Apple Silicon is Overpriced and over valued in technology market

[theorist9]

Honestly, I've found that the Intel Macs don't really feel much slower in normal day-to-day use. On Apple Silicon, Mac OS is trying to use the efficiency cores when it can. These cores are nowhere near as fast as the P-cores, so you aren't necessarily always getting the full performance of the processor when Mac OS doesn't think you need it.

Work sent me a 2017 Macbook Pro with a dual core 7th gen i7, and it geekbenchs about 980 SC and 2400 multicore. It honestly feels just as snappy on most day-to-day tasks as my M1 does (1700 SC, 7600 multicore). It's to the point where I sometimes forget which machine I'm on, and that's despite a pretty massive difference on the benchmarks.

Apple Silicon of course clearly wins on power efficiency, and it also obviously wins massively on raw performance for pretty much anything that is even remotely demanding (as soon as I start running XCode builds for iOS apps, I feel it immediately). But I wouldn't say that everyone is in for an earth shattering difference on the speed of their systems either, some of the more recent Intel ones are still quite snappy and are perfectly fine for a lot of people. For real-world "everyday tasks," the difference sometimes hardly even feels noticeable.

I regularly get spilling beachballs on my 2019 27" i9 iMac when working in Office and Adobe Acrobat Pro. They're merely small annoyances—lasting 1–3 secs—but it would be nice if they could be reduced. [At least they're briefer than on my 2014 15" Macbook Pro.]

Do you get these when you're working and, if so, do you see a difference between your 2017 MBP and your M1?

 

[Gudi]

Apple Silicone is actually over-powered and under-appreciated.

 

[ArkSingularity]

I regularly get spilling beachballs on my 2019 27" i9 iMac when working in Office and Adobe Acrobat Pro. They're merely small annoyances—lasting 1–3 secs—but it would be nice if they could be reduced. [At least they're briefer than on my 2014 15" Macbook Pro.]

Do you get these when you're working and, if so, do you see a difference between your 2017 MBP and your M1?

Oddly enough, I don't really get those during most of the workloads I run on the 2017. It's not until I fire up XCode and start running builds that I see them (and with XCode builds it's a very clear difference, builds that take 15 minutes on the M1 take an hour on the Intel).

Typically I use it for a bunch of browser tabs, slack, zoom meetings, a few documents, etc. It's been much more snappy than I expected for those kinds of use cases, even if I'm running a lot at once (especially being that it's a dual core model). The only thing I've really noticed is that Reddit (and a few other websites, generally the bloated single-page-app sites) are sometimes a little slower to load on the Intel. I'm curious, how does the i9 perform on Chrome/Safari and those kinds of workloads?

 

[cp1160]

If you think about the availability of devices Apple is mainstreaming so many with such little upgrades, I will say that because Apple Silicon is overpriced and over valued it will take many years to see an upgrade which is slowing down technology progress

Positive speaking* Thats what happens when you change the game so quickly with ARM architecture with the needed Chips

I've read this thread several times...frustrations. Nothing but mumbo jumbo statements. Sound like research intellectual. Throw out a bunch of assertions. Repeat them. Provide no actual anecdotal evidence, no examples, no supporting documentation. Later say this jewel:

I will even come to say that we are proud of the current line up of Apple products, we are more than pleased with what's on the table which is great

I am under speculation that is all,

Any comments on the way we feel about Apple upgrades because of Silicon? At least for right now

Who is proud....we are proud? Apple device owners? Some greater collection of beings.

My head hurts. Truly

 

[theorist9]

Oddly enough, I don't really get those during most of the workloads I run on the 2017. It's not until I fire up XCode and start running builds that I see them (and with XCode builds it's a very clear difference, builds that take 15 minutes on the M1 take an hour on the Intel).

Typically I use it for a bunch of browser tabs, slack, zoom meetings, a few documents, etc. It's been much more snappy than I expected for those kinds of use cases, even if I'm running a lot at once (especially being that it's a dual core model). The only thing I've really noticed is that Reddit (and a few other websites, generally the bloated single-page-app sites) are sometimes a little slower to load on the Intel. I'm curious, how does the i9 perform on Chrome/Safari and those kinds of workloads?

My Word and Excel files tend to be larger, with lots of formatting in the former and macros and formulas in the latter, so perhaps that's why they give me occasional delays.

Don't use Chrome much, except on sites that need it to run optimally, so I can't speak to its performance.

With Safari, there are occasional delays in loading webpages, but it's impossible for me to tease out whether that's due to my machine, the hosting server, the intervening internet connections, or my own internet speed (which is nominally 150 Mbps, but can run slower intermittently). Other than that, responsiveness (moving around within those pages once they're loaded) seems excellent.

