IvanKaramazov
Member
- Jun 29, 2020
- 56
- 102
- 66
Sure does look like it, doesn't it? 😂So does this mean Geekbench is OK as a CPU benchmark cross platform for iOS and macOS?
Sure does look like it, doesn't it? 😂So does this mean Geekbench is OK as a CPU benchmark cross platform for iOS and macOS?
It seems like you're referring to how the base MacBook Air has two cores and the base iMac with HDD is just a terrible value. I don't disagree, the base products are a terrible value and I would never buy them. If you thought I was talking about other product attributes as a way to justify the price/existence of these base products then you're wrong. I'm simply stating that there is more to a computer than the primary specs (Processing, Memory, Storage), and those factors should be considered when looking at value. Obviously, I am discussing like for like machines here in terms of the base specs. I wouldn't compare a 2-core MacBook Air to a 4-core Dell XPS 13 and say that the MacBook Air is better because it has some differentiating factors not found in the Dell XPS. If I'm to compare value, I would start with the same base specs and then look at the price of the machine.That's the problem here, we simply can't get our priorities straight.
On one side, we praise the fact that Apple can and will deliver more performance with custom ARM silicon, but on the other side when someone like @beginner99 points out Apple intentionally held out on performance in their existing lineups, the immediate response is to focus on other product attributes as main benefits and sale drivers. It's almost as if performance is important as differentiating factor, not as objective metric, as requirement for enjoying Apple products.
Memory is one of the biggest questions for Apple Silicon IMO. One optimistic case I read recently was Apple really pumping up the CPU L cache and then going all in on on-package HBM for shared system memory. Absurd cache sizes allow the CPU cores to have very low latency while the GPU gets everything it wants for bandwidth. And of course, it's 0% user upgradable in all configurations, so be prepared to pay up front if you want more of it.My guess is that tight on-package mounting (with implications for non-ability to alter RAM after purchase...) will be the standard for the real Macs, but for the DTK they may well have put together a quick sub-optimal scheme that both burns extra power and runs slower.
Well theoretically if they used LPDDR/GDDR or possibly even HBM for on package memory in the low/mid range where stuff isn't expandable and you are basically stuck with the RAM you bought it with (i.e. already the case in some of the Mac line) and then on the higher end Macbook Pro, iMac Pro, Mac Pro the in package memory could be graphics only, with DIMM slots for system memory.Memory is one of the biggest questions for Apple Silicon IMO. One optimistic case I read recently was Apple really pumping up the CPU L cache and then going all in on on-package HBM for shared system memory. Absurd cache sizes allow the CPU cores to have very low latency while the GPU gets everything it wants for bandwidth. And of course, it's 0% user upgradable in all configurations, so be prepared to pay up front if you want more of it.
I think bigger cache sizes are inevitable, if only because Apple is close to a wall with what they can achieve by clocking their CPU cores up. But I am often scratching my head over what they will do with memory for pro machines with pro graphics solutions.
I think only the Mac Pro has a shot at upgradable RAM. I mean, none of those other models currently allow that except I think the Mac Pro and the iMac 27.Well theoretically if they used LPDDR/GDDR or possibly even HBM for on package memory in the low/mid range where stuff isn't expandable and you are basically stuck with the RAM you bought it with (i.e. already the case in some of the Mac line) and then on the higher end Macbook Pro, iMac Pro, Mac Pro the in package memory could be graphics only, with DIMM slots for system memory.
That way you get the fast RAM where it is needed for graphics, just like discrete GPUs do, but preserve the expandability that the people buying something like a Mac Pro must have.
Absolutely savage. And the CPUs are 2023. Very, very bad news for Intel - but good news for Apple, who can maintain a manufacturing edge by just paying TSMC enough to keep AMD six months to a year behind.In other news, Intel has delayed 7 nm to the end of 2022. Ouch.
Having some memory in package and some memory in DIMMs doesn't mean it isn't unified. Unified memory means the CPU and GPU share an address space, not that they share the same block of physical RAM.Though that doesn't mean the system memory for the Macbook Pro has to be on the APU package either; it could be soldered down somewhere else. Frankly, were it not for the hullabaloo Apple made about unified memory I would not really be considering on-package memory at all - I would just assume there's HBM on the package with the graphics cores, wherever they are, and (LP)DDR5 somewhere else. This may still be the case, or it may be the case with HBM acting as last-level cache instead of VRAM.
And according to previous PR statements the 7nm node was supposed to mark their return to the leading edge. This giant is weary.In other news, Intel has delayed 7 nm to the end of 2022. Ouch.
One of the thing I overlooked and assumed wrong was the required usage, or the intention of pushing high clock speed Single Core Performance. That Apple will *need* to use 7nm / 5nm HP node for its Mac Pro and iMac. And the need to push 4Ghz+. How is Apple going to recoup it development cost on a small volume Desktop CPU chip on HP node? It was the economical model that doesn't fit and puzzles me.No one knows what they will do for the Mac Pro, and the consensus is that's a problem that won't be solved until 2022.
For anyone who doesn't hate Charlie Demerjian from their guts, this is just confirmation of very old news.In other news, Intel has delayed 7 nm to the end of 2022. Ouch.
Why would they need to push 4 GHz+ when a 2.6 GHz A13 is competitive with an Intel core running at around 4.5 GHz?One of the thing I overlooked and assumed wrong was the required usage, or the intention of pushing high clock speed Single Core Performance. That Apple will *need* to use 7nm / 5nm HP node for its Mac Pro and iMac. And the need to push 4Ghz+. How is Apple going to recoup it development cost on a small volume Desktop CPU chip on HP node? It was the economical model that doesn't fit and puzzles me.
