Youvebeeneloned t1_j4r3oit wrote
Reply to comment by MiguelDeYisus in Apple introduces new Mac mini with M2 and M2 Pro — more powerful, capable, and versatile than ever by TbonerT
because they can with M chip. The ARM chips are significantly more efficient with memory over Intel chips. Its still stupid, but you would be surprised at how fictional 8 gigs is with a M1 vs 8 gigs with a intel chip.
To be fair with it though, even base model laptops from Dell and HP are still rolling with 8 gigs or even less.
danielv123 t1_j4r7id7 wrote
Ram usage doesn't really have anything to do with the architecture, just the software you run. The macOS doesn't use as much ram as windows and it is more liberal with suspending background applications than windows.
It also has a fast SSD to page things to, which helps.
Veranova t1_j4udhqt wrote
Given both RAM/SSD are essentially on the same chip with transfer designed to utilise the SSD under the RAM, and a much faster SSD than what you’ll find in other machines, the broader architecture absolutely affects the performance here.
Obviously they’re confusing Arm with Apple Silicon and this is what they meant
danielv123 t1_j4ufpd0 wrote
No, I am not. And no, the SSD on apple silicon is not on the SOC, although the SSD controller and RAM is.
Yes, I know that apple chips are more energy efficient than competitors. That does not change how memory works.
No, the SSD isn't much faster than what you will find in other machines either, just other similarly priced machines. It does about 1.4/1.3 GB/s while 130$ SSDs from other brands do 3 - 7GB/s.
junkie-xl t1_j4sa4qj wrote
It's not that fast tbh, slower than pcie3.0 SSDs on PC.
danielv123 t1_j4sj9le wrote
Faster than the built in SSDs you will find in windows laptops with 8gb ram.
junkie-xl t1_j4ssrll wrote
Comparing the SSD in a $400 devicea to the SSD in a $1200 device are we?
danielv123 t1_j4u3ht7 wrote
Yes, since we are comparing the amount of ram apple ships in 1200$ devices with the amount of ram other manufacturers ship in 400$ devices.
[deleted] t1_j4tcdbl wrote
[deleted]
timmeh-eh t1_j4t8xc8 wrote
This is a brand new SOC, just curious where you’re “not that fast” commentary is coming from. Im assuming you’ve benchmarked one of these just released systems? Care to share your data?
Car-face t1_j4tr5s0 wrote
They're talking about the SSD, not the SoC.
junkie-xl t1_j4u628g wrote
Keep downvoting apologists but the storage on these SoC's doesn't go over 3000MB/s. Meanwhile PCs have been enjoying 7500 for years with pcie5.0 around the corner.
agracadabara t1_j4w1cp3 wrote
That’s bullshit. The Pro and Max models will do PCI-E 4.0 speeds so 7.4 GBps.
> Meanwhile PCs have been enjoying 7500 for years
Evidence needed. How many years? List models of PCs from vendors.
junkie-xl t1_j4w2gyb wrote
Ok, then find me a single benchmark that shows M1 or M2 soc storage going over 3GBps. I don't think you understand what the T2 "security" chip does to performance.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23845748/291839779_411868900908667_5086083054058057192_n.png){kind=link}
agracadabara t1_j4w468x wrote
I said the Pro and Max model not the base M1/M2.
There is no T2 security chip on Apple Silicon Macs. You don’t seem to know much about these systems.
junkie-xl t1_j60g5zy wrote
M2 Pro vs M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14 - ACTUALLY Worse?: https://youtu.be/PgapGwkH9cU
Enjoy. (:
agracadabara t1_j60to03 wrote
ACTUALLY faster… Enjoy! :-)
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/01/24/new-macbook-pro-ssd-speeds/
Nothing to do with SOC but number of NAND chips on the board.
