361–370 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think by the time my work-provided M1 MacBook Pro arrived, the M2s were already out, but of course I simply didn't care. I actually wonder when it will be worth the hassle of transferring all my stuff over to a new machine. Could easily be another 4 years.
Funny that we can buy renewed Intel Macs for less than $200 and do exactly the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel chips had better integer performance and PowerPC chips had better floating point performance, which is why Apple always used Photoshop performance tests to compare the two platforms. Apple adopted Intel chips only after Intel replaced the Pentium 4 with the much cooler running Core Solo and Core Duo chips, which were more suitable for laptops. Apple dropped Intel for ARM for the exact same reason. The Intel chi…
The G5 in desktops was more competitive but laptops were stuck on G4s that were pretty easy to beat by lots of things in the Windows world by the time of the Intel switch. And Photoshop was largely about vectorized instructions, as I recall, not just general purpose floating point.
The Apple ecosystem was most popular in the publishing industry at the time, and most publishing software used floating point math on tower computers with huge cooling systems.
Since IBM originally designed the POWER architecture for scientific computing, it makes sense that floating point performance would be what they optimized for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the $1599 M4 Pro Mac mini beats the current $3999 M2 Ultra Mac Studio on GeekBench 6 multi-core: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/10/31/m4-pro-chip-benchmark-r...
Back in the early 90s, when Apple was literally building their first product line with the Mac, they would come out with their second big honking powerhouse Mac: the Macintosh IIx. It blew everything out of the water. Then they would come out with their next budget all-in-one machine. But computing was improving so fast, with prices for components dropping so quickly, that the Macintosh SE/30 ended up as impressive a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am still astounded the huge change moving from an Intel Mac to an Apple Silicon Mac (M1) has had in terms of battery performance and heat. I don't think i've heard the fans a single time I've had this machine and it's been several years. Nor have I had any desire to upgrade.
I do wonder if PC desktops will eventually move to a similar design. I have a 7800x3d on my desktop, and the thing is a beast but between it and the 3090 I basically have a space heater in my room
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the early 90s, when Apple was literally building their first product line with the Mac, they would come out with their second big honking powerhouse Mac: the Macintosh IIx. It blew everything out of the water. Then they would come out with their next budget all-in-one machine. But computing was improving so fast, with prices for components dropping so quickly, that the Macintosh SE/30 ended up as impressive a…
In the 90s, you probably wouldn't want to be using a desktop from 4 years ago, but the M1 is already 4 years old and will probably be fine for most people for years yet.
But secondly, that would absolutely not indicate that it is the "fastest single-core performer in consumer computing". That would indicate that it is the highest scoring Geekbench 6 CPU in consumer computing.
Whether or not that's actually a good proxy for the former statement is up to taste, but in my opinion it's not. It gives you a rough idea of where the performance stands, but what you really need to be able to compare CPUs is a healthy mix of synthetic benchmarks and real-world workloads. Things like the time it takes to compile some software, scores in video game benchmarks, running different kinds of computations, time to render videos in Premiere or scenes in Blender, etc.
In practice though, it's hard to make a good Apples-to-Intels performance comparison, since it will wind up crossing both OS boundaries and CPU architecture boundaries, which adds a lot of variables. At least real world tests will give an idea of what it would be like day-to-day even if it doesn't necessarily reveal truisms about which CPU is the absolute best design.
Of course it's reasonable to use Geekbench numbers to get an idea of where a processor stands, especially relative to similar processors, but making a strong claim like this based off of Geekbench numbers is pretty silly, all things considered.
Still... these results are truly quite excellent. It would suffice to say that if you did take the time to benchmark these processors you would find the M4 processor performs extremely well against other processors, including ones that suck up more juice for sure, but this isn't too surprising overall. Apple is already on the TSMC N3E process, whereas AMD is currently using TSMC N4P and Intel is currently using TSMC N3B on their most cutting edge chips. So on top of any advantages they might have for other reasons (like jamming the RAM onto the CPU die, or simply better processor design) they also have a process node advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the $1599 M4 Pro Mac mini beats the current $3999 M2 Ultra Mac Studio on GeekBench 6 multi-core: https://www.macrumors.com/2024/10/31/m4-pro-chip-benchmark-r...
I've been thinking about getting a Mac mini as a small server box due to how powerful it is.
And pg server. And a few web sites server. And something running in orb stack.
It's the 8gb model and I have around 2gb free most of the time
All I want is a top of the line MBP, with all it’s performance and insane battery life, but running a Linux distro of my choice :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gamers are better off with AMD X3D chips Yeah but then you'd have to use Windows. I'd rather just play whatever games can be emulated and take the performance penalty. It helps that most AAAs put me to sleep...
Mac OS is amazing, using a Mac for games is not a good idea. Most AAA, AA, and indie games don't run on Mac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple has now made four generations of chips and each one were class leading upon release. Buying up most of TSMC's latest node capacity certainly helps. Zen chips on the same node turn out to be very competitive, butAMD don't get first dibs.
It’s more like Apple fronts the cash for TSMC’s latest node. But regardless, in what way does that detract from their chips being class-leading at release?