 

[leman]

Honestly, I've found that the Intel Macs don't really feel much slower in normal day-to-day use. On Apple Silicon, Mac OS is trying to use the efficiency cores when it can. These cores are nowhere near as fast as the P-cores, so you aren't necessarily always getting the full performance of the processor when Mac OS doesn't think you need it.

Work sent me a 2017 Macbook Pro with a dual core 7th gen i7, and it geekbenchs about 980 SC and 2400 multicore. It honestly feels just as snappy on most day-to-day tasks as my M1 does (1700 SC, 7600 multicore). It's to the point where I sometimes forget which machine I'm on, and that's despite a pretty massive difference on the benchmarks.

Apple Silicon of course clearly wins on power efficiency, and it also obviously wins massively on raw performance for pretty much anything that is even remotely demanding (as soon as I start running XCode builds for iOS apps, I feel it immediately). But I wouldn't say that everyone is in for an earth shattering difference on the speed of their systems either, some of the more recent Intel ones are still quite snappy and are perfectly fine for a lot of people. For real-world "everyday tasks," the difference sometimes hardly even feels noticeable.

Funny you would say this. Just the other day I was setting up a 2017 15” MBP as a temporary solution for a colleague who’s 14” needs to go to repair. It’s ridiculous how much slower the Intel machine feels. Basic scripts and Workflows that are instant on the M1 are like pulling teeth on the Intel. Even websites open noticeably slower. And the fans go nuts with no provocation whatsoever… no, I definitely want to go back. These were good laptops at their time, but the convenience of M1 is something else entirely.

 

[theorist9]

Funny you would say this. Just the other day I was setting up a 2017 15” MBP as a temporary solution for a colleague who’s 14” needs to go to repair. It’s ridiculous how much slower the Intel machine feels. Basic scripts and Workflows that are instant on the M1 are like pulling teeth on the Intel. Even websites open noticeably slower. And the fans go nuts with no provocation whatsoever… no, I definitely want to go back. These were good laptops at their time, but the convenience of M1 is something else entirely.

Could it be that you and @ArkSingularity are using different OS's for the 2017 MBP's? For instance, maybe you set your colleague's up with Monterey, while he's running an older OS. Older machines can be slowed by newer OS's.

And just curious, but what "basic scripts and Workflows" do you mean?

 

[Digitalguy]

Honestly, I've found that the Intel Macs don't really feel much slower in normal day-to-day use. On Apple Silicon, Mac OS is trying to use the efficiency cores when it can. These cores are nowhere near as fast as the P-cores, so you aren't necessarily always getting the full performance of the processor when Mac OS doesn't think you need it.

Work sent me a 2017 Macbook Pro with a dual core 7th gen i7, and it geekbenchs about 980 SC and 2400 multicore. It honestly feels just as snappy on most day-to-day tasks as my M1 does (1700 SC, 7600 multicore). It's to the point where I sometimes forget which machine I'm on, and that's despite a pretty massive difference on the benchmarks.

Apple Silicon of course clearly wins on power efficiency, and it also obviously wins massively on raw performance for pretty much anything that is even remotely demanding (as soon as I start running XCode builds for iOS apps, I feel it immediately). But I wouldn't say that everyone is in for an earth shattering difference on the speed of their systems either, some of the more recent Intel ones are still quite snappy and are perfectly fine for a lot of people. For real-world "everyday tasks," the difference sometimes hardly even feels noticeable.

Yeah even my 2017 12in Macbook, which has a dual core i7 (not even sure which gen) is pretty responsive for what I do with it. Sure my M1 runs circles around it for anything demanding, but for the things I do most (browsing, watching videos, Word, remote desktop) it's perfectly fine and I love the form factor

 

[trevpimp]

I've read this thread several times...frustrations. Nothing but mumbo jumbo statements. Sound like research intellectual. Throw out a bunch of assertions. Repeat them. Provide no actual anecdotal evidence, no examples, no supporting documentation. Later say this jewel:

I will even come to say that we are proud of the current line up of Apple products, we are more than pleased with what's on the table which is great

I am under speculation that is all,

Any comments on the way we feel about Apple upgrades because of Silicon? At least for right now

Who is proud....we are proud? Apple device owners? Some greater collection of beings.

My head hurts. Truly

You're head hurts at the moment of being here discussing Apples great success working hard at it, that's a great collected being haha

Apple is awesome

 

[satcomer]

all I know is there is a site on the WEB called Roaring Apps.com so just look or check the software to see if it compatible with your Mac OS version!

