Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.
I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are already incredibly fast.
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.
The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086, Apple had a number of
significant differences between XEON, and the various Core Ix (and
previous names).
Apple has the potential to create a variety of chips, each using the
same design for cores and fluff like neural engines and GPUs, but can
vary number of cores and GPUs.
If they all user the same memory architecture, then they will all be
fixed config, not upgreadable and same performance so harder to differentiate. Remains to be seen if/how they scale the various I/O ports.
When everything is integrated in the one chip, it becomes much harder to differentiate your products on the motherboard by addinfg more chips,
more ports etc.
I was hoping today would point the way, but it didn't. Though there is
now a 10gbps option for the Mac Mini, so we know this wsn't an M1
limitation at the time it was first released.
It all comes down to what Apple's product roadmap is to be like. They
can fit all models into the same cubby hole, same CPU, same memory, but
vary how many thunderbolt ports, and how big a screen they have. or they could adcance the Mx chip to have more scalability in order to give
"pro" models moch mroe power and configurability and perhals upgradability.
Today pointed in one direction, but still too early to tell wherher
Apple will make a broadder offering with differentiated Mxx chips.
I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are
already incredibly fast.
A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
type. In short: limited RAM.
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I really don't understand why you keep pushing this. The size of video
files hasn't changed and videop editing software like After Effects or
even Premiere really want a LOT of RAM to load video for processing.
When you have multiple cores, you multiply that amount.
If all you do is rowse the web and read emails, then yeah you're OK, but
for seriious work, you need more than 16GB.
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
I know if I were Apple I wold be differentiating the Pro and non pro
lines much more than they have been in the past, and there is little
point in having a 24" 4.5K display and a 27" 5K display.
The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086, Apple had a number of
significant differences between XEON, and the various Core Ix (and
previous names).
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I really don't understand why you keep pushing this.
If all you do is rowse the web and read emails, then yeah you're OK, but
for seriious work, you need more than 16GB.
A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
type. In short: limited RAM.
Got an example?
I'm betting... ...not.
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I
would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
ones ;-)
In message <g3KfI.22793$D16.6630@fx40.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Agreed. The fact that they have finally achieved a sliver-thin flat
panel computer is quite stunning. They look fantastic, and I bet they
look better in person.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would
assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
We will see, but it is unlikely that there will be a 27" I think. If
they make a larger iMac than the current 24" it will probably be a 6K
30" screen along the lines of the XDR and be a significant step up in
both performance and cost.
I doubt that you need more performance. The M1 Mac Book Air is already
faster than nearly all of the Intel Macs save the iMac Pro and the Mac
Pro. And unless you are working heavily in 4K video, these machines are already incredibly fast.
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
$1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost
difference and would prefer having 4 ports than 2) seems like an
excellent machine that I really would like to have, but at this point
have no need for as I already have an M1 mini. What I am waiting for is
a MBP that is a little specced up from the current M1 MBP, though that
one would do for everything I need with no problem, but it's not
something I have to have right now, so I can wait and see what else
comes this year.
The CPU chip will be key. With the 8086,
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I really don't understand
why you keep pushing this.
A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
type. In short: limited RAM.
Got an example?
I'm betting... ...not.
www.youtube.com search for "back to intel from m1"
On 2021-04-21 00:51, Alan Baker wrote:
A number of peopple who had been very gung ho when the first M1 Macs
came out have since produced videos titled "why I came back to Intel"
type. In short: limited RAM.
Got an example?
I'm betting... ...not.
www.youtube.com search for "back to intel from m1"
On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I
would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
ones ;-)
A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.
I like the blue. Wonder why there isn't a red.  Space grey would have been great. Tossup over blue / silver for me.
Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
processor instead of the hamstrung seven.
I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.
Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
the consumer for it would have been plentty
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond M1≠intel.
I don't like mem swap if I can have more RAM. I'm pretty sure there
will be higher memory versions and for the long term that's what I'll
want. It's unlikely, at least in 'consumer' level iMacs, that we'll see user upgradeable memory again.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
$1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost
Touch ID keyboard is nice, but not a decision point. On a MBP that
would be more of a benefit. At home I have the iMac unlocked for 3 hours
I haven't spent time thinking about the ports. I have 3 of 4 USB3 ports
in use, plus Ethernet, plus 2nd display. And I already have a new 4K display that will be used (currently used in a small embedded project
off an OS-less Rasp Pi).
