331–340 of 942 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has less battery life and less performance (judging by Cinebench, at least), so it is a fairly substantial difference. And it's quite possible that Apple will remain one TSMC process ahead of AMD for the next few years, even if AMD do put out 5nm chips in the near future.
The surface laptop has a Ryzen 4000 CPU, not Ryzen 5000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So my sister does professional photography, and went from a 16GB MacBook Pro(2016) to an 8GB Air, and reports no decrease of productivity - quite the opposite, in her experience all Adobe programs run much faster, and the machine is quieter and lighter to boot. So yeah, I'm not sure - maybe the ram amount isn't as a big deal as people make it out to be. On the other hand I'm a C++ programer and my workstation has 128…
> I'm a C++ programer and my workstation has 128GB of ram and I wouldn't accept any less What on earth are you programming?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's M1 is a good processor, but the only reason it "smashed past" previous macbook single core results is apple was using older Intel lower powered processors. It is not twice as fast as even mobile x86 stuff, as much as people seem to want to think otherwise.
Anecdata of one, but compiling our product at work on my three machines (a 2019 intel macbook pro, a 2020 10 core intel imac and an m1 mac mini), the macbook pro is the slowest, but the imac isn’t that much faster than the mini. it’s something like: - macbook pro: 9 minutes - mini: 5 minutes - imac: 4 minutes
In fact, given that the M1 is an 8-core CPU and your iMac has a 10-core CPU, the fact that they take 5 and 4 minutes respectively to compile seems to indicate that they're fairly similar in multi-threaded performance (and the iMac wins only because it has more cores).
They have also delayed releasing the MacBook Pro 15inches with Intel on purpose in my opinion. When they will release the MacBook Pro 15 inches with M2 they will compare it with the Intel version with a 3 years old processor.
I don't trust the Apple benchmarks much. They are choosing what to compare and what metrics. Let's wait 3 years when the dust has settled and we'll be able to compare apples with apples.
Let's see also if Apple will be able to keep up the improvement of in-house built CPU+GPU with ALL COMPETING MANUFACTURERS OF CPU&GPU. What if Nvidia or AMD or Intel comes out with a huge leap, Apple then won't be able to take advantage of that. In my opinion the M1 is the new PowerPC. In 10-20 years from now Apple will have slow in-house built hardware and we'll be getting back off the shelf hardware like when Steve Jobs moved from PowerPC to Intel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are objective c pointers handled?
From what I understood, ARC operations are cheaper on M1 because of weaker memory ordering constraints. But I thought this was and ARM thing, not M1 specific, but I could be wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which Ryzen laptop currently competes with the latest macbooks in terms of form factor, performance, battery life and build quality? I'm honestly asking, I've been thinking about getting a Linux laptop in a while and I would be curious to see what the playing field is like
Dave2D just reviewed the new surface laptop comparing it to the new MacBook Air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKN9nvXTGHE ...and he got pretty good battery life (11 hours on his own benchmark). edit: form factor, performance, build quality.. is also up there, I just didn't mention it, because I think the battery life is the killer feature of the M1.
The good part with m1 is that force amd and intel better cpus. Competition in always good. The not so good part is that Apple might start a trend of higher prices for CPUs.
One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1. It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computers means that there can be a consistent message that "M1 is great - get a new Mac and get an M1". It also provides an opportunity to distinguish between M1 and the next generation M2 (presumably). I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 sta…
Yeah the marketing effort is immense, and it's really surprising to me how many eagerly lap up the angle Apple is pushing without much reflection, even on HN. Like the good old Apple hype days. Now to be fair, the M1 is an impressive iteration on the A* chip line. But the Ryzen 5000 mobile chips really don't look bad at all in comparison, and a 5nm version of those would level the field.
With my 2400G the benchmark takes 5.5 seconds. With someones M1 it takes 1.3 seconds.
We still need to verify that was run at the same settings, but it looks like the M1 is going to be faster than the 5000 series APUs regardless, possibly by a large margin and I'm assuming the 5000s are between 1.4x and 2.0x the speed of the older 2400G.
It will still be interesting to see AMD on a 5nm process, and Zen 4, and with 8 core, but by then Apple will probably have an M2 on the 3nm process. You gotta compare what can be obtained today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. A 5nm version of the AMD stuff should be reasonably close to the M1. The main bottleneck is the production capacity, we badly need more manufacturers of high end chipsets.
So a future hypothetical AMD processor could be as good as the M1, and that shows how M1 is just marketing hype?
There have been just so many genuine tech news articles of the form, "Future Apple Competitor Product Beats Current, Widely Successful Apple Product".