Contribute
Register

Apple M1 vs Hackintosh

Status
Not open for further replies.
Likely not.


Apple has always leveraged hardware with software to make it run better but they can only do it so far with intel because they do not control the stack.



He talking about the fact that apple when they control the stack are able to leverage more power from lesser hardware. You know how apple camera used to be far less MP then a Samsun camera but still took better pictures? or why an iPad works so much better then what ever other tables are out there. Much of it is due to hardware/software optimization. He's basically saying that threw hardware/software optimization the apple beat intel but the intel chip is more powerful. The problem with that statement is intel will only provide you so much information thus apple can only optimize the software so much. When apple controls the entire stack it is much easier to create Mega optimization.
so if they controlled the stacks intel processoers it will
Beat on m1 with samepower or little bit higher but more heat like ivybridge with bigsur sometimes beat m1
this is iopti/optimizer
also apple did this to get more money
 
Last edited:
so if they controlled the stacks intel processoers it will
Beat on m1withe samepower or little bit higher
also its cheap hardware so apple use high quality camera and microphone in m1 mb
 
also its cheap hardware so apple use high quality camera and microphone in m1 mb
You really should complete your though before posting your one line posts then having to quote yourself and post again. In fact the rules of the site say do not post one word or short posts.

Yes it is cheaper to manufacture a M1 chip that does not mean it has reduced quality. Intel charges a huge premium for their chips and so of course Apple has been looking for a way to get away from intel for a long while. The new Mac mini with M1 is $699 and the Mac mini 2018 with an intel chip started at 1099 with an i5 and for an i7 you were looking 1299. It is cheaper for Apple and cheaper for the consumer as well.
 
The M1 is truly a performance marvel compared to Intel: Today power/ thermal envelope is what counts. M1 stuns Intel by offering better peak performance and a hugely better power balance.

As to optimization: In any architecture, the compiler is naturally a key technology for obtaining best performance, and anyone who thinks this is just shenanigans is an imbecile.

Vertical integration always offers design advantages for optimization. This is why rich owners of stuff always want to be even richer owners of even more stuff. Derp, derp.

Apple with M1 has raised the bar beyond Intel's capacity to adapt at every level of commodities PC design.

(AMD isn't even mentionable on this topic; the reason that company exists is to shield Intel from antitrust)

PC design, according to Apple, is an evolution of an entire system to a use case.

According to Microsoft, all they can innovate is the Start Menu, because it's their only selling point. Every other usability aspect is copied from Apple. There's nothing extraordinary about Apple's template, they just do the unusual, for computer nerds, which is to study the basic reason of the system and organize the GUI accordingly — they just apply and stick with a basic usability logic. It's not that amazing an ethos, but they try. Although lately it's becoming stupid as Apple continues to refine things that don't need attention past the point of usability.

Linux just copies Windows, and not even diligently. Linux is far and away the most tedious design space of the three. A perverse paradox appears with Linux wherein all that freedom somehow conspires to never, ever produce even one design innovation. With Linux, everyone is thrilled by the assembly the coolest looking AMC Pacer made of discarded and broken supermarket shopping carts. The core technology, metallurgy, bearings, etc are there, as is the concept of a graspable handle for steering wheel, baskets welded together with a couch tossed in for coach, and casters all around for ultimate degrees of turning freedom. But I defy anyone to present even a single marvel of usability that arose in that ecosystem? Show just one standard-setting usability innovation. Everything that makes a linux great was inherited from Kernigan+Richie and the Phone Company.
As to the Framework laptop, it looks like an iFixit meme searching for an audience.

Who cares about modular upgrades when generational advances eclipse the refinements? If the Framework was introduced 5 years ago, you would be stuck with a SATA drive: the PC industry wasn't pushing NVMe products, yet drive IO is one of the most important areas of recent system PC performance gain.

Apple designs typically show the industry how to apply PC technology. It was Apple that forged ahead on adoption of NVMe. 20 years ago it was Apple pulling USB adoption. And ARM is another case in point: Apple is leading Intel by the nose to what's important in Intel's own architectures. This isn't debunkable, or even debatable, it's just the course of history.

Re Framework: Its upgradability is trapped within the chipset generation in which its offered. It comes down to a specific idea of what "upgradability" means. If you want to argue for systems SW designs that stay rigidly within a HW budget, then we have to throw out the entire industry, as it would've never occurred. If you want to argue for modularity within a generation, why do you think the industry (Apple) doesn't already know the right cut on this?