Display Port cable for my main screen (with a USB hub in the monitor)and a USB-c SSD external and a USB-3 hub that has keyboard and other
I don't need 10Gb Ethernet - but always prefer wired to WiFi.
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would
assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
ones ;-)
On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll >>>> probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I
would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for >>>> the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is >>>> the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is >>>> still a very capable machine.
ones ;-)
A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.
I like the blue. Wonder why there isn't a red.  Space grey would have >> been great. Tossup over blue / silver for me.
Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
processor instead of the hamstrung seven.
I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.
Hard to understand why the HD is so puny.
The supplier cost to increase it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not
much
I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.
On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard.
I'll probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance.
I would assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using
for the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7
is the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it >>>> is still a very capable machine.
ones ;-)
A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.
I like the blue. Wonder why there isn't a red.  Space grey would
have been great. Tossup over blue / silver for me.
have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
processor instead of the hamstrung seven.
I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.
Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
the consumer for it would have been plentty
In article <s5pgvm$rbl$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:
Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by not
having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he could
have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something actually
useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model M1
processor instead of the hamstrung seven.
that's called chip binning and standard in the industry.
very, very few people will notice the difference between 7 & 8 core
gpus in normal use.
would you prefer that apple throw those chips away, thereby increasing
costs for everyone?
I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard drive
and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.
higher capacity ssds and 8 core processors are available.
Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
the consumer for it would have been plentty
the reason is simple: most people have that much stuff on their
internal storage.
those who do can get higher capacity internal storage and/or external storage.
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
It's like comparing MHz between Intel and PowerPC, it is just not a
relevant number in anyway.
I don't like mem swap if I can have more RAM. I'm pretty sure there
will be higher memory versions and for the long term that's what I'll
want. It's unlikely, at least in 'consumer' level iMacs, that we'll see
user upgradeable memory again.
I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt
it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
$1500 for the iMac (the $1300 model would probably be fine, but I would
not pass up having a touchID keyboard and that is most the cost
Touch ID keyboard is nice, but not a decision point. On a MBP that
would be more of a benefit. At home I have the iMac unlocked for 3 hours
The biggest benefit of TouchID is the ability to switch users simply by touching the button with a different finger. On the MBA I swap between
my account and my wife;s account when troubleshooting in a second simply
by touching the TouchID with one finger or the other.
And confirming nearly every admin action as well.
I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.
I haven't spent time thinking about the ports. I have 3 of 4 USB3 ports
in use, plus Ethernet, plus 2nd display. And I already have a new 4K
display that will be used (currently used in a small embedded project
off an OS-less Rasp Pi).
I have a USB-4 hub n m mini with a TB3 drive array connected to it, and
a TB2 drive array connected to the TB3 Drive array. I also have a USB-C
Display Port cable for my main screen (with a USB hub in the monitor)and a USB-c SSD external and a USB-3 hub that has keyboard and other
drives and chargers and such connected to it. Current;y there is a total
of 53TB of storage and a shitload of USB-A devices connected to two
USB-4 ports. And I *could* have everything connected off od a single
USB-4 port, but I like having the drive arrays on their own and the
other drives on their own and it works better for cabling.
And then a second monitor on the HDMI.
I don't need 10Gb Ethernet - but always prefer wired to WiFi.
Since 802.11ac I hardly ever notice if I am on Wifi or wired, but yes, I still prefer the comfort of being wired, though I doubt it makes any difference.
I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.
In article <slrns80mve.2hgs.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
I hope this new keyboard will work with any M1 Mac and not just the
iMac because if ti does I will definitely buy it for my mini.
it will, but you will have to wait to buy it separately.
<https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/20/magic-keyboard-touch-id-compatible- all-m1-macs/>
As first noted by Rene Ritchie and confirmed by MacRumors, the
Magic Keyboard with Touch ID is fully compatible with all M1 Macs,
an extended version with Touch ID and a numeric keypad.
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>> M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
In article <s5po28$jio$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> wrote:
I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.
what top dollar is that?
spec out an equivalent windows pc and it will cost more.
