Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

browser.geekbench.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 917 posts

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#761

Post by sokoloff »

dijit wrote: post #758
sokoloff wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine. That was the case for many decades. I think it’s no longer nearly the case. I’ve got a USB/DP KVM switch on my desk and regularly switch between my work laptop (2019 i9 MBPro) and my personal computer (2014 Dell i7-4790, added SSD and 32GB). Same 4K screens, peripherals, everything else. I find the Dell every bit as usable and expect to be using it 3 years f…

Yeah, desktops vs laptops. 20W parts vs 84W parts. Honestly, I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore. If you don't need (or want) an all round better experience then that's on you. But don't go saying that these things are too expensive or that the performance isn't there. Because it is. If Apple had released something mediocre I'd understand this thread, but this is a legitimately large improvement in laptop perf…

I was commenting only on whether “6 years is beyond the service life of any machine”, which I tried to make clear with my quoting and reply.

I’ve got no bone to pick with Apple and am not making any broad anti-Apple or anti-M1 case. (I decided to [have work] buy the very first MBPro after they un-broke the keyboard and am happy with it.)

Of the five to eight topics you raise after your first two sentences, I said exactly zero of them.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#762

Post by killtimeatwork »

dijit wrote: post #655
true_religion wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trade in value for my 6 year old MacBook Air is 150 dollars. Old computers depreciate so fast, that you can afford to buy ten of them for the price of one new computer.

Looks like they’re selling for more than twice that on ebay.co.uk though. And considering MacBook airs are $1000~ devices that’s really high. 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine. If I look at 3 year old MacBook airs they’re selling for £600 on eBay, which is, what, half of the full cost. Not great for an already old machine with only a few good years left. I guess you might save a bit of money us…

> 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine.

I'm still on 2013 MBP which doesn't show any signs of deterioration (except battery life). It's got retina, fast SSD, ok-ish GPU (it can play Civ V just fine).

I'd gladly pay for a guarantee that the machine will not break for the next 10 years - I think it will still be a prefectly usable laptop in 10 years from now.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#763

Post by jsjohnst »

krzyk wrote: post #734
nly wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of tech companies let their engineers choose between something like an X1 Carbon or a Macbook. Lots of tech workers, in my experience, actually choose a Macbook for work because they really want to use a slick, luxury device and can't justify the cost for personal use... particularly given how many of them actually use their work laptops for personal tasks in off hours. I think HN underestimates how many SWE's…

> I think HN underestimates how many SWE's actually don't do much programming or use their personal computers for much at all. Particularly those with families. This. I haven't owned personal computer for 10 years now, always use laptop I get from work.

> This. I haven't owned personal computer for 10 years now, always use laptop I get from work.

While a lot of folks do this, it’s such a terrible practice from your perspective (the company essentially owns your personal data) and the company’s (way higher risk). It’s not something I’d do, let alone brag about as if it’s a good thing, if I were you.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#764

Post by gsnedders »

klelatti wrote: post #737
halotrope wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems Intel seems to have recognized that and hedged their bets by securing the remaining 3nm capacity [1] 1: https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-locks-down-all-remainin...

Frankly don't believe this. Who do you give majority of leading node capacity to? 1. Biggest long term partner. 2. Someone who competes with you as a manufacturer. Not a hard decision!

TSMC had long said they were happy to have Intel as a larger customer, including on leading edge nodes… if there was long-term commitment from Intel.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#765

Post by mindvirus »

I ordered an M1 Max MacBook, really looking forward to it.

It looks like the battery life is fantastic, and it's quiet and cool. Given that, what are some reasons Apple might not have upped the wattage for an even faster chip? Is it just that they are so far ahead of the competition, and these are things that can't easily be matched (fanless operation, long battery life), or is there some physical reason they wouldn't want to run the chip hotter?

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#766

Post by kuschku »

volta83 wrote: post #732
diffeomorphism wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "extremely". You get maybe a factor 2 or so, not 10 or 100. Is that nicer? Yes, sure. Is it necessary? No, older stuff is perfectly sufficient for most people. Also, it is "if you need that power and need it with laptop formfactor". Again, impressive, but desktops/servers work just as well for most people.

Saying a 10 year old laptop is 2x or 4x slower than a new laptop is just a tiny part of the big picture. I would say that for a light laptop user, the main reasons to upgrade are: - displays: make a big difference for watching youtube, reading, etc. You can't really compare a 120 Hz XDR retina display with a 10 year old display. - webcam: makes a big difference when video conferencing with family, etc. - battery life…

But that's the thing. You can upgrade all that.

I’ve got a T470 with a brand new 400nits 100% sRGB and like 80% AdobeRGB screen. You can even get 4K screens with awesome quality for the T4xx laptops with 40-pin eDP.

