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

M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

eclecticlight.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 419 posts

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#241

Post by ChrisLTD »

runjake wrote: post #147
shepherdjerred wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know, this isn't some artificial limitation that Apple imposes. Adding support has a cost that most customers don't need to pay. Regardless, most people aren't going to be plugging in three monitors into their laptops, so most people aren't going to care about this.

> Adding support has a cost that most customers don't need to pay. It also adds heat, battery consumption, and space. For a chip that will also be used in iPads. Still I wished the base M3 chip supported at least two external displays. Or at least let you use two by disabling the internal display (eg. clamshell mode or whatever). > most people aren't going to be plugging in three monitors into their laptops, so most…

It's entirely Apple's choice to use the M chips in iPads. And if that means they need to compromise on laptop performance or features, they should change course.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#242

Post by BigJ1211 »

wtallis wrote: post #188
_gabe_ wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the buggy apps and UI isn’t emphasized enough on Macs. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was on Windows and performing an action failed to give me any visual indicator whatsoever that something happened, but that’s common on my M2. I’ll click something, have no feedback, and then a few seconds later the thing happens. Just a couple concrete examples, if you open an app in a workspace, then switch scre…

> I honestly can’t remember the last time I was on Windows and performing an action failed to give me any visual indicator whatsoever that something happened I find that more often than not I can't make it through the Windows setup without worse janky stuff happening. Pretty often when toggling off all the bullshit privacy settings that shouldn't be opt-out to begin with, I'll get a visual indication of the switch st…

By default it jumps to the workspace that application is opened up on.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#243

Post by d3w4s9 »

Exoristos wrote: post #178
wubrr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the support for even one monitor is by far worse than windows or linux IMO. - Monitor randomly resets/readjusts for no apparent reason. Like multiple times every hour. - Windows disappear, become inaccessible after moving between monitors, even though it still open and active according to doc/task list. - Why can't I move a window to a monitor/workspace that has a maximized window? Like, you can do it by un-m…

I've both used Macs for decades and at one time worked in enterprise Mac technical support, and I've never seen this stuff happen.

I haven't used Mac for a while, but I definitely remember the part about window freezing (and requires killing the process) when connecting/disconnecting a external monitor. It's very frustrating.

(And I for one hasn't bought a Macbook since 2020 because I am not going to spend at least $1,999 just to get dual monitor support. A $500 asus laptop can do dual monitor without any problem, and it turns out that machine is good enough for my productivity needs. That money is better spent elsewhere)

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#244

Post by joshstrange »

alberth wrote: post #229
asylteltine wrote: post #67

And yet the air can’t support more than one monitor. I know Apple is a small company with only a few engineers so it must have been too hard. Sarcasm obviously. As an Apple enthusiast it’s so annoying how they sniff farts.

Only 1-monitor support seems like a market segmentation decision, not a lack of capability. (Much like how the iPhone Pro has faster USB-C data transfer speeds vs base iPhone)

I agree but the iPhone is a bad example. They used the previous year chip in the non-pro phone (or a binned version IIRC) which didn’t have the USB3 speed support. I guess we will see if next year’s base iPhone has the faster data speed support or not.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#245

Post by masklinn »

willseth wrote: post #235
masklinn wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1, I'm sure they could have found some room for a third display controller, or a more capable one (one with MST support for instance), or just a more flexible one. They're selling a $1600 machine which can't drive two external displays, it's sad. Intel's HD Graphics have been doing better since 2012 and they're trash.

It’s a business decision. You don’t think Apple knows the demand for multiple external displays? If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it.

> It’s a business decision.

That doesn't make it less frustrating.

> If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it.

It's short term thinking, it generates bad feeling of nickel and diming and unnecessary upsells: on M3 you need to pay $2000 to be able to use two external displays, and $3200 for 3, even if you have no need for the rest of the processing power.

Not only that but they managed to create more range confusion with the expensive but gimped entry-level 14".

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#246

Post by d3w4s9 »

claytongulick wrote: post #164
wubrr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineering tradeoffs to support something intel/amd PCs have supported for 15+ years? Maybe apple is just shit at engineering?

Have you ever actually tried driving decent large monitors from those crappy intel chips? I have. Engineering tradeoffs indeed. For all its flaws, Apple focuses on making sure there is a good experience overall. In general, they'd rather have a more limited hardware ecosystem that works better than a broad ecosystem that's flaky. There are tradeoffs to both approaches. I go back and forth between windows and mac, and…

I have done dual external monitor setup for years on Intel and AMD laptops without any issues.

The standard setup at my company is a ThinkPad connected to dual 27" monitor. My company has thousand of employees. (Mac setup is also available for those who requests.) Many many companies offer a similar setup for employees.

Maybe you need a reality check first.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#247

Post by toast0 »

jamespo wrote: post #230
toast0 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? Because you want to control the version of 3rd party software. > It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs specific libraries/tools then they can be installed in a separate location The OS installs tools in /usr/bin and you should install tools in…

We're not talking about keeping up to date with the latest revision of python / java here, it's a shell that's woefully out of date. Apple is not RHEL backporting fixes so binaries continue to run for 10 years - in fact they seem quite cavalier about backwards compatibility.

Upstream changed the license. Apple doesn't distribute GPLv3 software. Apple's not going to distribute a newer version. That's how license changes work. The old version continues to work as well as it always did; scripts written for the new version don't work, but why would you write a bash4 script for macOs?

Not that they were going to update bash regularly anyway. So if you needed a new version in the base, you'd need a new version of the OS. And then you're back to the same problem you have now. Apple doesn't distribute the version of the 3rd party tool you want for the OS you're on.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#248

Post by wredue »

karolist wrote: post #192
wubrr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course shipping a very outdated tool with your OS is an issue. And the fact that you need to use 3rd-party package managers to update/replace it is also an issue. But if you want to contend that anything that is solveable via customization/3rd party packages is a 'total non-issue', then I fail to see how you could argue that Linux isn't superior to MacOS in every single way.

It's not an issue even if you say it is. Takes 1 minute to setup brew on a fresh Mac, third party or not who cares when it's open source, apt is also open-source and in the same sense a third party someone develops, you just get that with the base Debian like systems, if we start counting the minute wasted to setup brew then you waste more time to install Debian in the first place, Macs come pre-installed.

Does brew still require mangling OS permissions?

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#249

Post by MikusR »

sneak wrote: post #76
Detrytus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it's a dick move from Apple to artificially limit number of external screens supported.

Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the size, weight, and most importantly, price point (ie sub-$1k) that it is. It is Apple’s best selling computer by quite a bit. They sell metric assloads of the $999 base model each fall when school starts. IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer available today or at any time in my recent memory. It’s as…

the 2000 Euro M3 Macbook pro also supports only one external display and is the same size and weight as the ones that support more.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#250

Post by gtvwill »

Devices get a fail for repairability. So yes there is more to performance than cores. For instance the entire Mac lineup are mostly unrepairable e-waste in the making with excessively wasteful design choices behind them.

The company has a about as much ethics as wet tea towel. A facade of good intentions masking greed. I couldn't care less if their laptops get an hour extra battery or are a few seconds faster. The company is scum from an ethics and waste standpoint. Surprises me so many can turn a blind eye to it for 3 months of chart topping numbers.

Post reply on HN