M5 Pro and Max unveiled

[dada_dave]

Only reason I could see for that changing is if the Super core was *a lot* more power hungry, but it's the same as what we used to call P in the base M5, so we know for a fact it's not an unreasonably power hungry core that would make it infeasible to rely on it for most tasks

Agreed! But this line of logic is why I thought they wouldn't go with a Middle Core and they did! I'm not saying my "thread scheduling change to take advantage of the new core type" hypothesis is right either btw, I'm also a fan of the "un-core efficiency improvements" hypothesis. But the former is possible.

 

[RockRock8]

Again, you are appear to be confusing the computational demands of different workloads. The battery life improvement has been quoted for workloads where over 95% of the CPU time is spent waiting in a low-power mode, and where most cores are powered down. The power consumption of such workloads is dominated by the baseline power and other involved IP blocks - memory, caches, data busses, networking components etc. That’s what “uncore” refers to.

I am not conflating anything. I'm literally just comparing the fact that the Max chip gets objectively less battery life even in light usage than the Pro chip. Changing the core configuration of the Max chip to use less HP cores is going to help battery life generally speaking. And it did. If they chose to do so without creating a third type of core, you'd also get a side grade in performance for CPU like M3 Pro did, but they didn't, so now you get 15% increased multi threaded performance overall M5 Max vs M4 max

 

[RockRock8]

I don't think anyone is disputing that this new core type will change how Apple designs SOCs ... it already has ... or that this isn't a big deal ... it is very much so

Due respect, half this thread is about the name change, so forgive me, but up until the last 4 posts most of it hasn't been focused on what the implications are now and for other chips lol.

I think the misapprehension you are under is that the battery life tests are multi-core?

I'd like you to show the M4 Max and M4 Pro gets the same battery life on light tasks, using official or unofficial metrics. Until then I don't know why you're saying that. I don't have any misapprehension that streaming is a hardware accelerated light task on M chips lol.

 

[RockRock8]

It’s not ganging up just because we disagree. I promise you none of us are coordinating our responses in any way. In fact, us four don’t even seem to be addressing the same points (though there appears to be some overlap).

I don’t think we are ganging up on you at all, in fact I think it’s a very civil and constructive conversation. You can take as much time as you need to respond too, this is not a synchronous medium. Just something to think about, if you have multiple people (all experts in their own right) challenging your argument, maybe it’s a good time to reanalyze your premises?

To clarify, I should have used the word "pile on," because I wasn't trying to say it was some conspiracy, so im sorry if it came across negatively like that, but let's be real also: all 4 of you disagreed with me in some way or another for the last 3 pages, saying basically the same stuff and even citing one another's comments to explain why you disagree with me.

Even in claiming you "weren't ganging up on me" 2 people said that same thing within 3 mins of each other lmfao. The thread was very active with all of us contributing very quickly, so I felt compelled to keep it going, which isn't your fault at all, but also added to the pressure. You guys are great, and I enjoy reading what you write. I just needed to say what happened specifically

 

[Cmaier]

Even in claiming you "weren't ganging up on me" 2 people said that same thing within 3 mins of each other lmfao.

That’s a bit of a weird thing to mention. If you said “you four each molested my cat,” the fact that each of us says “no we didn’t” within a few minutes of each other is not proof of anything, either.

 

[RockRock8]

...

Uhmmmmm okay. This conversation getting a little strange to me. Like on multiple levels. I'm sorry to have upset you in previous days, apparently, but at this point I'm not really sure what I did that warranted it or why you're acting like this or even just said that. This entire thread is pretty out of character for you. I'm going to end my part of this thread here. Sorry to have upset you.

 

[Cmaier]

Uhmmmmm okay. This conversation getting a little strange to me. Like on multiple levels. I'm sorry to have upset you in previous days, apparently, but at this point I'm not really sure what I did that warranted it or why you're acting like this or even just said that. This entire thread is pretty out of character for you. I'm going to end my part of this thread here. Sorry to have upset you.

? I’m not upset at all. Not one bit. I simply disagree with a premise of yours.

 

[casperes1996]

Agreed! But this line of logic is why I thought they wouldn't go with a Middle Core and they did! I'm not saying my "thread scheduling change to take advantage of the new core type" hypothesis is right either btw, I'm also a fan of the "un-core efficiency improvements" hypothesis. But the former is possible.

Absolutely. I wouldn’t rule it out either. Just have no expectations of changes there given current knowledge and evidence. But definitely possible

 

[RockRock8]

? I’m not upset at all. Not one bit. I simply disagree with a premise of yours.

You just reworded my feedback and equated to claiming you guys did that, which I really struggle to understand why you picked that as a metaphor, it didn't even need a metaphor or analogy. You're either upset or aren't thinking your own responses back to me through enough. I don't appreciate it either way.

I didn't accuse you of that. I literally just asked -- lighthearted in intention, if not execution -- to stop piling on. You guys were doing that, and then when called out you piled on again in denial within minutes of each other. Do you see why changing the feedback to something as weird and irrelevant as what you said is not only inappropriate, but counter productive to the entire point of this specific feedback? I wasn't even looking for an apology, good god

 

[Cmaier]

You just reworded my feedback and equated to claiming you guys did that, which I really struggle to understand why you picked that as a metaphor, it didn't even need a metaphor or analogy. You're either upset or aren't thinking your own responses back to me through enough. I don't appreciate it either way.

I didn't accuse you of that. I literally just asked -- lighthearted in intention, if not execution -- to stop piling on. You guys were doing that, and then when called out you piled on again in denial within minutes of each other. Do you see why changing the feedback to something as weird and irrelevant as what you said is not only inappropriate, but counter productive to the entire point of this specific feedback? I wasn't even looking for an apology, good god

I know you didn’t accuse us of that. I was making an argument by way of analogy, a common rhetorical technique.