7 ms·
It definitely uses x86 emulation, if that's what you mean. But based on the these M1 threads I would expect M1 x86 emulation to work like magic, not be 5 times
by SirIntruder 6y ago
It definitely uses x86 emulation, if that's what you mean. But based on the these M1 threads I would expect M1 x86 emulation to work like magic, not be 5 times slower than some dual core 2016 model.
- gameswithgo 6y agoYeah I just imagine that its a worst case scenario for Rosetta there. Possibly a lot of SIMD that isn't getting translated to neon simd.
- rsynnott 6y agoRosetta does quite badly with JITed stuff (notably, it does very, very badly with x86 JVMs). I assume it'll be fine once native Unity is available.
- Reason077 6y agoThe linked article with the benchmarks doesn't make it clear what JVM is being used. Since the Java benchmarks seem to perform well, I assume they're using a native JVM?
- rsynnott 6y agoYeah, looks like it. It say they're using Azul's one, and that's available for MacOS ARM64.
- messe 6y agoHuh, this is surprising to me. Anecdotally, I tried Minecraft Java under Rosetta on my MBA, and it ran smoothly 2560x1600 resolution at 60 FPS with very few drops. Although I'd imagine that a JITed game might be easier for Rosetta to deal with, as it will be running the same code paths over and over again in comparison to a compiler.
- rsynnott 6y agoI’ve never played minecraft, but is it generally cpu bound? The GPU is very fast, for a laptop-y thing, so that may be carrying it. In synthetic tests, Java under Rosetta seems to range from twice to over four times as slow as native arm Java, depending on workload.