Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

41

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

4

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.

2

junkie-xl t1_j4sa4qj wrote

It's not that fast tbh, slower than pcie3.0 SSDs on PC.

−4

danielv123 t1_j4sj9le wrote

Faster than the built in SSDs you will find in windows laptops with 8gb ram.

16

junkie-xl t1_j4ssrll wrote

Comparing the SSD in a $400 devicea to the SSD in a $1200 device are we?

−6

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.

6

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?

1

Car-face t1_j4tr5s0 wrote

They're talking about the SSD, not the SoC.

1

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.

1

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.

2

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.

https://duet-cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0x0:1362x1396/480x492/filters:focal(681x698:682x699):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23845748/291839779_411868900908667_5086083054058057192_n.png

2

agracadabara t1_j4w468x wrote

I said the Pro and Max model not the base M1/M2.

https://www.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/qwjbwl/blackmagic_disk_speed_test_results_for_m1_max/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

There is no T2 security chip on Apple Silicon Macs. You don’t seem to know much about these systems.

1

junkie-xl t1_j60g5zy wrote

M2 Pro vs M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14 - ACTUALLY Worse?: https://youtu.be/PgapGwkH9cU

Enjoy. (:

0

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!

2