name99

Latest activity Postings Featured content About Trophies

• • N

    name99 reacted to junjie1475's post in the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread with Like.

    https://gist.github.com/junjie1475/738ba50f9e933e6beeadf89a40fe1390 Investigations on Apple Silicon(m3), if you're interested.

    Sunday at 4:56 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    Maybe, but I don't see definite proof in the graphs. Might be easier to disentangle w/ linear plots. Since before M1, Apple has in...

    Sunday at 4:53 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    27 cycles for P L2 seems high! M1 was around 16 cycles. But the actual access time is much the same in both cases, about 5.5 ns. In...

    Sunday at 4:23 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    This statement is, in fact, misleading. Apple can get that L1 load throughput (48B/cycle) with integer load-pair. The paths from L1...

    Sunday at 1:41 PM
  • N

    name99 reacted to mvprod123's post in the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread with Like.

    Single threaded bandwidth on the M4 Pro and compared to x86. Unlike the latency test, in the bandwidth test it is easy to see that a...

    Sunday at 1:32 PM
  • N

    name99 reacted to mvprod123's post in the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread with Like.

    Testing M4 Pro access latency curves for large/small cores L1d: 128K for large core, 64K for small core, both 3 cycles (4 cycles for...

    Sunday at 1:29 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    Guys, can we move this elsewhere? There are a million places on the internet to discuss opinions about Trump; let's try to keep this...

    Saturday at 1:20 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    Of course you start with a test chip. But at some point you need proof that Intel can make your actual big boy chip, at the yields...

    Saturday at 1:18 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    Apple are probably endlessly engaged in talking to Intel about what they offer, and looking at their tools. This is just common sense -...

    Friday at 1:51 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    The OS has some control, for example background tasks are marked as such (given a QoS flag) and will run on an E-core at lowest...

    Thursday at 4:25 PM
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    I am referring to when enough "P"-threads exist that some "P-work" overflows to E-cores. It is primarily in those circumstances that...

    Nov 20, 2024
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    Of course. But what does that have to do with the point I made?

    Nov 19, 2024
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    At low QoS, and so running at 1GHz… Running at full speed (ie as an augmentation to P-cores) it’s not quite so impressive, but still...

    Nov 19, 2024
  • N

    name99 replied to the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread.

    They could easily go together. If Apple's preferred policy is more or less: a base Mac Mini costs $600 (or whatever) then to some extent...

    Nov 9, 2024
  • N

    name99 reacted to The Hardcard's post in the thread Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread with Like.

    It is not remotely an experiment. Apple has had the same pricing for more than 2 decades. Outside of a few $100 bumps, all Apple base...

    Nov 8, 2024

  Show older items
• Loading…
• Loading…
• Loading…
• Loading…