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>> M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
In message <210420211344170237%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <s5po28$jio$1@dont-email.me>, Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net>
wrote:
I understand your rebuttals- and sure, I can increase
capacities/performance and add an external drive...but at a big price
over the already top dollar/Apple Tax price of the base iMac.
what top dollar is that?
spec out an equivalent windows pc and it will cost more.
good luck getting an equivalent windows PC at any price.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt
it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Swapping to SSD is still slower than the "slow" Intel memory. Not just
the operation itself but the fact that it causes an interrupt which the
OS needs to handle, make all the necessary protection checks etc.
I doubt we will see user upgradable memory at all. Possible, but I doubt it. But yes, I expect systems with more memory to come along.
Which is why I doubt we will see a "Mac Pro".
My guess is
what is
announced at WWDC will give a clue whether Apple is truly moving to
fixed configs iDevices totally self contained in one chip or whether it
still intends to make "computers".
ssds do not use interrupts.
that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.
On 2021-04-21 17:23, nospam wrote:
ssds do not use interrupts.
swapping does. YoU're trying to access virtual RAM that is mapped to
disk. The OS is interrupted so it can issue the IO tro read the relevant
disk blocks from disk into RAM and then map your virtual space to it.
(and often requires the OS select which other RAM can be freed to make
way for your request, and that requires that memory be written to disk
and memory mapping changed to reflect that).
that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.
Yes, just like the MacBook Pro is no longer "pro" or have any "Pro"
features in it. So the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with dongles.
In the end, if all Apple has is the equivalent of the M1 chip with
everything self contained, the "mac pro" will be no different from an
iMac or MacBook or iPad or iPhone with the same chip,
Hence the need to get some visibility on Apple true roadmap for its
products.
ssds do not use interrupts.
swapping does.
YoU're trying to access virtual RAM that is mapped to
disk. The OS is interrupted so it can issue the IO tro read the relevant
disk blocks from disk into RAM and then map your virtual space to it.
(and often requires the OS select which other RAM can be freed to make
way for your request, and that requires that memory be written to disk
and memory mapping changed to reflect that).
that includes the mac pro, whatever form it might take.
Yes, just like the MacBook Pro is no longer "pro" or have any "Pro"
features in it.
So the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with dongles.
In the end, if all Apple has is the equivalent of the M1 chip with
everything self contained, the "mac pro" will be no different from an
iMac or MacBook or iPad or iPhone with the same chip,
Hence the need to get some visibility on Apple true roadmap for its
products.
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll
probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would
assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for
the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is
the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple ones ;-)
On 4/21/21 7:56 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2021-04-21 07:51, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 4/20/21 8:09 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
Wow.
I was (again) having update thoughts about my 27" today and just got
home to find the new 24" iMac on the Apple site.
Jaw dropper for looks.
Not sure yet if that model is for me, but will be looking hard. I'll >>>> probably want a larger screen and probably higher performance. I would >>>> assume Apple are working on an M2 (M1P, whatever) for the 27"
16 GB RAM is a bit on the light side for a computer I'll be using for >>>> the next 10 years.
I hope to upgrade later this year. My only issue with the 2012 i7 is >>>> the graphics processing is a bit on the light side. Otherwise it is
still a very capable machine.
Kinda' wondering who will be interested in buying the pink or purple ones ;-)
A real man gets what he wants and doesn't care what other people think.
I like the blue. Wonder why there isn't a red. Space grey would have
been great. Tossup over blue / silver for me.
Perhaps if Timmy had saved a little manufacturing inventory money by
not having to buy seven different paint colors and just used gray, he
could have upgraded the puny base model HD from 256 to something
actually useful...and also included all eight cores in the base model
M1 processor instead of the hamstrung seven.
I was definitely planning to buy an M1 iMac but with the tiny hard
drive and seven processor cores, I may just take a pass.
Hard to understand why the HD is so puny. The supplier cost to increase
it to a 512 or 1 TB capacity is not much, even though the Apple Tax to
the consumer for it would have been plentty
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne
<Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>>> M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V word.
Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by
jumping off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get
2:1 that way.
And I almost always have a VM running as well (and I'm not sure how
that will go in the future despite VMWare's announcements - they aren't there yet) and lately 2 VM's (dev environment for the Pi project I'm
doing is under Linux (or Windows), the Mac version not yet having been released).
So, more memory for that too...
Custom build options mean you can
upgrade at purchase time to a maximum of 2TB, but the price won't be
known until ordering is possible next week.
Assuming that Apple cannot make better, faster chips that follow on from
the M1...
