Hacker News Reader

Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

M1/M2 is a big.little design isn't it? As in an ultra low power CPU for trivial tasks and it spins up heavyweight cores when the workload demands it?

I mean, 3x the performance per watt might be --lies-- --damn lies-- uh, benchmarks targeting the little CPU?

View on HN

This is a reasonable guess but I don't think it's correct. Most benchmarks appear to compare P-cores vs. P-cores.

What's the point of an efficiency benchmark that only compares P-cores?

If the P-cores are where the real workload runs, then the efficiency of the P-cores obviously is paramount. P-cores aren't just for running off wall power.

Most people's computers don't have "real workloads" in that sense because a lot of things aren't CPU bound.

Are you assuming that P-cores only get powered on after E-cores are fully saturated?

I only meant "real workload" in the sense that when real people are using their computer, the P-cores are doing real work; that's true even for bursty workloads that don't keep the processor 100% busy, so power is being spent by the P-cores and their efficiency matters.

> Are you assuming that P-cores only get powered on after E-cores are fully saturated?

No, that's not how M1/M2 work.

Apps are generally on the P-cores, but daemons are on E-cores, and the daemons are doing essential work like keeping you connected to wifi. And the apps aren't running all the time if you're just browsing or editing text. It's all part of the end goal of having a lot of battery life.

And then you have Teams and a large Miro board open :-D

SCNR!

> M1/M2 is a big.little design isn’t it?

Isn’t almost everything designed for consumer use, even the Intel i9, these days?

AMD isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com