The Framework argues that generationally, wherever you are at is enough, and for making cheap choices to under-provision your system based on not knowing your own usage style, because presumably you don't even know why you have a refrigerator (according to a leading Framework reviewer) much less a laptop. Such shortcomings you will make up for later by throwing more money at the problem. And plugging your refrigerator back in.

At Apple, when you under-provision because you have no idea why you're buying this thing, and have to throw more money at the problem later once you have learned, at least you will reap a generational advance for the additional cost.

As to parsing out the infinite details of exactly how many permutations and degrees of freedom of the arrangement of modules, such approach wildly underestimates how tightly bound system software advances are to architecture generations. There is enormous misunderstanding about how and why Apple operates its schedule for retiring products. It's less malevolent than you fear, and much more about rational structural imperatives in an insanely complex industry.

If Framework's pitch is that we've moved beyond generational advance to fully modular designs...? Well Apple is currently proving such a claim is completely unfounded, as Apple just got done completely resetting the bar on power vs performance.

We could go on like this all day.

The Framework makes me like the bad parts of Apple more, because it shows there is a core logic to Apple's products, not the least of which is about making products that are typically very good, that making their shareholders fantastically rich, and all the while meaningfully advancing personal computing — Not withstanding the parasitical aspects of rapacious capitalism and it's dread incursions on human rights. But 'C'est la vie', cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
 
The M1 is truly a performance marvel compared to Intel: Today power/ thermal envelope is what counts. M1 stuns Intel by offering better peak performance and a hugely better power balance.

As to optimization: In any architecture, the compiler is naturally a key technology for obtaining best performance, and anyone who thinks this is just shenanigans is an imbecile.

Vertical integration always offers design advantages for optimization. This is why rich owners of stuff always want to be even richer owners of even more stuff. Derp, derp.

Apple with M1 has raised the bar beyond Intel's capacity to adapt at every level of commodities PC design.

(AMD isn't even mentionable on this topic; the reason that company exists is to shield Intel from antitrust)

PC design, according to Apple, is an evolution of an entire system to a use case.

According to Microsoft, all they can innovate is the Start Menu, because it's their only selling point. Every other usability aspect is copied from Apple. There's nothing extraordinary about Apple's template, they just do the unusual, for computer nerds, which is to study the basic reason of the system and organize the GUI accordingly — they just apply and stick with a basic usability logic. It's not that amazing an ethos, but they try. Although lately it's becoming stupid as Apple continues to refine things that don't need attention past the point of usability.

Linux just copies Windows, and not even diligently. Linux is far and away the most tedious design space of the three. A perverse paradox appears with Linux wherein all that freedom somehow conspires to never, ever produce even one design innovation. With Linux, everyone is thrilled by the assembly the coolest looking AMC Pacer made of discarded and broken supermarket shopping carts. The core technology, metallurgy, bearings, etc are there, as is the concept of a graspable handle for steering wheel, baskets welded together with a couch tossed in for coach, and casters all around for ultimate degrees of turning freedom. But I defy anyone to present even a single marvel of usability that arose in that ecosystem? Show just one standard-setting usability innovation. Everything that makes a linux great was inherited from Kernigan+Richie and the Phone Company.
As to the Framework laptop, it looks like an iFixit meme searching for an audience.

Who cares about modular upgrades when generational advances eclipse the refinements? If the Framework was introduced 5 years ago, you would be stuck with a SATA drive: the PC industry wasn't pushing NVMe products, yet drive IO is one of the most important areas of recent system PC performance gain.

Apple designs typically show the industry how to apply PC technology. It was Apple that forged ahead on adoption of NVMe. 20 years ago it was Apple pulling USB adoption. And ARM is another case in point: Apple is leading Intel by the nose to what's important in Intel's own architectures. This isn't debunkable, or even debatable, it's just the course of history.

Re Framework: Its upgradability is trapped within the chipset generation in which its offered. It comes down to a specific idea of what "upgradability" means. If you want to argue for systems SW designs that stay rigidly within a HW budget, then we have to throw out the entire industry, as it would've never occurred. If you want to argue for modularity within a generation, why do you think the industry (Apple) doesn't already know the right cut on this?

The Framework argues that generationally, wherever you are at is enough, and for making cheap choices to under-provision your system based on not knowing your own usage style, because presumably you don't even know why you have a refrigerator (according to a leading Framework reviewer) much less a laptop. Such shortcomings you will make up for later by throwing more money at the problem. And plugging your refrigerator back in.