 

[throAU]

Yeah even my 2017 12in Macbook, which has a dual core i7 (not even sure which gen) is pretty responsive for what I do with it. Sure my M1 runs circles around it for anything demanding, but for the things I do most (browsing, watching videos, Word, remote desktop) it's perfectly fine and I love the form factor

I found it instantly noticeable comparing an M1 2020 Air vs. an i7 2020 Air - even basic things like clicking UI elements the M1 is snappier. And as stated above - no fan noise.

This is maybe the biggest quality of life improvement - heat and noise are so drastically reduced.

 

[maflynn]

This is maybe the biggest quality of life improvement - heat and noise are so drastically reduced.

I also believe this my biggest gain and advantage in using my 14" MBP over PC laptops. I as many of you know have a Razer and it has a lot of positive qualities, but cool quiet running is not one of them.

 

[uller6]

Single core performance is almost irrelevant in modern computing. Sure, one can use a small amount of big cores to inflate single core performance score but this won't help with most modern computing tasks that are highly parallelised.

Seriously? System responsiveness on Mac OS is dominated by single-threaded tasks which spin up the big cores when needed.

 

[George Dawes]

Every time I use my Mac mini m 1 I’m astounded how something so small and relatively cheap is so remarkably capable

Never heard the fan it never even gets warm the only way to tel if it’s even on Is the status light

Definitely one of the greatest macs of all time imo

 

[chouseworth]

I find it kind of silly that so much time is being wasted here debating contrarian points of view on AS vs Intel on the OSX platform. It’s an exercise in whataboutism. The proof is in the overwhelming success of AS for Apple. The market has already spoken. AS systems feel quieter, better, and faster because they are quieter, better, and faster for the vast majority of us. If a poll were to be taken it would show that at least 80%, probably closer to 90%, of Apple desktop and laptop users believe that AS technology has dramatically improved those product lines over the past two years. There are places for Intel based machines, but in the current environment they are not very relevant to the vast majority of Mac users who do not game the days away or do not require software that must run on Windows platforms.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I also believe this my biggest gain and advantage in using my 14" MBP over PC laptops. I as many of you know have a Razer and it has a lot of positive qualities, but cool quiet running is not one of them.

I have a work provided 2020 MBP 13’ i7. The difference of sound/heat/speed between the M1 Max and that is night and day - especially when using Parallels (Windows 11 dev environment). The M1 Max - I never hear the fan even when doing very CPU intensive tasks. The i7 screams just booting up Windows.

 

[bobcomer]

Available MT is only limiting if you are running more operations than you have cores and, with the typical 8 or so cores, that's unusual for most people (unless you're running specific MT apps).

I don't think you're accounting for OS/hardware ops in that assessment, everyone needs file system drivers, UI, video, mouse, they all make a MT platform work better.. I for one would never want to run a single core computer ever again, even if the main app I'm running is ST and it's the fastest ST computer ever.

 

[bobcomer]

Funny you would say this. Just the other day I was setting up a 2017 15” MBP as a temporary solution for a colleague who’s 14” needs to go to repair. It’s ridiculous how much slower the Intel machine feels. Basic scripts and Workflows that are instant on the M1 are like pulling teeth on the Intel. Even websites open noticeably slower. And the fans go nuts with no provocation whatsoever… no, I definitely want to go back. These were good laptops at their time, but the convenience of M1 is something else entirely.

5 years is a long time, even for intel processors, and I'd bet that 2017 is pretty constrained in other ways -- look to RAM and SSD differences... My 2021 well equipped Intel i7 Mac Mini really doesn't feel that much slower than my Mac Studio Max for most things. (except for things needing a better GPU)

I wouldn't want to go back from my 2022 Windows laptops to a 2017 one either, and for the same reasons.

 

[technole]

Apple Silicon so good that marketing finally pivots from calling them notebooks to laptops cause they can be used in heavy usage without burning your lap.

Joking aside, Intel Macbooks are a slog compared to this, it's not even close.

 

[bobcomer]

Apple Silicon so good that marketing finally pivots from calling them notebooks to laptops cause they can be used in heavy usage without burning your lap.

Joking aside, Intel Macbooks are a slog compared to this, it's not even close.

Notebooks and laptops are the same thing to me and always have been, but I live mostly in Windows land.

And yes, Intel Macbooks weren't great. Their cooling wasn't that good, and the choice of processors was kind of strange. I'd never buy an i9 based laptop for one thing, even the mobile i9's produced too much heat.

I own a 2017 MB Pro i7, 32G RAM, and while it was fast in 2017, it's slow by todays standards -- if I could use it. The battery puffed up after 3 years.

And to add to the original thread title, I do not think Macbooks are over priced, I spend just as much on Windows laptops for work. (Usually Lenovo X series these days). Sometimes the prices for upgraded RAM or SSD's seems a bit overboard though.

