601–610 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be interested in a link to a model if you have one handy!
That could be any gaming laptop from any manufacturer., those are the only ones who still ship with upgradable RAM and dual M.2 slots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the amount of people upgrading from an M2 Mac will be close to 0, while there's a lot of Intel stragglers out there.
Intel straggler here ! When M1 hit I was certain I would get a M Apple in a year or two when they iron out the transition. It was just leaps and bounds ahead of others and the pricing was great. Now I think AMD and Intel caught up enough, Apple didn't keep the momentum, and they do standard Apple pricing discrimination - I think I'll take a gamble on Framework AMD version. I really like the idea behind the self-repai…
Interesting. I don't really like Apple, mainly because of how they handle the app store vendor lock in stuff, and I hate macOS. But I use an M2 MBP purely because I can't find any other laptop that has the same fast performance, long battery life, quiet fan noise, no heat.
Can you recommend an AMD/Intel or anything that comes close? I'd switch in a heartbeat. The closest that comes to mind is the ThinkPad X13s.
A few things I noticed, as I'm seeing the variety of SKUs becoming more complex. - Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part. - Just like the low-spec M3 14" has one fewer Thunderbolt port, it also doesn't officially support Thunderbolt 4 (like M1/M2 before it) - The M3 Pro loses the option for an 8TB SSD. Likely because it was a…
Wouldn’t do what? Intel has more E-cores than P-cores on most of their range, and especially on the higher end e.g. on raptor lake S the i9 all have 16 E and 8 P, the i7s have 8:8, only the lower end of the i5 (below 13500) have more P than E cores. And the i3 have no E cores.
The story is somewhat similar on mobile (H and HX), a minority of SKUs have more P than E, and none of them in P and U.
In fact that was one of the things which surprised me when Intel started releasing asymmetric SMT, they seemed to bank heavily on E cores when mobile and Apple had mostly been 1:1 or biased towards P cores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy to say but hard to prove. How much more expensive would an MBP be if they supported it? How many fewer units would they shift? Those are harder questions to answer. We could assume Apple crunched the numbers. Or perhaps they just stuck to the status quo. Only an insider or decision maker (maybe that’s you) knows.
I think their assumption is that if you’re the kind of pro that needs that many monitors, you’ll upgrade to the better chips they sell. But it’s a frustrating limitation and remains one of the only areas their old intel based laptops were better at.
Pretty underwhelming a bit like the A16 release. They basically upped the frequency in A16 and that's how they got their single core performance improvement, not much of an IPC increase to speak of. Looks like the it will be the same story here given the performance numbers Apple gave. A16 also came with a power consumption increase so the 3nm process from TSMC is disappointing as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This shouldn't be a problem, and the answer is to refresh devices less frequently.
It objectively is a problem for Apple as a corporation though, as they are expected by their shareholders to to continue to grow and increase profits year over year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any reason for not upgrading?
x86-64 docker containers? https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/384 is still open. :(
https://docs.docker.com/desktop/release-notes/#4250
I have been using it for a few months (in beta) and it works great !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just hurting yourself. Even the M1 Pro is like 3x faster than that Intel laptop. Plus so many tiny things like sleep/wake, power management, heat.. I really can't stress enough what a tectonic change the M1 was over Intel.
Depends on what they're doing with the machine. For casual use, Intel is perfectly fine and you do get some x86 benefits too. I have M1 Pro for work, personal M2 mac mini and typing this on 16" Intel MBP, watched the presentation live and still not convinced I need to upgrade my casual browsing and light programing machine this year. Battery is at 500 cycles and 84% health, still lasts 4 hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just like the low-spec M3 14" has one fewer Thunderbolt port, it also doesn't officially support Thunderbolt 4 (like M1/M2 before it) I believe this is due to the TB4 spec requiring support for two external displays on a single port. The base spec M series SoCs only support one external display. I’d expect the ports to work identically to a TB4 port in all other aspects.
I really, really wish they would fix this silly display scan-out limitation. I gave them a (frustrating) pass on the M1 given it was the first evolution from iPhone/iPad where it wouldn't have mattered. But seems silly to have made it all the way to the M3. Wanting to dock onto two displays even at the low end doesn't seem like such a niche use-case. I'm sure there is some kind of technical explanation but both Intel…
I'm sure it's a marketing explanation: they make bigger margins on more expensive machines, and they need some feature differentiators to nudge people to move up. 2 extra displays is a poweruser/pro feature.
They make their own silicon, it's not like they're shy about designing hardware, if they wanted to stuff features into the lower end books they easily could.