601–610 of 942 posts
Make it as fabulous as much as you want, $1700 for an 8 core, 8 gigs of ram machine is just one plain fabulous joke. This in the time when 16 gigs ram is the baseline if you plan to do anything more than facebook and instagram.
The difference is the advantage Apple has with their HW+SW vertical integration. Its as simple as that. Intel sells CPUs, so it creates the ranges of CPUs to make money. They advertise clock speed and put the higher ones on a pedestal, that is how they can charge more money. The OEMs just used that playbook and developed their own marketing stories on top of Intel's marketing. Either no one tried to differentiate or…
How is any of this specific to Intel?
Apple uses M1 at different clockrates in different devices. And that's not only due to battery and heat concerns, but also because those M1 are rated to run without errors at different clockrates.
Similarly the new iMacs come with two types of GPU: 7 core (cheap), and 8 core (more expensive). The 7-core ones had one core disabled because it was defective.
What Intel does reflects the simple reality of producing microchips. Some units turn out better than others. So you sell them at different prices. It's the same for AMD. It's the same Apple.
> Apple has a lot going for it in that scenario. They never had proliferation of models and always kept the number of options to a minimum.
Yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 2400G is a relatively low end part that is four generations old. In the past AMD did not release high end desktop APUs, preferring customers to buy CPUs + GPUs. This is already announced to change with a 5700G being produced. https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g - On paper this is a 5800H in a desktop form factor with a higher max TDP and higher clock speeds. The 5800H gets 2.5x on cpu benchmark'…
>> The 5800H gets 2.5x on cpu benchmark's rating vs the 2400G. That's in large part because its 8 cores instead of 4. The test I ran makes good use of multicore, but going from 4 to 8 won't cut the time completely in half. I suspect the M1 will still beat it by a bit. I take back my comment on availability. We ideally need to compare things on the same process node to see which design team has done a better job ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once bitten, twice shy. I considered that keyboard to be designed to fail. I'm not interested in gambling that another component won't fail the same way. It's easier to use products that have not demonstrated such designed failures. The good news however is that due to this garbage tier engineering I've discovered that desktop Linux is more stable for me than post-Catalina OSX - I'd have probably never found this out…
Designed to fail is preposterous. Apple lost a ton of money due to that problem, both directly in paying for repairs, and indirectly in damage to their stock price. It's pretty clear what happened, and it's unfortunate but banal: someone went too far with making the key mechanism as thin as possible, and all plastic to make it easier to manufacture. Ends up the plastic wasn't strong enough for the little pins in the…
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL
I don't see any evidence that Apple's stock price was affected. Apple can ship any garbage (they shipped a keyboard they knew was defective for three years) and people will buy it because they're locked in to Apple's services, another reason they're pushing services so hard at the expense of the rest of the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The M1 also means that Apple regains full stack control of its desktops and laptops. Their phones and tablets prove that when they develop both the main chips and operating systems themselves, they are able to eke out greater performance from lesser specs. Flagship iPhones always have less ram than flagship androids, but match or exceed their performance.
That may help a bit but unless they adopt that draconian policies that govern iOS runtime that impact is limited. Safari is an example of improved battery life when Apple owns the stack. It’s a great feature, but not a game changer. Most business users were fine with 4GB 5-6 years ago. Electron apps like Teams and Slack pushed it up to 8. The next tier are folks with IDEs, docker, etc that are usually 16-32GB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. Not look too bad best to say. Even if we add a one node advantage, we still have a ~15 watt chip making 20W-30W chips sweat. If you downclock Zen 3 to match 15W TDP, you may well get M1 beating it by double digit margin. M1 is simply a way more efficient chip than any X86 chip can be because…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The page you're citing contradicts that statement -- they will not be 100% off x86, but instead will offer 100% of their products with the option of buying an Apple ARM chip: > This transition will also establish a common architecture across all Apple products, making it far easier for developers to write and optimize their apps for the entire ecosystem. > Apple plans to ship the first Mac with Apple silicon by the e…
I'm sure they will support x86 for years, but I have a feeling they will stop selling new products with x86 rather quickly. If you look at the PPC to x86 transition [0] it happened faster than predicted, and OS support only lasted 3 years after it was done. IMO Microsoft is the company that heavily prioritizes backwards compatibility, while Apple is happy to drop support where necessary to move forward. [0] https://e…
Fact is, until they can get nVidia GTX compatibility or quality, there will be a significant market of 3D and gaming that does not want to switch.
And I say this as someone who very much likes my new M1 Macbook and wants to convince the rest of the family and friends to never again buy an x86-based laptop computer.
If Apple can add 3D and gaming chips equivalent to the GTX 3000 series with software support, all within 2 years? Amazing and that speeds up their switchover -- but Adobe, for one, has still not yet updated Adobe After Effects and likely won't for at least a year, even though they announced they would. I'll remind folks that Adobe said they would consider adding Metal support to After Effects almost five years ago and still hasn't. Other apps are in a similar state.
I don't doubt that Apple would like the transition to be quick as well as seamless, and I think most portable products will transition very quickly. But unless Apple wants to leave the Pro market they just entered by making things too unstable for Pros, they will tread carefully on eliminating sales and support for Intel. Especially because even now they are selling 16" MacBook Pros that run Intel, and Intel Mac Pros, and 27" iMacs (formerly Pros) and all three of these platforms should ideally be supported for five years, minimum, ideally six given we could count the last year as the "seventh" year of support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gaming PC is almost 10 years old and is with an i7 3770. Only upgrade was a GTX 980 five or six years ago. That thing flies for anything and everything I put it through. One day I'll retire it as a gaming machine and convert it to a Linux server or a casual workstation and I am sure it's going to be even faster than Win10.
Yeah, I'd like to upgrade my gaming system (4970k and a GTX1080ti) but past wanting to play at 4k and experience ray tracing there is almost no reason to do so. Now, if the 3080 was actually available at MSRP I'd probably have upgraded, but that's at least a year away from happening.
As it is, I almost have no reason to upgrade my gaming machine right now. Playing on a 21:9 wide display (2560x1080) and never go below 70-80 FPS in any game. Usually it's 100-120 FPS.
Disrupt the hosting market, Apple. We're ready for your EC2. Achieving a quantum power/performance leap without swinging for server market share is an massive wasted opportunity. But Apple is Apple. I'll keep dreaming. Oh look, an AWS invoice.
What’s the advantage? I don’t think it’s likely to cost less as a service, especially directly from Apple. If you get the same performance per dollar you might as well keep using what you have. Heat and energy savings only apply to the direct user (in this case Apple Hosting) and unlikely to be passed onto you (since it’s Apple). We’ve already seen this with M1 computers which are simpler and less expensive but did n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years I think that is because the performance has been the same for the past 10+ years.
I am continually astounded that the quad core sandy bridge core-i7 I bought in January 2011 is still completely serviceable for pretty much all tasks outside of gaming. The bezel and overall form factor is clownishly large by todays standards, and the screen is starting to look a bit faded, but as a portable but mostly stationary PC it still works great alongside my main laptop I use for work. I knew back in 2011 I w…