Most active commenters
  • ubermonkey(3)
  • ece(3)

←back to thread

Apple Silicon M1 chip in MacBook Air outperforms high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro

(www.macrumors.com)
1080 points antipaul | 25 comments | 12 Nov 20 00:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
mcintyre1994 ◴[12 Nov 20 07:21 UTC] No.25067338[source]▶
> The M1 chip, which belongs to a MacBook Air with 8GB RAM, features a single-core score of 1687 and a multi-core score of 7433. According to the benchmark, the M1 has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

> The Mac mini with M1 chip that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1682 and a multi-core score of 7067.

> Update: There's also a benchmark for the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 chip and 16GB RAM that has a single-core score of 1714 and a multi-core score of 6802. Like the MacBook Air , it has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

So single core we have: Air 1687, Mini 1682, Pro 1714

And multi core we have: Air 7433, Mini 7067, Pro 6802

I’m not sure what to make of these scores, but it seems wrong that the Mini and Pro significantly underperform the Air in multi core. I find it hard to imagine this benchmark is going to be representative of actual usage given the way the products are positioned, which makes it hard to know how seriously to take the comparisons to other products too.

> When compared to existing devices, the M1 chip in the MacBook Air outperforms all iOS devices. For comparison's sake, the iPhone 12 Pro earned a single-core score of 1584 and a multi-core score of 3898, while the highest ranked iOS device on Geekbench's charts, the A14 iPad Air, earned a single-core score of 1585 and a multi-core score of 4647.

This seems a bit odd too - the A14 iPad Air outperforms all iPad Pro devices?

replies(14): >>25067412 #>>25067414 #>>25067435 #>>25067467 #>>25067719 #>>25067879 #>>25067931 #>>25068427 #>>25068698 #>>25068977 #>>25069217 #>>25069354 #>>25070019 #>>25071266 #
throwaway4good ◴[12 Nov 20 08:30 UTC] No.25067719[source]▶
The results seem a little weird but if remotely true then these machines are going to sell like cup cakes.

Why would anyone (who is not forced) buy an Intel PC laptop when these are available and priced as competitive as they are?

replies(19): >>25067752 #>>25067760 #>>25067775 #>>25067789 #>>25067856 #>>25067866 #>>25067936 #>>25067945 #>>25067976 #>>25068118 #>>25068189 #>>25068589 #>>25068695 #>>25068781 #>>25069148 #>>25070670 #>>25071421 #>>25072755 #>>25074611 #
moondev ◴[12 Nov 20 11:00 UTC] No.25068589[source]▶
> Why would anyone (who is not forced) buy an Intel PC laptop when these are available and priced as competitive as they are?

- locked bootloader - no bootcamp - can't install or boot linux or windows

- virtualization limited to arm64 machines - no windows x86 or linux x86 virtual machines

- only 2 thunderbolt ports

- limited to 16GB RAM

- no external gpu support/drivers - can't use nvidia or amd cards

- no AAA gaming

- can't run x86 containers without finding/building for arm64 or taking huge performance hit with qemu-static

- uncertain future of macos as it continues to be locked down

replies(12): >>25068615 #>>25068712 #>>25068850 #>>25068948 #>>25069453 #>>25069576 #>>25069626 #>>25069745 #>>25069808 #>>25069834 #>>25077204 #>>25127853 #
1. ubermonkey ◴[12 Nov 20 13:12 UTC] No.25069453[source]▶
"uncertain future of macos as it continues to be locked down"

Citation Needed.

Apple detractors LOVE to bring this idea up, but there's nothing to it in any real sense. Do Macs ship with a checkbox filled in that limits software vendors? Yes. This is a good thing. Is it trivial to change this setting? Also yes.

Anyone who buys a Mac can run any software on it they like. There is no lockdown.

replies(4): >>25071039 #>>25071507 #>>25071651 #>>25071787 #
2. greatpatton ◴[12 Nov 20 15:44 UTC] No.25071039[source]▶
There is a lockdown as you cannot even boot linux anymore...
replies(2): >>25071907 #>>25082093 #
3. vimy ◴[12 Nov 20 16:28 UTC] No.25071507[source]▶
ARM Macs can't run unsigned software.
replies(2): >>25071592 #>>25082078 #
4. w0utert ◴[12 Nov 20 16:37 UTC] No.25071592[source]▶
Yes, but code signing can be ad-hoc, can be done automatically at build time, and doesn't require notarization. So it's basically just a way to ensure the binary has not been tampered with. I don't really see the problem here, as the code signing itself does not prevent any kind of code from running on macOS Big Sur.
replies(3): >>25072920 #>>25074056 #>>25081150 #
5. levesque ◴[12 Nov 20 16:45 UTC] No.25071651[source]▶
Catalina already broke a TON of legacy software and you cannot downgrade newer Macs to Mojave (at least not without some serious hacking efforts, and I know at least one person who tried and failed).
replies(2): >>25076904 #>>25112331 #
6. lstamour ◴[12 Nov 20 17:08 UTC] No.25071907[source]▶
You can change that on T2-based Intel Macs, at least, just like on Windows: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208330

Of course, Apple as an OEM does not support running non-Mac OSes, so virtualization should still be preferred for most use cases.