As for overvalued, value is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[DaveXX]

My 5000€ MacBook Pro 16 with 5600m get crushed by a 2500€ MacBook Pro16 with M1 Pro….
So what is overpriced here? Even if you compare it to a current Intel Dell XPS with a normal lcd monitor it is really cheap….

 

[theorist9]

I don't think you're accounting for OS/hardware ops in that assessment, everyone needs file system drivers, UI, video, mouse, they all make a MT platform work better.. I for one would never want to run a single core computer ever again, even if the main app I'm running is ST and it's the fastest ST computer ever.

I didn't make this explicit, but when I said "if you are running more operations than you have cores", I meant if your computer is runing more operations than you have cores, which includes system tasks.

More broadly, note that I was referring to a typical mid-range system with 8 cores (by which I meant 8 performance cores). Thus, even when including system tasks, I stand by what I wrote below. That's certainly been my experience with my 2019 i9 iMac. I'm often waiting for my machine to finish tasks, but that's because I've got individual tasks pegged at 100%, not because I'm running out of cores.

Available MT is only limiting if you are running more operations than you have cores and, with the typical 8 or so cores, that's unusual for most people (unless you're running specific MT apps). Thus the limiting factor for computer speed for most users is ST, not MT.

 

[bobcomer]

I didn't make this explicit, but when I said "if you are running more operations than you have cores", I meant if your computer is runing more operations than you have cores, which includes system tasks.

More broadly, note that I was referring to a typical mid-range system with 8 cores (by which I meant 8 performance cores). Thus, even when including system tasks, I stand by what I wrote below. That's certainly been my experience with my 2019 i9 iMac. I'm often waiting for my machine to finish tasks, but that's because I've got individual tasks pegged at 100%, not because I'm running out of cores.

Our personal experience must be quite different. I usually have a lot of different tasks loaded and some have active processing. ST performance doesn't mean much to me, but having more cores does. I almost never have a task that takes up a whole core. (unless there's a problem!)

 

[theorist9]

My 5000€ MacBook Pro 16 with 5600m get crushed by a 2500€ MacBook Pro16 with M1 Pro….
So what is overpriced here? Even if you compare it to a current Intel Dell XPS with a normal lcd monitor it is really cheap….

I think the reduction in value all comes down to the loss of user-upgradable RAM and SSD's.

Apple moved their laptops away from that several years ago, so that's not changed with AS. But if you need a lot of RAM and storage, it does hurt the value of Apple laptops compared with PC's that offer that.

With desktops, the change has come more recently. The 2019 iMac had upgradable RAM and storage (upgrading the latter had to be done by an Apple authorized repair center if you wanted to keep your warranty, but the labor charge was only ~$100). The 2020 iMac had upgradeable RAM only. And with the transition to AS, we've lost both.

Let me make this more concrete:
The retail price of a 27" i9 iMac with a 2 TB SSD, 64 GB RAM, and 580x GPU was $4800. [The 580X was one down from the fanciest GPU available on that model.]

The lowest-end Max Studio (10-core CPU, 24-core GPU) with that RAM and SSD is $3000. Adding an ASD ($1600) gets you to $4600, i.e. about the same. So AS pricing compares favorably with Apple's earlier desktop lineup—but only if you paid Apple's prices for RAM and storage (+$1,000 for 64 GB RAM, +$1,100 for 2 TB SSD).

You could instead buy a 2019 i9 iMac with a 580x and base RAM and storage for $2700. 64 GB aftermarket RAM, and a top-tier 2 TB SSD, each cost ~$300 in 2019. Adding $100 for SSD installation gets you to $2700 + $600 + $100 = $3400, which is $1200 less than an ASD + comparably-equipped Studio.

So that's the essence of what changes the value proposition—the move away from upgradeable RAM and storage, which forces customers to pay Apple's prices for those items. That's not necessarily a criticism of Apple. I'm simply stating the facts when it come to the value consequences of moving away from user-upgradeable storage and RAM, which culminates in AS, where nothing is upgradeable, even in the desktop machines.

 

[theorist9]

Our personal experience must be quite different. I usually have a lot of different tasks loaded and some have active processing. ST performance doesn't mean much to me, but having more cores does. I almost never have a task that takes up a whole core. (unless there's a problem!)

That does seem to be the case! Here's what my Activity Monitor looks like during normal office use when I'm waiting for tasks to finish. These two screenshots show Mathematica + Excel maxed out, and Mathematica + Word maxed out, respectively. Along with that, you see the usual system tasks humming along in the background. In both cases, Idle is at ~ 80%. Sometimes those tasks will go higher (I've seen Excel at 200%, and Mathematica at 200%+), but unless I'm specifically running a lot of extended tasks simultaneously, I don't max out all the cores.