821–830 of 1001 posts
"Games like Myst have incredibly realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections" Am I missing something here? Is it 1994?
Maybe Myst was the first game to get an update to adopt the new APIs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oryon seems to have caught up in performance despite being on N4 (which is just 5nm++), but it's an ARM design from the guys who made M1 in the first place. M3 seems like it generally underwhelms. A17 had like a 3% increase in IPC. They didn't discuss battery much and I suspect that's because ramping the clockspeeds to over 4GHz isn't so good for the battery benchmarks. The most worrying part is the transistor count.…
the backstory here is that TSMC N3 is a trainwreck, it's now separated into two different nodes, N3B (for bad) and N3E (enhanced). N3E gets the promised step that was originally for N3, but it only enters volume production next year. Supposedly it will actually bring costs down (and yields up) because this is where some additional steps go EUV. Both TSMC and Samsung have been fucking around with their marketing aroun…
Without N3B, there will never be N3E.
It was the same with N7. And none of these are new to a new node generation.
One thing that left me a bit confused was the comparison against Intel Macs. Although I am still using an Intel 16-inch MacBook, I really wanted to see how the M3 fared against the M2, not Intel and M1. I think it's no surprise the M3 exceeds the Intel Core i7-9750H in basically all of Apple's own benchmarking. My real question, which will probably be answered next week, is how it compares to the generation right bef…
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…
The new M3 14" MBP seems to be a red herring - why does it even exist? Why not just refresh the MBA instead? An obvious rule of thumb is for "Pro"-branded laptops to only use "Pro"-branded chips. It's what they follow for the iPhone lineup, but I suppose iPad Pros also use non-Pro chips. Just seems like a very confusing SKU to create, and definitely something Steve wouldn't approve of.
Look, I'm a 16" guy myself, I even carried one of the 17" cafeteria trays back in the day… but it's clearly the sweet spot for _most_ people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate. A 95% opt-in rate is INSANELY high for any type of usage-stat opt-in, everything above 50% is usually outstanding. What is known about "similar defaults"?
It’s a step in a setup wizard. Whilst it’s explicitly asked, and far from dark pattern territory, it’s designed in such a way that I wouldn’t be surprised by a 95% opt-in rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a ~recent work place the entire floor of developers had (Intel) MacBook Pros with dual 24" monitors. Some of them were trying out Apple Silicon replacements, though I'm not aware of what they did monitor wise. Probably used the excuse to buy a single large ultrawide each instead, though I don't actually know. ;)
Which workplaces are these that buy low-end laptops for their employees but shell out for dual monitor workstations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple signed a deal with TSMC to purchase nearly all of their available 3nm chips for the next year. Ethical or not, they positioned themselves to ensure almost no competitors could develop on 3nm until they did first since no fab on earth has the scale of TSMC. They could ride this plan for years if it pays them.
How is Apple buying all the production slots for a process in any way unethical? It's not like they're buying them and then burying the chips in a landfill. They paid TSMC's asking price for production slots. AMD or Intel could have bought those same slots but didn't. TSMC has limited capacity at 3nm, it was up for sale, Apple bought it. Where's the ethics question?
This has been the case on HN for more than 5 years. Intel Fabs used to sell their industry best node to only Intel themselves, and charges a premium for those newer CPU. I guess that is unethical too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The M3 chips are 30% faster than the M2 chips for efficiency cores and 15% faster for performance cores. The overall performance is still impressive and there is no alternative to M*s when compared with performance per watt. But others have caught up, for example https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-9-7940hs is very good.
I note that if those performance numbers are correct it'll still be a lot slower than Intel's Core i9-13980HX laptop CPU. The M2 Max was between 50% and 80% of the speed of the 13980HX on most benchmarks. A 15%-30% uplift will get it closer to the Intel part but still not reach it.
The perf per watt claims still apply.
I hear the complaints about incremental updates and not enough reason to upgrade. My opinion is that it doesn't need any updates as it's nearly perfect the way it is. What it needs is a 3 year release cycle instead of yearly. Less e-waste and more visible spec change.
My current MBP is nearly 8 years old, cost $4,500, and is finally in need of replacement. I just purchased a $4,300 M3. Why should I have to purchase a 3 year old M1