421–430 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.
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.
The M1 Pro was a revelation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're still keeping it somewhat together, agree it got ever more confusing with the introduction of more performance tiers but after 3 generations it's been easy to keep track of: Mx (base) -> Pro -> Max -> Ultra. Think it's still quite far away from naming conventions of PC territory. Now I got curious on what naming scheme could be clearer for Apple's performance tiers.
I agree it’s kind of weird. I do wonder if the ultra was part of their original M1 plan, or it came along somewhere in the middle of development and they just had to come up with a name to put it above the Max. That said it’s far better than any PC scheme. It used to be easy enough when everything was megahertz. But I left the Wintel world around 2006 or so and stopped paying attention. I’ve been watching performance…
This year's Zen 5 lineup consists of R9 9950x (has 16 cores), R9 9900x (12c), R7 9800x3d (8c with 3D Cache), R7 9700x (8c) and R5 9600x (6c).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Apple's marketing is comparing this season's M4s to M1s and even two generations of Intel ago. The 2x or 4x numbers suggests they are targeting and catering to this longer cycle where subliminally suggested updates are remarkably better, rather than suggesting an annual treadmill even though each release is "our best ever".
I was going to say why not compare it to something older! 100000x faster than a pc-xt!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So long as Apple is willing to keep operating system updates available for the platform. This is by far the most frustrating thing. Apple hardware, amazing and can last for years and even decades. Supported operating system updates, only a couple of years. I'm typing this from my mid-2012 retina mac book pro. I'm on Mojave and I'm well out of support for the operating system patches. But the hardware keeps running li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So long as Apple is willing to keep operating system updates available for the platform. This is by far the most frustrating thing. Apple hardware, amazing and can last for years and even decades. Supported operating system updates, only a couple of years. I'm typing this from my mid-2012 retina mac book pro. I'm on Mojave and I'm well out of support for the operating system patches. But the hardware keeps running li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny that we can buy renewed Intel Macs for less than $200 and do exactly the same.
Maybe the desktops, but the laptops were always nigh-unusable for my workloads (nothing special, just iOS dev in Xcode). The fans would spin up to jet takeoff status, it would thermal throttle, and performance would nosedive. The M1 Pro was a revelation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not the only one — but just curious where this skepticism comes from. This is M 4 — Apple has now made four generations of chips and each one were class leading upon release. What more do you need to see?
I don’t think they are skeptical of the chip itself. Just asking about the benchmark used. If I was reviewing cars and used the number of doors as a benchmark for speed, surely I’d get laughed at.
It has 4 doors! It’s all over the shitty car news medias. The car is a prototype with only one seat though.
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...
this is crazy, i'm more than happy with the current performance of my M1 Max Studio but an M4 Max or Ultra might actually be too good to pass up
I love my M1 Studio. It’s the Mac I always wanted - desktop Mac with no integrates peripherals, a ton of ports - although I still use a high end hub to plug in… lot more. Two big external SSDs, my input peripherals (I’m a wired mouse and keyboard kind of guy) then a bunch of audio and USB midi devices.
It’s even a surprisingly capable gaming machine for what it is. Crossover is pretty darn good these days, and there are ARM native Factorio and World of Warcraft ports that run super well.
Well, firstly, it isn't. There are higher Geekbench 6 CPU scores, even forgetting the ones that appear to be fake or at least broken. 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…