The M1 works differently and more efficiently than the Intel chips, so
the simple fact is that less RAM is required to perform the same
functions. There's also the speed of access to SSD that is another
reason why less RAM is needed.
On 2021-04-21 17:43, Alan Baker wrote:
Assuming that Apple cannot make better, faster chips that follow on from
the M1...
I never said anything about per core performance. Apple has shown since
the A4 that it has been leading the industry in not only improvements
but more importantly sustained pace of improvements.
They have scaled the iPhone chip to MacBooks and now an iMac. But it is
still a very closed/fixed config with 16GB max.
In the real workd where high performance desktops need 64GB and more,
Apple apologists just wave that issue away with "16GB is plenty because
it's Apple".
It is still unclear to me how or even IF Apple will go to high end
desktops. The higher end you go, the lesser the volume, and the lesser
the volume, the lesser the fincicial justification to design a
proprietary Mxx chip for only that market.
XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
to justify its development.
But Apple's high end market is limited to imac Pro and Mac Pro, the
later proced to fail at very low volumes.
It is still unclear to me how or even IF Apple will go to high end
desktops.
The higher end you go, the lesser the volume, and the lesser
the volume, the lesser the fincicial justification to design a
proprietary Mxx chip for only that market.
XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
to justify its development.
apple said *all* macs will transition to apple silicon.
XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
to justify its development.
different business model.
apple said *all* macs will transition to apple silicon.
The correct text is that the transktion will be done within 2 years.
They did not commit to transiting all Macs since not all Macs will go. (consider a certain size iMac may not make it and be replaced by a
slightly differe t size one, same with laptops).
XEON isn't built just for the small Mac Pro Market. It servers a lot of
high end desktop and almost all servers. There is a large enough market
to justify its development.
different business model.
The realities of the cost of designing a chip in the real world (outside
of Appple reality distortion field in which you ive) dictate that the
small volumes for a very focused niche of Mac Pro would he horrendous
for Apple and not financially viable).
It's a huge amount of work to take a glorified iDevice chip and add to
it external expandibility that isn't present in its design. (such as
external memory, external GPUs, support for NVMe drives etc). hence the question of whether Apple will give hints of heading that way for future iMacs (alloweding a MacPro) or whether Apple will stay the course wioth
self contained chips with whatever RAM it can cram into it and just
aboandon the high end market because it isn't big enough.
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Swapping to SSD is still slower than the "slow" Intel memory. Not just
the operation itself but the fact that it causes an interrupt which the
OS needs to handle, make all the necessary protection checks etc.
Which is why I doubt we will see a "Mac Pro".
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>>> M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V word.
Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by jumping
off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get 2:1 that way.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
Maybe you should try it?
In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond >>>>>> M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V
word.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
Maybe you should try it?
Apple have definitely improved the memory footprint of the OS by jumping
off the intel model. But there are no miracles. You don't get 2:1 that
way.
The FACT is that an M1 mini outperforms a 32GB i9 Intel in processing
4K video at about 2:1 better performance. I did not call that a miracle,
but it IS a fact.
The FACt is that my M1 that is not processing 5K video simply never
slows down for anything. Apps open faster, the system boots faster. Everything is faster than on the previous 6 core i7 Intel.
In fact, the M1 *EMULATES* Intel faster than the native intel chips can
run their won code natively. You can call that a miracle if you want, I prefer to call it excellent engineers doing something remarkable.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. Maybe you should try it?
Are you claiming that paging to SSD is also magically boosted to a speed
that matches what the "RAM inside" provides?
Unless you are making that claim, then you can't claim that having less
RAM is faster. Once you have page faults, you no longer get rans RAM
access and you depend on disk IO with all the overhead of paging to/from disk.
On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
Maybe you should try it?
Are you claiming that paging to SSD is also magically boosted to a speed
that matches what the "RAM inside" provides?
Unless you are making that claim, then you can't claim that having less
RAM is faster. Once you have page faults, you no longer get rans RAM
access and you depend on disk IO with all the overhead of paging to/from disk.
Doing a fancy test of a 30 secodn 4K video clip won't need much memory
On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far
outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V
word.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
Maybe you should try it?
No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.
You're conflating speed improvements (which I'm not arguing) with memory requirements.
Further, you're ignoring life cycle needs.
In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>> word.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference.