replies(1): >>25071951 #
7. greatpatton ◴[12 Nov 20 17:12 UTC] No.25071951{3}[source]▶
That's why I'm saying anymore. It was the case but it is no more possible with the new Apple Silicone laptop.
replies(2): >>25072556 #>>25073353 #
8. dylan604 ◴[12 Nov 20 17:56 UTC] No.25072556{4}[source]▶
I guess Microsoft will have to hurry up and build an ARM version of Windows so they can keep the rounding error number of BootCamp users satisfied.
replies(2): >>25073027 #>>25075612 #
9. snovv_crash ◴[12 Nov 20 18:23 UTC] No.25072920{3}[source]▶
If you can sign ad-hoc then there's no point, right? Just modify and re-sign.
10. ValentineC ◴[12 Nov 20 18:30 UTC] No.25073027{5}[source]▶
There is an ARM version of Windows 10 that runs on the Surface Pro X [1].

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-pro-x/

replies(1): >>25074727 #
11. lstamour ◴[12 Nov 20 18:52 UTC] No.25073353{4}[source]▶
There’s no indication from Apple that they are intentionally not supporting this feature - just that it doesn’t exist right now. That said in practice I never use BootCamp because the driver support is always sub-par. It’s a much nicer experience to virtualize, especially now that most virtualization platforms offer native support for Apple’s virtualization libraries, such that installing third party kernel extensions are less necessary now than ever before. (I think the only ones I tend to install now are Tuxera NTFS support which tends to be really high quality. Apple should just buy Tuxera and ship them natively.)
12. ece ◴[12 Nov 20 19:49 UTC] No.25074056{3}[source]▶
With iOS, you have to be an Apple developer paying $99/yr to do ad-hoc signing, I'm guessing it's the same now for MacOS..
replies(1): >>25079403 #
13. asveikau ◴[12 Nov 20 20:44 UTC] No.25074727{6}[source]▶
Not only that, the first released version of NT on ARM was in 2012.

They had crappy code signing policies (only store apps on Windows RT tablet) which guaranteed poor adoption but that was a policy decision, not a technical one.

14. rowanG077 ◴[12 Nov 20 21:54 UTC] No.25075612{5}[source]▶
An ARM version of Windows has existed for almost a decade. In fact it's running on quite a few laptops right now.
replies(1): >>25079175 #
15. dkonofalski ◴[12 Nov 20 23:45 UTC] No.25076904[source]▶
That's not true at all. You can use recovery mode to trivially revert back to the OS that was installed when the computer was purchased. If that's pre-Mojave then you can just upgrade back to Mojave afterwards.
replies(1): >>25077436 #
16. lebca ◴[13 Nov 20 00:50 UTC] No.25077436{3}[source]▶
What if the Mac had a newer OS than Mojave originally installed on it? That is how I interpreted the parent poster's comment. Given this interpretation, I'm don't think I'd have the expectation to be able to install an earlier OS.
replies(1): >>25077476 #
17. dkonofalski ◴[13 Nov 20 00:55 UTC] No.25077476{4}[source]▶
With that interpretation, you'd be correct but I don't think you've ever been able to downgrade to something earlier than what it came with since the older OS wouldn't include the appropriate drivers or kexts to properly run the hardware.
18. baybal2 ◴[13 Nov 20 05:21 UTC] No.25079175{6}[source]▶
Since 1997 to be exact. WinCE ran on arm since time immemorial.
19. X-Istence ◴[13 Nov 20 06:03 UTC] No.25079403{4}[source]▶
That's not true. Anyone with an Apple ID is able to sign software they build/binaries and install them on their iOS devices.

Although instead of lasting 1 year they only last 7 days, but there is no fee for a user to sign and install their own binaries.

replies(1): >>25079502 #
20. ece ◴[13 Nov 20 06:20 UTC] No.25079502{5}[source]▶
My question was about MacOS and if similar behaviour exists there too with the M1 Macs.

To clarify iOS, so the app erases itself after 7 days? Or is it something like you can install an app for only 7 days after downloading/using Xcode?

replies(1): >>25089530 #
21. neop1x ◴[13 Nov 20 11:15 UTC] No.25081150{3}[source]▶
Can be ad-hoc? For how long?
22. ubermonkey ◴[13 Nov 20 13:50 UTC] No.25082078[source]▶
Cite?
23. ubermonkey ◴[13 Nov 20 13:52 UTC] No.25082093[source]▶
I guess that may count for you, but I mean lockdowns within the OS itself.

I don't care that I can't run Linux on my Mac. If I wanted to run Linux, I'd have different hardware.

24. ece ◴[14 Nov 20 01:34 UTC] No.25089530{6}[source]▶
To answer my own question, an ad-hoc signed iOS App will deactivate after 7 days unless you pay $99/yr. This behaviour is not present on Big Sur and likely M1 Macs, they can still run notarized and non-notarized apps: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/macos-11-0-big-sur-t...
25. thw0rted ◴[16 Nov 20 14:53 UTC] No.25112331[source]▶
So the choice is between running an older OS version that will go EOL sooner, or abandoning the ability to dual-boot? How is that OK?