Seems to me we are still at status quo, but with far less of a difference between the two main approaches to computer performance, and those are:
Run a lot of watts and dump the heat somewhere, or optimize performance per watt and max that out to best case.
Which do people prefer?
Right now, the M1 chips are exemplary in terms of overall performance and are unmatched in terms of total energy used to be top overall performers.
This is great!
We just did not have this option before. Not performing at the top like the M1 chips do.
And if watts and overall hardware configuration does not matter, the peak performance is right there to be done in the usual way, old news.
For me personally, I love the high performing, very efficient M1 chips and whether they are the absolute fastest does not matter due to the differences being smaller than they have been in the past.
YMMV, of course.
But, "this fight... never win" seems way over dramatic.
It's the first in a series of what will end up being seriously SoC type designs with a lot highly integrated, or at the least, densely packed onto what we will find to be small printed circuit boards running off either normal batteries that have a very long discharge time, or much smaller ones that compete with what is out there now by doing more, running longer.
The people who appreciate the more mobile like hardware and overall fast and efficient computing experience won't be won over with a speed difference, unless it is seriously huge.
Most use cases mean the CPU is either waiting on the user for more input, or best case knocking out longer background tasks using far less energy to do so.
Beyond that, for the vast majority, none of this really has an impact on a users computing day.
I run a Lenovo that is a whole lot slower than my M1 machine. The M1 is a pleasure and has a similar run time to the Lenovo, which has two batteries!
Sometimes the faster compute matters. Most of the time it does not.
Yeah trying to say they beat it over all is a mistake.
I do appreciate the author of the article pointing out all the really good things that are truly notable. And frankly those of the things I value more than raw GPU performance no matter how many watts.
5 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 25.2 ms ] threadSeems to me we are still at status quo, but with far less of a difference between the two main approaches to computer performance, and those are:
Run a lot of watts and dump the heat somewhere, or optimize performance per watt and max that out to best case.
Which do people prefer?
Right now, the M1 chips are exemplary in terms of overall performance and are unmatched in terms of total energy used to be top overall performers.
This is great!
We just did not have this option before. Not performing at the top like the M1 chips do.
And if watts and overall hardware configuration does not matter, the peak performance is right there to be done in the usual way, old news.
For me personally, I love the high performing, very efficient M1 chips and whether they are the absolute fastest does not matter due to the differences being smaller than they have been in the past.
YMMV, of course.
But, "this fight... never win" seems way over dramatic.
It's the first in a series of what will end up being seriously SoC type designs with a lot highly integrated, or at the least, densely packed onto what we will find to be small printed circuit boards running off either normal batteries that have a very long discharge time, or much smaller ones that compete with what is out there now by doing more, running longer.
The people who appreciate the more mobile like hardware and overall fast and efficient computing experience won't be won over with a speed difference, unless it is seriously huge.
Most use cases mean the CPU is either waiting on the user for more input, or best case knocking out longer background tasks using far less energy to do so.
Beyond that, for the vast majority, none of this really has an impact on a users computing day.
I run a Lenovo that is a whole lot slower than my M1 machine. The M1 is a pleasure and has a similar run time to the Lenovo, which has two batteries!
Sometimes the faster compute matters. Most of the time it does not.
I do appreciate the author of the article pointing out all the really good things that are truly notable. And frankly those of the things I value more than raw GPU performance no matter how many watts.