71–80 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they will get there in time. They like to focus on things and not spread themselves thin. They always wanted to get the gaming market share but AI is taking all their time now.
Given that a Mac mini with an M4 is basically the same size and shape as an Apple TV, they could make a new Apple TV that was a gaming console as well. Why is the Apple TV only focused on passive entertainment?
How many people does this actually affect? Gamers are better off with AMD X3D chips, and most productivity workloads need good multicore performance. Obviously MR is great silicon and I don't want to downplay that, but I'm not sure that best singlecore performance is an overly useful metric for the people who need performance.
People who browse the web and want that fastest javascript performance they can get.
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.
M3 Pro user here, agree with the same points. It's nice to be able to actually have your laptop on your lap, without burning your legs.
New chips are slightly faster than previous ones. I am not incredulous about this. Were it a 2x or 3x or 4x improvement or something, sure. But it ain't - it's incremental. I note how even in the Apple marketing they compare it to generations 3 or 4 chips ago (e.g. comparing increases against i7 performance from years ago etc, not against the M3 from a year or so ago because then it is "only" 12% - still good, but not "simply incredible" in my eyes).
I have been out of the PC world for a long time, but in terms of performance efficiency, is Apple running away from the competition? Or are AMD and Intel producing similar performing chips at the same wattage?
The M1 was a complete surprise, it was so far ahead that it was ridiculous. The M2-4 are still ahead (in their niche), but since the M1, Intel and AMD have been playing catchup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has always baffled me why Apple doesn't take gaming seriously. It's another revenue stream, it would sell more Macs. It's profit. Is it just some weird cultural thing? Or is there some kind of genuine technical reason for it, like it would involve some kind of tradeoffs around security or limiting architecture changes or something? Especially with the M-series chips, it feels like they had the opportunity to make…
> It has always baffled me why Apple doesn't take gaming seriously. They aren't really the ones that have to.
Gaming platforms don't just arise organically. They require partnership between platform and publishers, organized by the platform and with financial investment by the platform.
Good enough to be used for gaming? Really want Apple to get into that because dealing with Windows sucks.
Apple has quite impressive hardware (though their GPUs are still not close to high-end discrete GPUs), but they're also fast enough. The problem now is that Apple systematically does not have a culture that respects gaming or is interested in courting gamers. Games also rely on OS stability, but Apple has famously short and severe deprecation periods.
They ocassionally make pushes in that direction, but I think they lack the will to make a concerted effort, and I also think they lack the restraint to not try and force everything through their own payment processors and distribution systems causing sour relations with developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even compared to other ARM cores, Apple is in a league of its own.
They have a good silicon design team, but having so much money that they can just buy out exclusive access to TSMCs most advanced processes doesn't hurt either. The closest ARM competitor to the M4, the Snapdragon X Elite, is a full node behind on 4nm while Apple is already using 2nd generation 3nm.
But is it, for the same power consumption?