221–230 of 640 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 8.8" screen takes a lot less power.
When you say efficiency, I assume you’re factoring in performance of the device as well? Maybe run Geekbench 6 and see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All that to say: M1 is pretty fast, but the reason the battery life is better has to do with everything other than the CPU cores. That's what AMD and Intel are missing. This isn't true. Yes, uncore power consumption is very important but so is CPU load efficiency. The faster the CPU can finish a task, the faster it can go back to sleep, aka race to sleep. Apple Silicon is 2-4x more efficient than AMD and Intel CPUs d…
> Apple Silicon is 2-4x more efficient than AMD and Intel CPUs during load while also having higher top end speed. This is false, in cross platform tasks it's on par if not worse than latest X86 arches. As others pointed out: 2.5h in gaming is about what you'd expect from a similarly built X86 machine. They are willing due to lower idle and low load consumption, which they achieve by integrating everything as much as…
This is false, in cross platform tasks it's on par if not worse than latest X86 arches.
They are willing due to lower idle and low load consumption, which they achieve by integrating everything as much as possible - something that's basically impossible for AMD and Intel.
May have been true when CPU manufacturers left a ton of headroom on the V/F curve, but not really true anymore. Zen 4 core's power draw shoots up sharply pass 4.6 GHz and nearly triples when you approach 5.5 GHz (compared to 4.6), are you gonna complete the task 3 times faster at 5.5 GHz?
[0]https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-13-9350-laptop-review...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes and no. i have macbook pro m4 and a zbook g1a (ai max 395+ ie strix halo) You're comparing the base M4 to a full fat Strix Halo that costs nearly $4,000. You can buy the base M4 chip in a Mac Mini for $500 on sale. A better comparison would be the M4 Max at that price. Here's a comparison I did between Strix Halo, M4 Pro, M4 Max: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF As you can see, Strix Halo is behind M4 Pro in performan…
Someone has these two machines, and claims the x86 feels faster in his work. You don't own any of the machines but have "made" a comparison by copying data from the internet I assume. This is like explaining to someone who eats a sweet apple that the internet says the apple isn't sweet. MacBook Pro, 2TB, 32gb, 3200 EUR HP G1a, 2TB, 128gb, 3700 EUR If we don't compare laptops but mini-PCs, Evo X2, 2TB, 128gb, 2000 EUR…
You don't own any of the machines but have "made" a comparison by copying data from the internet I assume.
This is like explaining to someone who eats a sweet apple that the internet says the apple isn't sweet.
MacBook Pro, 2TB, 32gb, 3200 EUR
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a version of that web page for people who want to run Linux? That'd be particularly helpful.
its x86, they all run linux. x86 (as in amd64) is standardized
I can build myself a new amd64 box for just under €200. Under €100 with used parts. Some older Dell and Lenovo laptops even work with coreboot. An Airbook sets me back €1000, enough to buy a used car, and AFAICT is much more difficult to get fully working Linux on than my €200 amd64 build. Why hasn't apple caught up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say efficiency, I assume you’re factoring in performance of the device as well? Maybe run Geekbench 6 and see.
I am not the original commenter; but they said "low-power user cases" i.e. very much not when running Geekbench; rather when it is near idle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Framework does not have any design with those LPDDR packages.
https://frame.work/desktop?tab=specs "LPDDR5x-8000"
I can build myself a new amd64 box for just under €200. Under €100 with used parts. Some older Dell and Lenovo laptops even work with coreboot. An Airbook sets me back €1000, enough to buy a used car, and AFAICT is much more difficult to get fully working Linux on than my €200 amd64 build. Why hasn't apple caught up?
And he was right. Netbooks mostly sucked. Same with Chromebooks.
There’s nothing to be gained by racing to the bottom.
You can buy an m1 laptop for $599 at Walmart. That’s an amazing deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A huge reason for the low power usage is the iPhone. Apple spent years incrementally improving efficiency and performance of their chips for phones. Intel and AMD were more desktop based so power efficiency wasnt the goal. When Apple's chips got so good they could transition into laptops, x86 wasn't in the same ballpark. Also the iPhone is the most lucrative product of all time (I think) and Apple poured a tonne of t…
I thought they just acquired P.A. Semi, job done.
but do not forget how focused they (amd/intel, esp in opteron days -- edit) were on the server market.