At Apple, when you under-provision because you have no idea why you're buying this thing, and have to throw more money at the problem later once you have learned, at least you will reap a generational advance for the additional cost.

As to parsing out the infinite details of exactly how many permutations and degrees of freedom of the arrangement of modules, such approach wildly underestimates how tightly bound system software advances are to architecture generations. There is enormous misunderstanding about how and why Apple operates its schedule for retiring products. It's less malevolent than you fear, and much more about rational structural imperatives in an insanely complex industry.

If Framework's pitch is that we've moved beyond generational advance to fully modular designs...? Well Apple is currently proving such a claim is completely unfounded, as Apple just got done completely resetting the bar on power vs performance.

We could go on like this all day.

The Framework makes me like the bad parts of Apple more, because it shows there is a core logic to Apple's products, not the least of which is about making products that are typically very good, that making their shareholders fantastically rich, and all the while meaningfully advancing personal computing — Not withstanding the parasitical aspects of rapacious capitalism and it's dread incursions on human rights. But 'C'est la vie', cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
M1 and A14without optimizing are faster than 68k and slower than ppc but faster than intel also intel is faster than ppc ?
 
M1 and A14without optimizing are faster than 68k and slower than ppc but faster than intel also intel is faster than ppc ?

What nonsense are you talking about now?
 
What nonsense are you talking about now?
how m1 is faster than intel and slower than ppc also intel is faster than powerpc
Its some thing like puzzle i dont know
 
M1 and A14without optimizing are faster than 68k and slower than ppc but faster than intel also intel is faster than ppc ?
I use 2gen i5 on windows i cant run unity its very slow but on hackintosh its fast but it consumes more power
 
how m1 is faster than intel and slower than ppc also intel is faster than powerpc
Its some thing like puzzle i dont know
I think I'm getting what you're trying to say. You're trying to compare the differences between the
chipsets. Let me try to answer this for you.

First, the M1 chip didn't arrive overnight. It has actually been the culmination of nearly 3 decades of work
not just by Apple, but ARM, Acorn, Samsung and a number of its partners. Much of the core work of the ARM chip was done with Acorn first on their Archimedes system (the first publicly available RISC PC) before it was developed as its own separate chip design for licensing for say PDAs and smartphones, and even further back in the late early 20th century when RISC was first developed as a theory. In case you didn't know, M1's predecessor was first used in Apple's Newton PDA back in the late 90s, before it was ported over to the 1st gen iPod and then iPhone, so it has been in use by Apple for a very long time. It is only because they had a) never thought to use and develop the ARM chip before in larger desktop and laptops released the last 5 years and b) realised how efficient the ARM design really was that we see it in their products today.

The reason M1 seems more powerful than an Intel now is because Apple has made extensive strides in developing its overall design and core efficiency (aside from core and bus speed bumps), adding in new computational modules/functions, and know how to optimise not just the design but also the code it runs on (macOS & iOS).

The difference with the M1 chip and PowerPC/Intel chips is that with the Apple of today, not only have they used improved technologies and processes to work with in designing the chip (and can compare the designs side by side), but now also has the use of their own macOS to run. Aside from having an excellent and experienced team working on the OS, Apple also owns PA Semiconductor, a chip manufacturer it relies on which makes its own Bionic chip and Apple Silicon designs. That gives it an 'edge' over their past position when they were working with IBM and Motorola on PPC. M1 aka ARM is based on RISC instruction set not CISC (Complex Instruction Set) like Intel. CISC designs tends to use more power and generate heat. Yes Intel was faster than PPC overall back in the day and made strides in their earlier years by boosting chip clock speeds and then later on adding extra system bridges and cores to max performance, but it has no hold over Apple today, because Apple's chip designers now understand chip design, have better access to next-gen memory, connection and storage systems and have optimised the M1 at every turn. This means it runs things faster and cooler than a current-gen Intel system. You have to remember, efficiency means not just performance boosts but cost savings, also reliability. If your system runs too hot, reliability and performance becomes issues in the long run.

What you say the M1 being 'slower' than PowerPC is a bit of a misnomer. Yes it may seem less powerful initially (if you compared the Macbook Air to a classic G4 desktop launch in size) as PowerPC is also a RISC chip. But because the PPC design was largely owned/designed by IBM & Motorola, Apple could not do anything on its own with it. Even if they could make it run very efficient on System 9, back then they didn't have the skills in chip design to make it work (compared to today).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top