hello_smile wrote:

Venatus_123 wrote:

Chiroyce wrote:

Yep!

ayyy my dad have ASus but im not allowed to use it

What?

It's just a computer. Did you look at the image? It's a comparison between the M1 and the Intel Core i9-11900K (which is very impressive that the M1 CAN be compared to it.)

b1048546 wrote:

Chiroyce wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

I may format it better later since it's kind of a mess now.

Ok!
Also the new M1X or the M2 chip is planned to come out this September - on the new 16" MacBook pro, and maybe the 14" MacBook pro.

No, they'll get M1X. As I said, the number is the generation. Why would they have high-end products contain a generation product? An m1x would be > m2 in everything to do with multi-core. Assuming M1X is coming, (which I do think so) I think it'll get a CPU that's 10 or 12 cores. (I don't mean options, I mean either a 10 or 12 core chip as SET.) If it's 10 cores then 8 high-performance cores and 2 efficiency cores. If it's 12 cores then I think it'll be 8 high-performance cores and 4 efficiency cores (Unlike others who think if it's a 12 core CPU then it'll get 10 high-performance cores.) Either way, I expect them to use TSMCs N5P node enhancement, which delivers 15% power savings vs N5. This allows them to have fewer efficiency cores. (Plus these pro models will have bigger batteries.) I also expect Apple to include a 16-32 core GPU. The M1X will have 32 GPU cores but Apple can utilize chip binning to create a variety of chip options. This can give them better yields for chiplets that failed in testing but work enough to sell them. So for something like the Mac Pro, I expect them to save a TON of money. I expect the Mac Pro to have 4 or 8 efficiency cores. That's going to save them a ton of money because then they can put M1X chips together using chiplet technology. This means that Apple can mass-produce a single chip and save a TON of money. That is if any of this actually happens. (This is also assuming it's a 10-core CPU, a 12-core CPU would have slightly different numbers.) Apple will never truly make a desktop though. One word: Cooling. That may change if they add 2 fans in the new Macbook Pros. Hopefully, they can integrate that into their higher-end “desktops”. However, most people who actually need more cooling probably use Linux or sometimes Windows. For desktops, AMD and Intel are the ones competing. macOS doesn't work for a lot of things, especially for companies who need servers for data. (It doesn't matter how good their chips get, they need cooling.) You can't go into a data center without wearing a jacket. So for higher-end CPUs, Apple doesn't really have anyone to compete with.

That would be AMAZING!

set [alternate account] to [hello-smile]

b1048546 wrote:

Here's the history of the m-series chips:

In 2004, Apple announced their own custom silicon for the iPhone and iPad.

They named it the A4. Over time, they made new chips for their iPhones and iPads. They've made chips all the way up to the A14 Bionic.

Once in a while, Apple had announced chips that ended with either an X or a Z. However, this only happened sometimes. These chips have the same type of cores as their generation. For example, A12X and A12Z have the same cores as the A12 Bionic. This means that these chips are extensions. The extension chips usually have things like more CPU cores, GPU cores, and RAM than their predecessors. Usually, the extension chips were made for the iPad Pro and higher-end iPhones.

New generations of chips (eg. A5, A6) get more efficient and more powerful. The core count is RARELY changed.
Eventually, they scaled A14 up to M1. They added two firestorm cores and 4 GPU cores to the M1. The M1 also had Mac-specific IPs, slightly higher clock speeds, and more ram. This led to the 8 core CPU, 8 core GPU, 8-16 GB of ram M1 chip. Apple had 11+ years to perfect their chips and we ended up with M1.

To clarify: A14X is the M1 chip. (Because Apple confused everyone.)

2004? iPhone didn't exist until 2007 and didn't use an Apple-made chip until 2010.

b1048546 wrote:

Here's the history of the m-series chips:

In 2010, Apple announced their own custom silicon for the iPhone and iPad.

They named it the A4. Over time, they made new chips for their iPhones and iPads. They've made chips all the way up to the A14 Bionic.

Once in a while, Apple had announced chips that ended with either an X or a Z. However, this only happened sometimes. These chips have the same type of cores as their generation. For example, A12X and A12Z have the same cores as the A12 Bionic. This means that these chips are extensions. The extension chips usually have things like more CPU cores, GPU cores, and RAM than their predecessors. Usually, the extension chips were made for the iPad Pro and higher-end iPhones.

New generations of chips (eg. A5, A6) get more efficient and more powerful. The core count is RARELY changed.
Eventually, they scaled A14 up to M1. They added two firestorm cores and 4 GPU cores to the M1. The M1 also had Mac-specific IPs, slightly higher clock speeds, and more ram. This led to the 8 core CPU, 8 core GPU, 8-16 GB of ram M1 chip. Apple had 11+ years to perfect their chips and we ended up with M1.

To clarify: A14X is the M1 chip. (Because Apple confused everyone.)

Push revisions

set [alternate account] to [hello-smile]

dominic305 wrote:

2004? iPhone didn't exist until 2007 and didn't use an Apple-made chip until 2010.

Oops, will fix it. Thanks!

hello_smile wrote:

Push revisions

Please snip.

What do you mean?

hello_smile wrote:

That would be AMAZING!

Please snip next time as that is a big quote.

Anyways, I don't see how it's an “if they do it” scenario. If they make M1X, they will do some of this. (Or even better.) 10 or 12 cores is only 2 to 4 CPU cores added. Perhaps the graphic cores are a little crazier, but if they don't do this what will they do for their Mac Pro? Oh, I also assume that 32 or 64 GB of ram will be the max. That's much better than the current 8 or 16. It'll be the best laptop chip in the world! The only way I see them not making it as crazy as this is if they do 4 efficiency cores and 6 high-performance cores (assuming it's 10 cores) This wouldn't make sense as the Macbook Pros will have much bigger batteries and the desktop systems won't even HAVE batteries. 2 will be enough, especially with N5P. I also think the “pro” systems will have better cooling as well.