With 17h battery life even on performance mode.

With a new, 1080p webcam.

With 32GB of DDR4-2400 RAM

With 2TB NVMe Storage.

With 95Wh replaceable batteries, of which I can still get brand new original parts and which I can replace while using the laptop.

for a total below 500$.

If I'd upgrade the top-of-the-line T480 accordingly, I'd still be below 800$ and performance that's not that far off anymore.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#767

Post by haspok »

concinds wrote: post #712
shaklee3 wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really comparing a refurbished laptop to a new one so you can find a price that matches?

Even if you don't look at refurbished, here in France, a MacBook Air is 1029€ brand new. A comparable ThinkPad X1 Carbon is 2499€ minimum (that's the base model, with 256GB/8GB, but with a high-res screen). A comparable Dell XPS 13 is 1699€ (same, cheapest one with a high-res screen you can buy; though you can't have the high-res screen without buying 512/16GB). The ThinkPad T14 Gen 2 (successor to T490, supposed to…

Hm, the XPS 13 base model is a bit cheaper than the Air base model (in Austria), the screens are comparable (FHD+ is lower res than Retina, but then 4K is far more, so there is no direct comparison). I do have a 13" XPS and I can tell you, the basic screen (FHD in my case) is more than good enough.

But I was just blown away how expensive Lenovo has become. HP has always been expensive.

I'm also looking at the fresh Linux laptops, like the TUXEDO InfinityBook Pro 14, which are in the same price range and look very compelling, if you are OK with running Linux, that is (I am)...

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#768

Post by dijit »

sokoloff wrote: post #761
dijit wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, desktops vs laptops. 20W parts vs 84W parts. Honestly, I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore. If you don't need (or want) an all round better experience then that's on you. But don't go saying that these things are too expensive or that the performance isn't there. Because it is. If Apple had released something mediocre I'd understand this thread, but this is a legitimately large improvement in laptop perf…

I was commenting only on whether “6 years is beyond the service life of any machine”, which I tried to make clear with my quoting and reply. I’ve got no bone to pick with Apple and am not making any broad anti-Apple or anti-M1 case. (I decided to [have work] buy the very first MBPro after they un-broke the keyboard and am happy with it.) Of the five to eight topics you raise after your first two sentences, I said exa…

Oh. Sorry, in a very broad sense the support contract on any machine is only 5 years. After which you're basically living on borrowed time.

That's why companies aren't giving out 5+year old laptops/desktops.

(well, I suppose some do, but big companies simply wouldn't)

I assume the whole context of the thread and assumed you were defending the parent.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#769

Post by Closi »

sudosysgen wrote: post #555
Closi wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's obvious that there will need to be a desktop version - and all the rumours are pointing towards a Mac Pro release with silly specs - i.e. an SOC with something like 40/64+ cores. Why would Apple want to give up their portion of the high-power desktop market to Windows? What's the alternative? That they release another Mac Pro with intel, despite their stated intention to move everything away from x86, or tha…

Well, those are rumors assuming a chiplet architecture, which Apple has never tried before and would require very significant modifications to the layout. Simply quadrupling the die isn't really feasible, the price increases exponentially.

Well analysts have estimated the cost of the M1 at $40 to $50 per chip, so even if they double the size of the chip which quadruples the cost, that would still be completely feasible for the Mac Pro which retails at c$5,000+

Even if the SOC was $500 cost price they would still have plenty of room to pay for everything else and hit the $5k price point.

I mean, they could even use separate highly integrated chips to get that number of cores too, although I suspect they will want to do it on a single chip assuming cooling is OK.

Re: Apple M1 Max Geekbench Score

#770

Post by throwaway894345 »

musicale wrote: post #606
throwaway894345 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Docker for Mac versus native Docker. Docker only runs on Linux, so Docker for Mac spins up a linux VM to run your containers. When you mount your Ruby or Python projects into your containers, Docker for Mac marshals tons of filesystem events over the host/guest boundary which absolutely devastates your CPU. Docker for Mac is really just bad for your use case. No idea what's going on with the thumb drive, bluet…

I wonder how well ARM64 is supported in the Docker community? Presumably x86 Docker images running in emulation would be even slower than ARM64 images running in a Linux VM. Though as you note they're completely different classes of hardware (500W vs. 26.5W), a more Apples-to-Apples (so to speak) comparison would be native Ubuntu on both systems, though as I understand it Ubuntu for M1 is not complete and may lack GP…

It’s supported pretty well. I’m running a Kubernetes cluster on Raspberry Pis and these days most popular images have ARM64 support.
Post reply on HN