Maybe you should try it?
No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously
pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.
You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and
RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
CPU, it is a SoC.
You're conflating speed improvements (which I'm not arguing) with memory
requirements.
No, I am comparing a 32GB Intel i9 to a 16GB M1. It's easy to see the
effects of hitting the memory ceiling on the Intel, it is not on the M1.
Further, you're ignoring life cycle needs.
No, I'm not, i simply don't care about the 10 year life of a $800
computer.
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk
swapping and other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the
"unified memory" design.
My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher
than 16gb (at least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount
of RAM is available.
On 4/20/21 8:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk swapping and
other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the "unified memory" design.
My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher than 16gb (at
least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount of RAM is available.
On 2021-04-22 15:02, Fishrrman wrote:
On 4/20/21 8:32 PM, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
That's because of all the extreme, high-volume VM disk swapping and
other disk writes the m1 does as a part of the "unified memory" design.
My guess is the m1 won't work with RAM capacities higher than 16gb (at
least in the Macs) -- hence, no larger amount of RAM is available.
To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
north of 1 TB IIRC.
And while the unified memory indeed means a lot less blocks of memory
moving to/from I/O, it's not an huge fraction of the overall memory. Certainly a big contributor to speed.
I'd guess that it's conveniently sized memory chip carriers for, eg, 32
GB, that are the issue (or having to lay out 4 carriers on the MB. With
a larger motherboard in a larger iMac, such would not be an issue.
This first iMac is the most "base" iMac for the next couple years. iMac have come in a pretty wide performance range. (i5, i7, i9) with a very
wide memory range (8 GB up to 64, 128GB).
So I'm guessing the fall will see some powerful options including
whatever comes after M1 (M1+, M2, whatever...)
To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
north of 1 TB IIRC.
And while the unified memory indeed means a lot less blocks of memory
moving to/from I/O, it's not an huge fraction of the overall memory. Certainly a big contributor to speed.
On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:
To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
north of 1 TB IIRC.
The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
instance, each 8086 chip model has a memory limit in the specs released
by Intel. I don't think anyone has implemented full 64 bit for memory address.
How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
is not known. But it is quite possible that they only implememnted 34
bits giving a max addressable of 16GB. Coming from iPhone/iPad, Apple woudln't have felt need to implement much wider data path within memory controller.
The picture you show may have the RAM in separate real estate, but it is still embeded inside the chip so a very fixed configuration when the
chip is made. Not something soldered in after chip is packaged.
On 2021-04-22 1:50 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:
To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
north of 1 TB IIRC.
The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
instance, each 8086 chip model has a memory limit in the specs released
by Intel. I don't think anyone has implemented full 64 bit for memory
address.
Why do you continue to reference a processor that became irrelevant
nearly 40 years ago?
How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
is not known. But it is quite possible that they only implememnted 34
bits giving a max addressable of 16GB. Coming from iPhone/iPad, Apple
woudln't have felt need to implement much wider data path within memory
controller.
The picture you show may have the RAM in separate real estate, but it is
still embeded inside the chip so a very fixed configuration when the
chip is made. Not something soldered in after chip is packaged.
Wrong.
On 2021-04-22 15:26, Alan Browne wrote:
To be seen. The basic ARM 64 bit design accommodates memory models
north of 1 TB IIRC.
The architecture accomodates 64 bit memory. ( 16 exabytes)
Each implememtation decides how many of the 64 bits will actually be
looked at by the memory controller (which also defines memory address
data path) and hence implementation memory limit. This is why for
instance, each 8086
How many bits for memory addressing Apple has implemented for M1 or A14
is not known.
On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel.
I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>>> word.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have
not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very
wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. >>>> Maybe you should try it?
No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously
pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.
You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and
RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
CPU, it is a SoC.
SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.
No it does not because it only has somewhere around 50 - 52 address
bits.
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101811/0100/Address-spaces-in-AArch64
No it absolutely is not. The M1 has 16B transistors. The memory would
need a minimum of 137B transistors if each memory bit were implemented
in 1 transistor.
Cuts both ways. Memory to the GPU doesn't use PCIe bus to transit to the
GPU, but then, as the multiple GPUs are doing their work, it competes
against the other CPU cores for access to memory.
You're assuming 1980's memory architecture. No surprise.
