The Apple M1 compiles Linux 30% faster than my Intel i9
I'm a little bit confused why there are so many comparisons between M1 and older apple hardware. It seems like a weekly occurrence on HN. I think it's great that the M1 performs well. However, posts like these, and in general the comments I read, make me feel a bit uncomfortable. So, take this with a grain of salt, but I feel like there is a strong desire to confirm the idea that the M1 is a beast. This has been reinforced by quite a lot of misleading advertisement.<p>So, personally, I like to work on a desktop computer. I don't care all that much about the power efficiency as I do about performance. So, I was curious, and ran the same test on a regular good top-end desktop hardware, and the same test took 2 minutes and 53 seconds. In other words 4.3x faster, or "78% faster" if using the same metric. Compared to the M1 time it would be 3.1x and 68% respectively.<p>Just to be clear. This isn't a comment that "with my beefy computer I can outperform the M1". My desktop environment is not something I can commute with. My point is nothing more than, maybe to add some interesting data-points that I find are hard to come by. I seem to always see the M1 be compared to older apple hardware. Maybe that's all you wish to know. If MacOS is a must-have, then I suppose it doesn't really matter what else exists. And this is fine, I have no objection to it.