You can't argue with fools. And there's a particular class of fool that is utterly convinced, no matter what you say, that performance=GHz.Why would they need to push 4 GHz+ when a 2.6 GHz A13 is competitive with an Intel core running at around 4.5 GHz?
I'm sure they will use TSMC's HPC cells on the high end for iMac Pro / Mac Pro. That buys about 10%, and there are other tunables that can buy them another 10%. That, and the bump they will get automatically from going to 5nm is all they need to beat Intel's fastest cores in single thread. They don't need any other changes to the core like improving the cache, TLB, BTB etc. but they probably will make them - because why beat Intel by a small margin if they can beat them by a bigger margin? That doesn't require a ground up redesign though, just some changes where appropriate because efficiently handling a lot more cores and multiple terabytes of RAM will benefit from additional resources in some areas.
As for how you recoup development cost, look at how the hell much Intel charges for the CPUs Apple is currently using in those Macs. Multiply that by the number of those Macs sold and that's how much they can afford to spend on this. And look at the base price of a Mac Pro. You really think Apple is going to cheap out on this?
For clarification, are you suggesting that there would be HBM (of some variety) on package and DDR (of some variety) off package that would be treated, from the developer's perspective, as a single resource? I would not assert this is not doable, but I would presume it is very difficult. I'd be interested in hearing more about how such a solution would work.Having some memory in package and some memory in DIMMs doesn't mean it isn't unified. Unified memory means the CPU and GPU share an address space, not that they share the same block of physical RAM.
Yeah, I don't think it's even too hard to guess the range for where GHz will wind up given that Apple pushes the 11 Max pretty far down the power curve already. And I really struggle to see any device Apple releases next year pushing 4.You can't argue with fools. And there's a particular class of fool that is utterly convinced, no matter what you say, that performance=GHz.
Technically Kaby G did this no?For clarification, are you suggesting that there would be HBM (of some variety) on package and DDR (of some variety) off package that would be treated, from the developer's perspective, as a single resource?
I would not assert this is not doable, but I would presume it is very difficult. I'd be interested in hearing more about how such a solution would work.
Yes.The real question is could you just get away with HBM on its own?
I'm just going off memory here, but I think the CPU either treated the HBM as cache or didn't use it at all.Technically Kaby G did this no?
Albeit it did use 2 separate chips to manage it.
The main bother would be having 2 separate IMC types on the same chip, but I don't imagine that it would be that difficult to manage it.
The real question is could you just get away with HBM on its own?
I know that the original HBM was definitely not designed with CPU's in mind, but the sheer length of time HBM3 has been cooking and the faceplant from HMC means that the HBM people definitely have a niche to exploit if it is possible.
None exist in the market place as far as I know, but supposedly Samsung have cracked the necessary process to stack up to 12 dies at least so it is definitely possible whether or not anyone is willing to pay for it yer.Nor do I presume the theoretical 24GB stacks of HBM2E exist.
Isn't HBM usually more efficient from wider IO and shorter distance to the processor?The limiting device is the MBP 16. Two stacks of HBM2E are using 10W, which is starting to push it in a laptop.
All correct. But efficiency doesn't mean less power used, it means more bang for your buck. But the bandwidth is a lot higher than LPDDR, so power is higher too.Isn't HBM usually more efficient from wider IO and shorter distance to the processor?
Also, it's not really viable on most non-pro machines. HBM2E uses too much power to go in a phone, iPad, or a Macbook Air.I just don’t see a need to use HBM on anything less than what we consider Pro level Macs. In a year or so, DDR5 Dunn’s will be our, and some high end phones are already using soldered DDR5 chips in their designs. The equivalent of dual channel DDR4 bit width in a DDR5 design currently is specified at around 105GB/sec of throughput with max jedec specs. For perspective, that’s about the memory performance of the RX550 and 560 in PCIe add in card form. Plenty for CPUs with a high performance iGPU.
But efficiency doesn't mean less power used, it means more bang for your buck. But the bandwidth is a lot higher than LPDDR, so power is higher too.
Yes, unfortunately. My former Uncle, an Engineer at Nokia and Alcatel was insistent that performance = GHz. The arguments I had with him growing up was cute.You can't argue with fools. And there's a particular class of fool that is utterly convinced, no matter what you say, that performance=GHz.
I think it depends on the form factor. Design considerations for the MacBook Air are VERY different than the MacBook Pro.I just don’t see a need to use HBM on anything less than what we consider Pro level Macs. In a year or so, DDR5 Dunn’s will be our, and some high end phones are already using soldered DDR5 chips in their designs. The equivalent of dual channel DDR4 bit width in a DDR5 design currently is specified at around 105GB/sec of throughput with max jedec specs. For perspective, that’s about the memory performance of the RX550 and 560 in PCIe add in card form. Plenty for CPUs with a high performance iGPU.
once you get to the rarified air of the Pro spec Macs, you’ve got the budget to be substantially more exotic. Case in point, do you think that Intel was just giving away their high core count Xeon processors and that the quad+ channel ram sticks were free? Since we’re discussing products that are over a year away, I don’t find it unreasonable to think that they might have configurations that have four 16GB stacks of HBM2e or even four stacks of 24GB for 96GB of RAM.
But, what does that all get you? How is Apple going to provide enough CPU AND GPU performance for a pro product with one chip? I don’t think that they will. That’s so much heat and power to deal with. And where is all their compute performance coming from? Their integrated gpu on their chips is good, but not THAT good.