In message <KGjgI.19525$9F5.17428@fx43.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel. >>>>>>>>>I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with >>>>>>>>>> only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>>>> word.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have >>>>> not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very >>>>> wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. >>>>> Maybe you should try it?
No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously >>>> pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.
You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and >>> RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a
CPU, it is a SoC.
SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this
size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.
Fine. The module that contains the SoC also contains the RAM, which is
much more tightly integrated to the CPU than memory normally is.
here's the M1 module:
<https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/ZRQGFteQwoIVFbNn>
But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.
Let's try to come up with something from this century. Where is your
citation that memory addressing is limited to less than 64 bits on ARM
in general and the M1 specifically.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/75279/intel-xeon-processor-e5-2690-v2-25m-cache-3-00-ghz.html
But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.
On 2021-04-22 18:55, Lewis wrote:
Let's try to come up with something from this century. Where is your
citation that memory addressing is limited to less than 64 bits on ARM
in general and the M1 specifically.
I stated that ARM architectirs ius 64 bit, In my previous post, provided quote from ARM's web site.
What I also stated is that actual implemenmtation do not implement 64
bits of address space. This varies from chip to chip depending on what
the chip designer wanted.
Example:
machdep.cpu.brand_string: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz machdep.cpu.address_bits.physical: 46
Since Apple hasn't released specs for M1, at this point all we know is
that it is able to support 16GB. And that requires 34bits of address
bits. M1 could have more, but we don't know that. Supporting more
requires more traces in the physical data paths within the cores and
memory controller.
On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:
In message <KGjgI.19525$9F5.17428@fx43.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 09:48, Lewis wrote:
In message <YSdgI.74720$OF5.63838@fx07.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 00:38, Lewis wrote:
In message <gD_fI.102526$nn2.117@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 14:42, Lewis wrote:
In message <jsZfI.90255$ST2.85155@fx47.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-21 13:07, Lewis wrote:
In message <oHUfI.101230$nn2.100550@fx48.iad> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2021-04-20 20:32, Lewis wrote:
16GB of RAM on an M1 is nothing like 16GB of RAM on Intel. >>>>>>>>>>I have 32 GB on a mini at work. The OS uses a great deal of it with
only 8 GB left as cached - but at least no swapping. This is way beyond
M1≠intel.
No, it is not. Really. The performance of a 16GB M1's memory far >>>>>>>>>> outstrips the performance of a 32GB Intel.
Ludicrous.
Fine. You know best, having vast experience with the M1s.
Experience with computers generally for 45 years. I can even use the V >>>>>>> word.
You sound like JF when you spout this nonsense about devices you have >>>>>> not used. The fact that the memory is on the same chip and has a very >>>>>> wide path to the CPU seems to make an astonishing amount of difference. >>>>>> Maybe you should try it?
No. The memory is definitely not at all on the same chip as previously >>>>> pointed out - indeed you agreed to that when it was pointed out.
You need to watch the M1 introduction again, obviously. The CPU, GPU, and >>>> RAM (and a few other things?) are all on a single SoC. The M1 is not a >>>> CPU, it is a SoC.
SoC's do not as a rule always have RAM on the SoC chip. For memory this >>> size it would be near impossible as I explained to you in the past.
Fine. The module that contains the SoC also contains the RAM, which is
much more tightly integrated to the CPU than memory normally is.
That does appear to be so. They're getting very high bandwidth between
the M1 and memory and sustaining it - at least until several cores are running at full load.
here's the M1 module:
<https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/ZRQGFteQwoIVFbNn>
But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
No it doesn't. The memory path for DDR4 is 128 bits wide and that's the same for intel devices using DDR4 memory.
Where Apple do make a huge improvement is in keeping that bus _full_ for more of the time.
16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.
Again you're conflating operating speed with memory size. These are not
the same thing.
You can be pretty sure that upcoming Mx iMacs will have a lot more
memory. And customers for it.
On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:
But the fact is that the RAM has a much wider path to the CPU and that a
16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.
You don't know that. For all we know, the RAM mounted into the same
support as the "CPU" means nothing about the interface between RAM and
CPU.
For all we know, it is the same 288 pins (data paths) running at
same DDR4 speed.
On 2021-04-22 17:44, Alan Browne wrote:
No it does not because it only has somewhere around 50 - 52 address
bits.