>“When Macworld tested with the Blackmagic disk speed app, the 16-inch MacBook Pro with M2 Pro in a 2TB storage configuration achieved a read speed of 5,372 MB/s and a write speed of 6,491 MB/s. The previous-generation 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M1 Pro chip and 1TB of storage scored a slightly higher 5,797 MB/s read speed than the 16-inch M2 Pro; however, it scored a lower write speed of 5,321 MB/s.”
Let’s see PCI-e 4.0 speeds too.
Oh look the Dell and HP laptops are ACTUALLY much SLOWER... So much for PCs have been enjoying faster speeds for years... Oops! You are still utterly clueless!
AnAverageBengali007 t1_j4u8w8s wrote
Sooo, do you have PCIE 5??
dekvik t1_j4zs7ef wrote
PCIe 5 is 14GB/s if in not mistaken.
dalizijun t1_j4s5mvl wrote
I have a M1 Pro MacBook with 16GB ram. I am constantly utilizing about ~13 GB using it. So I do think for 13 inch M2 MBP, 8GB is a bit shabby with starting price of 1299.
[deleted] t1_j4s99bx wrote
[deleted]
Youvebeeneloned t1_j4st0jy wrote
Bingo the OS is designed to utilize any available ram, and that availability drops depending on what other apps you have running in the background. It also knows to suspend apps that are not using any memory so it can’t pull from the pool.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4r6svc wrote
>The ARM chips are significantly more efficient with memory over Intel chips.
No. Stop justifying Apple's shit. My phone has 12 GB of ram.
Neg_Crepe t1_j4rg70a wrote
And performs worse than apples phone with less ram.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4ri9en wrote
Yes, the phone with an ARM vs the phone with the ARM most definitely performs way worse.
Stop being such a fanboy. Apple isn't some magical company that designs everything perfect.
Neg_Crepe t1_j4rkonf wrote
Fanboy? Lmao. As if you’re been objective buddy. My example proves to you that ram ain’t everything.
No matter how you will want to spin it, your 12gb of ram ain’t shit if it’s not the most powerful
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4rn7jc wrote
Yay, your "faster" phone is better at browsing facebook and tiktok.
Congrats, fanboy.
Now quick, your tiktok has a new challenge for you!
Neg_Crepe t1_j4rqqb6 wrote
Lmao.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4s4eg9 wrote
IKR! RAM is only going to help with the # of shit you're running, I personally barely use my phone. As far as CPU? You say the iPhone is faster? The tensor holds up pretty well, and new CPUs are coming out almost daily. But really, are you seeing "massive" difference in performance between different phone generations? Oh boy, got me on that 1 millisecond faster load time on some shitty game!
Neg_Crepe t1_j4s4pqx wrote
> The tensor holds up pretty well,
No. Stop justifying Google’s shit.
Kinkboiii t1_j4s7cg3 wrote
Tensor is actually pretty weak. Google's priority isn't the speed or power of Tensor. SD 8 Gen 2 is a much better example though it still isn't as powerful as the A16 Bionic.
[deleted] t1_j4x96uy wrote
[removed]
MidgarsJanitor t1_j4x8dt4 wrote
Have to love posts like this that are absolutely clueless. M1 has redefined the benchmark for high performance energy efficient ARM chipsets. M2 progresses further on this. The fact you're comparing it to your shitty phone processor and RAM shows you know zero about this topic.
If you hate Apple, cool. But please educate yourself or refrain from posting your highly objective and misinformed opinion.
NO_SPACE_B4_COMMA t1_j4yewg0 wrote
Meh, no need - just trolling.
But yeah, I do hate apple. And I don't care about the M1/M2/M3/M4/M5 whatever comes out. Something better will always come out.
MidgarsJanitor t1_j4zl1wp wrote
You aren't trolling though, your knowledge is just extremely poor and you think you have a valid point but don't.
Wrong again, there is currently no ARM chip that competes with Apple Silicone. Microsoft recently launched Volta which lacks many of the unique features Apple have implemented.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments