The old Intel model is almost 300% of Max for gaming FPS

[Romain_H]

Who cares about power consumption? Btw in the US power is very cheap.

For workstation it's all about performance.

True. We are, however, talking Laptops rather than workstations

 

[pshufd]

@Gnattu

The only reason why i bought really this m1 mac pro is the 16.2" hdr screen with 2596" dimming zones.
But i thought it could handly basic applications as fast as the Intel notebook and desktop can. Thats my major complain about this laptop. If it would be snappier like you would expect from such an expensive latop, i would keep it.

If you don't like your device, just return it and buy your Windows gaming laptop.

 

[Gnattu]

Cloud providers care about power-efficiency and it's evident in the Intel has inked a deal with TSMC to make chips for them. If power really didn't matter, then they'd just hang out on 14 nm or 10 nm with their own process.

That's why AMD EPYC and ARM based solution are adopted, and Intel's market does shrink because of that. Cloudflare even wrote in their blog on why they are moving to AMD. However for the whole server-market, not all users can afford to move to another architecture, even that 'another architecture' is AMD's x86.

 

[Romain_H]

@Gnattu

The only reason why i bought really this m1 mac pro is the 16.2" hdr screen with 2596 dimming zones and 1000 nits sustained, 1600 nits peak.
But i thought it could handle basic applications as fast as the Intel notebook and desktop can. Thats my major complain about this laptop. If it would be snappier like you would expect from such an expensive latop, i would keep it.

Then something must be wrong with your device. My 13“ MBP is eay snappier than any Intel/AMD I came across

 

[Gnattu]

But i thought it could handle basic applications as fast as the Intel notebook and desktop can.

Again, what the basic applications are and how slow they are. You are giving me an impression that you are running all your 'basic applications' on rosetta.

 

[pshufd]

That's why AMD EPYC and ARM based solution are adopted, and Intel's market does shrink because of that. Cloudflare even wrote in their blog on why they are moving to AMD. However for the whole server-market, not all users can afford to move to another architecture, even that 'another architecture' is AMD's x86.

Yup.

Did you see Zen 5 EPYC? 256 cores, 512 threads, 600 Watts? That thing is going to be a monster.

 

[ASX]

I did only web browsing with several tabs, around 20 - 30. I was enough to slow down the system massively. It's a joke for so much money. The ram usage was at 12 - 13 gigabytes. I saw a video on youtube. A user was complaining about this problem. So i tested it. I thought this cant be true. But sadly it is.

 

[Romain_H]

I did only web browsing with several tabs, arround 20 - 30. I was enough to slow down the system massively. It's a joke for so much money. The ram usage was at 12 - 13 gigabytes. I saw a video on youtube. A user was complaining about this problem. So i tested it. I thought this cant be true. But sadly it is.

Again: that is not normal behavior

 

[Gnattu]

I did only web browsing with several tabs, arround 20 - 30. I was enough to slow down the system massively. It's a joke for so much money. The ram usage was at 12 - 13 gigabytes. i saw a video on youtube. A user was complaining about this problem. So i tested it. I thought this cant be true. But sadly it is.

What are those tabs? Which browser and which websites? I does not have this problem.

 

[pshufd]

I did only web browsing with several tabs, arround 20 - 30. I was enough to slow down the system massively. It's a joke for so much money. The ram usage was at 12 - 13 gigabytes. I saw a video on youtube. A user was complaining about this problem. So i tested it. I thought this cant be true. But sadly it is.

Well, your a technical expert. Download the source code for the web browser, instrument it and diagnose the problem. Then fix it and merge it back into the mainline.

 

[ASX]

I opened several youtube tabs and several web shops which i found on a price comparison site.

@pshufd

I put this macbook already back into the box and then into the parcel, because of scratches and of course the other problems which i mentioned above. Maybe im ordering m1 max when its avaialbe to look for it's performance.

 

[pshufd]

I opened several youtube tabs and several web shops which i found on a price comparison site.

Use your diagnostic expertise to figure out what is causing the problem and then fix it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I have one tab open (this post) on Chrome/Windows.

Chrome is using almost 700MB.

Yes I know Chrome is a memory hog. But 20 or 30 tabs on ANY browser should slow down your system, right?

Should we blame the chip architecture? Or the user?

 

[ASX]

If i do the same on my pc simultaneously it's slowing down nothing. On the mac i loaded it one by one and it gets slowed.

 

[Gnattu]

I opened several youtube tabs and several web shops which i found on a price comparison site.

Just replicated that on my M1 with 16 GB memory, no slowdowns at all, and I'm using the (less optimized) Chromium, not Safari because it is "optimized Apple Software" which "don't count".

By the way, you can really browsing like this? I tried 20 tabs and I cannot se anything on the naviagor.

Take a look at how horrible chromium is spamming the process list and how low the CPU utilization actually is. Should a normal system slow down because of this? I don't think so. There might be hardware fault of either your system, or some of you eshop tabs are actually doing something evil like mining using your computer.

 

[pshufd]

I have one tab open (this post) on Chrome/Windows.

Chrome is using almost 700MB.

Yes I know Chrome is a memory hog. But 20 or 30 tabs on ANY browser should slow down your system, right?

Should we blame the chip architecture? Or the user?

It may or may not.

Back in 2000, browsers used in the hundreds of K to tens of megabytes of RAM.

I did performance testing on Firefox to try to improve image processing performance and could see the vastly differing workload effects on browser RAM consumption. Firefox later added undo close tab which added RAM usage because it had to save the page artifacts for undo/redo.

But you could have a lot of empty pages that use up very little RAM. These days, many pages use frameworks which are simply huge. At the moment, I have 6 tabs open and Firefox is using up 2.36 GB on my M1 mini. On my Windows desktop, I have 12 tabs open and Firefox is using up 4 GB of RAM. I consider that all normal these days. If you do plan on running a lot of tabs, size your system RAM accordingly.

 

[pshufd]

If i do the same on my pc simultaneously it's slowing down nothing. On the mac i loaded it one by one and it gets slowed.

Download a debug copy of the browser and turn on instrumentation and diagnose the problem.

 

[ASX]

My activity monitor looks the same using 150 - 300 mbytes ram each tab. Cpu utilization was only arround 5 %. There must be something wrong with the ram or software.

I used for my test a 34 inch ultra white screen. It's pretty normal for me to use so many tabs.

Safari is using only 60 hz. Chrome is using 120 hz. So i used chrome, but safari was also slowing down with many tabs open.

 

[pshufd]

My activity monitor looks the same using 150 - 300 mbytes ram each tab. Cpu utilization was only arround 5 %. There must be something wrong with the ram or software.

Download a debug image and figure it out.

 

[Gnattu]

Cpu utilization was only arround 5 %

If the CPU is not even on its limit, how could its performance be the reason that slows down the system?

If we talk about software, we DO have a lot of problem on Monetary. For example, my USB dock can no longer charge my MacBook Pro after upgrading to Monetary. It works fine on Big Sur. I will certainly believe that an OS bug will slow down the Mac and I will also think it is not acceptable.

 

[ASX]

Maybe or its the ram. Is loading up to 13 gbytes only for the browser and the os . The memory pressure is green only around 30 %. Mac users saying it could not be the problem. It must be the software then.

 

[Sanpete]

This is one of those petting zoo threads where people feed the trolls. Fun in its own way, I guess.

 

[ASX]

Only because i writing something bad about apple macs im no troll . Sorry im used to faster systems, so i ask here how that could have happened on such an expensive product.

 

[pshufd]

If the CPU is not even on its limit, how could its performance be the reason that slows down the system?

If we talk about software, we DO have a lot of problem on Monetary. For example, my USB dock can no longer charge my MacBook Pro after upgrading to Monetary. It works fine on Big Sur. I will certainly believe that an OS bug will slow down the Mac and I will also think it is not acceptable.

Semaphores. Browsers are like operating systems these days and I'd guess that most implementations have some form of lock manager.

 

[pshufd]

Only because i writing something bad about apple macs im no troll . Sorry im used to faster systems, so i ask here how that could have happened on such an expensive product.

I've seen the same problem on all Chromium browsers on Windows. Brave fixed the particular bug I was running into first two years ago. The fix propagated through the other Chromium browsers. Could just be a routine memory leak. Best thing to do would be to run an instrumented version of the browser to see if you can find the memory leaks.

Here's how to get started: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/devtools/memory-problems/