|
|
|
|
|
|
by schmuelio
1561 days ago
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, the benefits of using ARM architectures for general purpose vs. x86 are really compelling. The performance of x86 has been a leader for a while mostly because of the sheer amount of optimization work that has gone into them, but the cruft of the x86 instruction set and the architectural stuff you have to do to make the instruction set work is really showing it's age. That being said, the GPU performance claims are incredibly misleading. The previous "relative performance" benchmarks that were done on the M1 Max for GPU performance were misleading as well, they definitely cannot keep up with a mid-tier modern discrete GPU. The GPU claim isn't an ARM/x86 comparison like the CPU performance would be. This is comparing a 64 core 800GB/s GPU with a 10k core 900GB/s GPU and trying to make them look equivalent through misleading marketing. None of this is to say that the M1 Ultra is bad necessarily, even if it performs roughly the same as a mobile GPU or powerful iGPU it would still be a very good chip, and I'd love to use one if I could use it in my environment properly. I'm just saying don't put too much faith in the GPU performance measurements provided here. |
|
|
Without denying some good work and engineering having gone into some x86 chips, they are not the reasons for the x86 becoming a leader. The duopoly of Intel and Microsoft – coupled with the aggressive Intel strategy to undermine competitors on the pricing and the sheer production volume they could quickly ramp up – has squeezed every single other viable competitor out of the market and relegated very few to become niche players (e.g. POWER) and entrenched the duopoly as a unfortunate leader. And then complacency and arrogance had set in for years to come until recently.