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101811/0100/Address-spaces-in-AArch64
Address sizes
Armv8-A is a 64-bit architecture, but this does not mean that all
addresses are 64-bit.
This is why I stated that it depends on the chip. The archiecture is 64
bits, but the chip maker decides how many of those 64 bits it actually
uses. Have no idea if Apple documented how many it uses for its A14/M1 chips. But if it only implememnted 34 bits, i would explain the 16GB
limit of M1.
using only 34 bits instead of 64
Couldn't find an iFixit teardown of a 2020 Mac. But did find this one: https://youtu.be/hczcaGX62S0
I had interpreted the picture you had posted more as a "concept", but
the chip packaging really has the RAM is a separate component mounted on
the same carrier and thus socket. Not sure at what point in the building
of the "unit" the RAM is added.
In message <YQngI.135654$PE7.30359@fx39.iad> Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:
On 2021-04-22 19:08, Lewis wrote:
16GB M1 system is much more responsive than a 32GB Intel.
Again you're conflating operating speed with memory size. These are not
the same thing.
No I am not. I can fill the RAM on my M1 and the machine continues to
operate at fill speed. I can fill the RAM on an Intel and watch it drop
to a snail's pace of struggling to do anything at all.
You can be pretty sure that upcoming Mx iMacs will have a lot more
memory. And customers for it.
Never said otherwise, but they will probably have less memory than you
think they need, based on everything you've said.
The RAM is not inside the physical chip itself, but is part of the SoC architecture (direct access paths, etc.), so it's not "normal" RAM as
such. Reportedly it can be upgraded from 8GB to 16GB ... with expert electronics skills and the right tool.
that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
old chip.
Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
address 16GB of RAM?
that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
old chip.
Intel XEON is not 40 years old.
On 2021-04-23 02:32, Lewis wrote:
that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
old chip.
Intel XEON is not 40 years old.
Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
address 16GB of RAM?
Nobody knows because Apple did not release the specs. What I stated is
that they needed at least 34 bits to provide 16GB, but none of Apples
ARM based chips have supported more so it is likely that M1 may be
limited to that.
(and likely a big differentiator with M2).--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
you said 8086.
you said 8086.
Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.
Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
with many more extensions.
On 2021-04-23 20:10, nospam wrote:
you said 8086.
Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.
Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
with many more extensions.
A4: ARMv7-A
A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A
What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.
A4: ARMv7-A
A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A
What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.
An instruction set evolves with time. A14 is a superset of A4.
Both are
still the same overall architecture and programs compiled on ARMv7 instructiosn will run on ARM v8 chips. ( Though IOS will prevent them
from launching because of lack of OS level support, but the chip itself
is perfectly capable as was seen with the first 64 bit iPhone still able
to run ARM v7 code.).
On 2021-04-23 20:27, Alan Baker wrote:
A4: ARMv7-A
A14: A64; ARMv8.5-A
What's amazing is that in an age when all of this stuff can easily be
checked, you still post bullshit ALL THE TIME.
An instruction set evolves with time. A14 is a superset of A4. Both are still the same overall architecture and programs compiled on ARMv7 instructiosn will run on ARM v8 chips. ( Though IOS will prevent them
from launching because of lack of OS level support, but the chip itself
is perfectly capable as was seen with the first 64 bit iPhone still able
to run ARM v7 code.).
On 2021-04-23 02:32, Lewis wrote:
that's nice,. but yu provided no citation for this other than a 40 year
old chip.
Intel XEON is not 40 years old.
Nifty. Now, what is the value for the M1 that you claimed could only
address 16GB of RAM?
Nobody knows
so it is likely that M1 may be limited to that.
On 2021-04-23 20:10, nospam wrote:
you said 8086.
Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.
Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
with many more extensions.
In article <muJgI.25676$9F5.24745@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
you said 8086.
Current chips implement the original instruction set with extentions.
where 'extensions' is implementing an entirely new 64 bit instruction
set.
So the latest "x86" has 8086 inside.
the latest 'x86' is wildly different than an 8086 in just about every possible way.
Just as an A14 is an ARM chip just like A4 even though one is 64 bits
with many more extensions.
you mean those same extensions that add an entirely new 64 bit
instruction set, along with even more extensions for the multi-core gpu
and neural engine?
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 790 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 40:16:16 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 5,294 |
| D/L today: |
72 files (9,959K bytes) |
| Messages: | 564,933 |
