> The M1 is probably the worst hardware you could have picked in 2020-2021 if computational power was your main concern. For highly > parallelizable work tasks, the top end GPU alone has 10x the computation power than the M1, and a top end CPU has around 4x the
> computation power than the M1. Not to mention a rather limiting 16GB of memory.
This statement is so banal that I am not sure how to comment on it. I never understood the logic of people who point out that an entry-level, low power chip targeted at ultraportable laptops and kitchen computers cannot compete with high-end desktops. It's just as ridiculous as to complain that AMD EPYC is too big to fit into a laptop.
M1 is obviously a terrible choice if you are looking for a deskbound HPC workstation. It's a terrific choice if you are looking for an ultraportable laptop with excellent battery life that you would still like to prototype your ML code on before running the full workload on a mainframe.
> That the M1 is computationally powerful is a myth started out by exceedingly misleading marketing and reinforced with hard-to-
> compare benchmarks.
More like a myth perpetuated by people who like to take facts out of the context. In terms of the underlaying IP, M1 is terrific technology. It can deliver the same performance as state of the art designs at a fraction of the power consumption. In terms of absolute performance, it's obviously an entry-level chip, and it performs exceedingly well compared to other offerings in this segment. And even outside its segment it is no slouch either. It runs my database scripts and builds code faster than my Intel i9 laptop, despite using 70% less power and half as many performance-oriented CPU cores.
> This statement is so banal that I am not sure how to comment on it. ...
> M1 is obviously a terrible choice if you are looking for a deskbound HPC workstation ...
So, in one breath you say my statement is banal, in the next you agree with it. The thing I take issue with is having to deal with the misconception that it is a replacement for a HPC workstation, because many (not you obviously) think it actually is a powerhouse.
You go on to repeat the stuff about power performance, which I've already listed, and you could have spared yourself the trouble.
This statement is so banal that I am not sure how to comment on it. I never understood the logic of people who point out that an entry-level, low power chip targeted at ultraportable laptops and kitchen computers cannot compete with high-end desktops. It's just as ridiculous as to complain that AMD EPYC is too big to fit into a laptop.
M1 is obviously a terrible choice if you are looking for a deskbound HPC workstation. It's a terrific choice if you are looking for an ultraportable laptop with excellent battery life that you would still like to prototype your ML code on before running the full workload on a mainframe.
> That the M1 is computationally powerful is a myth started out by exceedingly misleading marketing and reinforced with hard-to- > compare benchmarks.
More like a myth perpetuated by people who like to take facts out of the context. In terms of the underlaying IP, M1 is terrific technology. It can deliver the same performance as state of the art designs at a fraction of the power consumption. In terms of absolute performance, it's obviously an entry-level chip, and it performs exceedingly well compared to other offerings in this segment. And even outside its segment it is no slouch either. It runs my database scripts and builds code faster than my Intel i9 laptop, despite using 70% less power and half as many performance-oriented CPU cores.