1 Like
Not in my, admittedly limited, experience. We have a cross-platform app, C++ on QT framework. So a huge ass library full on intel code.
Gets consistently translated to ARM code upon installation pretty fast and seems to run as fast as native code.
1 Like
[…] claimed performance matches an Intel i9-12900 CPU with an Nvidia RTX 3090—as good as it gets […]
Typical Apple marketing BS as far as the GPU goes. Actual numbers: 5–10 times slower than a 3090.
tlkh.dev/benchmarking-the-apple-m1-max#heading-gpu
TBF, the guy does say it matches up watt for watt, but the Apple GPU use 8 times less power…
Mmm. My concern with the Iray renderer is that the CPU rendering code gets generated ‘on-the-fly’ when the render starts, so it wouldn’t benefit from the same install-time transpilation that you’re seeing; it’s more likely to use the just-in-time features of Rosetta2, so there’ll be some kind of a performance hit when the render kicks off. But so long as it can do some optimization, it might not be too bad. I certainly hear that performance is respectable, even if it can’t use the full power of the silicon in the most efficient way.
Apple’s ability to support old code on new CPUs is impressive: they’re now on their third architecture transition (68K to PowerPC, PowerPC to Intel, Intel to Apple Silicon) and each time they’ve managed to keep older software going on the new architecture, at least for a little while. Ironically, where they fall down is on software transitions: I can run software written for Windows 7 flawlessly on Windows 11, but every time Apple ships a new OS, a few more older apps stop working.
2 Likes
Ah, I see. Well, I guess it depends on how often code gets generated. Just checked: Our app comes with 180 MB (yes, really) of Intel Code Frameworks and initial translation is so fast our M1 users don’t notice it between downloading and starting,
MicroSoft back then said „20 seconds“, but then changed the wording. That was for their office behemoth.
This may be our first look at post-Ive Apple. Given that he left shortly after the appearance of the new Mac-Pro this little computer might be Apple’s answer to the outrage over the slap in the face that represented to humble Apple loyalists with it’s top of the market features and price-point. It’s not a bad response. May be a little rushed in the design area or it might be our first look at Apple’s new budget minded ethos. It’s what we all wanted. Something is bound to give and exterior style details are not a bad sacrifice for this kind of power in a manageable price-point.
1 Like
I doubt it, they had plenty of time (at worst they designed it mostly before they knew the actual thermal envelope of the M1 ultra, or at best they know the ballpark thermal envelope of the follow-up CPU & don’t want a new design on the next product revision). This is some team’s idea of what they want.
Since it is really only for people that need more then the M1 Mac mini I expect the people who will buy it care far far more about the insides then the outsides, so I expect the “ugly” won’t hurt (and who knows, maybe I am in the minority! Maybe other people like the look!)
Something is bound to give and exterior style details are not a bad sacrifice for this kind of power in a manageable price-point.
If nothing else it could be put in inside a nice hand-carved walnut box. : ) With holes made for cables in the back. Or maybe just a square box with an open back to facilitate cords and cooling.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