Imagine a 2048-core M1 with 1024 GPU cores and 128TB RAM singlehandedly running the backend for all of Apple's websites, able to reboot in 0.01 seconds.

set [alternate account] to [hello-smile]

hello_smile wrote:

Imagine a 2048-core M1 with 1024 GPU cores and 128TB RAM singlehandedly running the backend for all of Apple's websites, able to reboot in 0.01 seconds.

Why did you have to post this here? Plus, I talked about (even if you scaled it down realistically) why you couldn't do it with Macs. (And why the imacs and the mac pro's and stuff aren't really desktops.) The cooling is on a VERY small scale on Macs.

I just thought about something. M1X may have 10 firestorm cores and 2 icestorm cores if it has 12 cores. I'm thinking if it does have 12 cores it'll have 8 firestorm cores and 4 icestorm cores.

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

Venatus_123 wrote:

Chiroyce wrote:

Yep!

ayyy my dad have ASus but im not allowed to use it

What?

It's just a computer. Did you look at the image? It's a comparison between the M1 and the Intel Core i9-11900K (which is very impressive that the M1 CAN be compared to it.)

The comparison is that the i9 blows the M1 out of the water.
Overall, the M1 was overhyped, as is typical of Apple products. Even the i7-10700KF back in 2019 had better multicore performance according to GeekBench.

b1048546 wrote:

I just thought about something. M1X may have 10 firestorm cores and 2 icestorm cores if it has 12 cores. I'm thinking if it does have 12 cores it'll have 8 firestorm cores and 4 icestorm cores.

It is M2. m2 chip spec

set [alternate account] to [hello-smile]

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

Imagine a 2048-core M1 with 1024 GPU cores and 128TB RAM singlehandedly running the backend for all of Apple's websites, able to reboot in 0.01 seconds.

Why did you have to post this here? Plus, I talked about (even if you scaled it down realistically) why you couldn't do it with Macs. (And why the imacs and the mac pro's and stuff aren't really desktops.) The cooling is on a VERY small scale on Macs.

Why?

set [alternate account] to [hello-smile]

hello_smile wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

I just thought about something. M1X may have 10 firestorm cores and 2 icestorm cores if it has 12 cores. I'm thinking if it does have 12 cores it'll have 8 firestorm cores and 4 icestorm cores.

It is M2. m2 chip spec

No. That isn't how it works… They can't double the power consumption for their lower-end laptops. Not to mention that this uses the same cores as the m1 meaning that it isn't an m2. M2 would be a new generation that replaces the lower-end computers. M2X is M1X with the M2 cores.

hello_smile wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

Imagine a 2048-core M1 with 1024 GPU cores and 128TB RAM singlehandedly running the backend for all of Apple's websites, able to reboot in 0.01 seconds.

Why did you have to post this here? Plus, I talked about (even if you scaled it down realistically) why you couldn't do it with Macs. (And why the imacs and the mac pro's and stuff aren't really desktops.) The cooling is on a VERY small scale on Macs.

Why?

Ask apple. I'm not sure lol

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

Imagine a 2048-core M1 with 1024 GPU cores and 128TB RAM singlehandedly running the backend for all of Apple's websites, able to reboot in 0.01 seconds.

Why did you have to post this here? Plus, I talked about (even if you scaled it down realistically) why you couldn't do it with Macs. (And why the imacs and the mac pro's and stuff aren't really desktops.) The cooling is on a VERY small scale on Macs.

Why?

Ask apple. I'm not sure lol

Asked on their profile.

set [alternate account] to [hello-smile]

Greg8128 wrote:

Chiroyce wrote:

Yep!

The comparison is that the i9 blows the M1 out of the water.
Overall, the M1 was overhyped, as is typical of Apple products. Even the i7-10700KF back in 2019 had better multicore performance according to GeekBench.

Yeah. The 125 Watt Intel i9 that costs ~100 less than the mac mini. The m1's max power consumption is 39 watts. Also, consider the thermal output. It's also a DESKTOP processor. M1 wasn't overhyped, but I'm open to discussion on why you think so. By the way, most of the time, this intel i9 scores a bit lower than that. edit: I forgot to mention. The m1 only has FOUR high-performance cores. Intel's cores don't have “efficiency” cores. That's fair too because it's a desktop CPU. The m1 can do this with FOUR high-performance (with little help from the efficiency cores.)

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

I use over 100 on a low-end laptop.

Yeah, the M1 chip will destroy something that's 6 years old. So will the m1x to the m1 in a couple of months. That wasn't my point.

I know. And over 100 makes 5fps.

Why do you need that many tabs lol. The M1 can handle SO many tabs. It has the highest browser rating I've ever seen.

Boy, I've used 20,000 tabs on my computer. It uses a Xeon cpu from intel 3rd gen.

kccuber wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

b1048546 wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

I use over 100 on a low-end laptop.

Yeah, the M1 chip will destroy something that's 6 years old. So will the m1x to the m1 in a couple of months. That wasn't my point.

I know. And over 100 makes 5fps.

Why do you need that many tabs lol. The M1 can handle SO many tabs. It has the highest browser rating I've ever seen.

Boy, I've used 20,000 tabs on my computer. It uses a Xeon cpu from intel 3rd gen.

Are you using Chrome?

b1048546 wrote:

Are you using Chrome?

Firefox
My browser / operating system: Windows NT 10.0, Firefox 90.0, No Flash version detected
(20,000 tabs was a long while ago tho, i reset the browser session so now it's no longer that many tabs)