90W Alder Lake laptop chip isn’t likely to win any prizes against the M1 Max.
Cinebench is a good benchmark for raw CPU performance. Application benchmarks are often influenced by things like SSD speed, which depend more on the platform than the CPU. The M1 also has a distinct advantage in memory bandwidth due to the fact that the RAM is integrated on the SoC, but that also limits the amount of RAM it can have and makes after-sale upgrades impossible.It has always been about realistic performance in a reasonable package. In this regard Apple is definitely the king of the hill and they will stay this way for the foreseeable future. It's really laughable that mobile Apple CPU with under 40W basically has the same performance as latest x86 desktop behemoth in workloads such as scientific compute and software development.
But hey, Intel is faster in Cinebench! That's gonna count for something, right?
According to what benchmark? In Cinebench R23, the M1 Max doesn't come close to the i5 (~1600 single/12,000 multi vs ~1900 single/17,000 multi).
Cinebench is a good benchmark for raw CPU performance.
R23 actually defaults to a 10-minute run to test for throttling.its not what he was saying...cinebench is a short benchmark
You said that not all cores may run, but even if true that wouldn't explain the significantly lower single-thread performance of the M1 in Cinebench.The benchmarks he quoted and SPEC and quite a number of others. I already said why CB23 is a bad benchmark either on macOS or M1 not sure which if it’s bad coding for the OS or processor.
If you just start discounting benchmarks you don't like, you won't get a real picture of what's going in.No it isn’t. Not on Macs.
Not really blind faith, considering Tiger Lake remains much more respectable than Rocket Lake, a dismal showing by every performance metric. The existential problems for Intel lie in the desktop & server markets, not mobile computing. Intel will need to successfully iterate with Raptor Lake & Meteor Lake over the next couple years to regain market share from AMD, I imagine.