Which mainboard would you recommend that makes the combo actually work with 1TB?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Beyond the M1 hype and why the fairy dust needs to settle.
- Thread starter Kung gu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m sorry your not enjoying your m1 Mac. I bought a MacBook Air when it came out and I’m just loving it. It’s quiet, fast and runs all the software I want natively now. I mainly do light tasks, some video watching, python programming, use mame
Ok I been researching the M1 more. It only consumes 15Watts max for the CPU alone. Thats very impressive.
The 4700U Ryzen costumes 40 watts max, not really 15watts. But after a while it comes to 15 watts.
Whereas the M1 goes up to 15Watts for the CPU only. NOW that is impressive.
I will edit my first post with this information.
The 4700U Ryzen costumes 40 watts max, not really 15watts. But after a while it comes to 15 watts.
Whereas the M1 goes up to 15Watts for the CPU only. NOW that is impressive.
I will edit my first post with this information.
not defend much ,but macbook air battery life awesome
.Wanna crunching number get imac/mac pro with egpu.Ok I been researching the M1 more. It only consumes 15Watts max for the CPU alone. Thats very impressive.
The 4700U Ryzen costumes 40 watts max, not really 15watts. But after a while it comes to 15 watts.
Whereas the M1 goes up to 15Watts for the CPU only. NOW that is impressive.
I will edit my first post with this information.
View attachment 1755850
I think the highest MT/ST power levels I’ve seen reported for M1 CPU only was Andrei @Anandtech playing with SPEC and powermetrics managing to push the M1 to 21W in SPEC povray MT and just over 6W in SPEC libquantum ST. Most applications can’t push it that far. For instance CB23 only does 14.8/3.8W for MT/ST respectively and most others are about 15/5W.
Yep, that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to tell you. Ryzen has much higher PL2 and it will outperform the M1 in some multi-core workloads during the PL2 window.
Now, it is true that high-end mobile Ryzen APUs will outperform the M1 in some tasks - but this comes at the expense of battery life and only applies to workloads that fit within the PL2 window. On a more practical note, high-end Ryzen chips are extremely scarce and the laptops they are found in tend to be rather low quality. If you are really after multi-core performance, then a slightly larger laptop with an Ryzen HS-series CPU would be a much better choice. In the entry-level premium laptop segment (up to $1200), M1 is currently the undisputed king when it comes to the combination of performance and battery life.
But kudos to you for actually going out and trying to learn things. Not many people make the effort.
Last edited:
But this argument remains fundamentally defunct for many people. It is so shortsighted. Reductive, humanless logic like this is literally what leads to the downfall of societies. Nothing matters except “specs” when personal preference and human experience are deemed meaningless.
Like, if I were straight instead of gay, I could give birth to my own children and have access to a larger dating pool and “do more” than being gay could ever afford me, but such lifeless logic is not how life works.
Or instead of recently buying an old Range Rover which I’ve wanted my whole life, I could get some new non-gas-guzzling SUV like a Tesla and save all that money on gas, but the cost or lack thereof of gas wasn’t even why I bought the Range Rover, so why would I let it be a determining factor?
“Logic” like this never makes sense at the end of the day.
The usage of macOS by myself and many others has nothing to do with objective superiority or inferiority of one OS compared to the other.
We use macOS because we prefer it, enjoy it, love it, desire it, and hate the alternative.
macOS is the primary feature we buy, and there is only one place to buy it, and it works best on their experience than a Hackintosh experience.
Yesterday I had to install Windows 10 in Parallels to use an obscure, old software to connect to a car for diagnostics, and the UX+IU experience is so underwhelming compared to macOS. Why the hell would I want to run this on faster hardware? Speed or lack thereof isn’t what makes me cringe at every moment spent in Windows. I can’t even stand the way the Control key is mapped compared to Command and Option. How does faster hardware solve all of the annoying quirks and discomforts that Windows comes with? It doesn’t.
So you can go have your objectively superior Windows laptop for cheaper because I definitely don’t want it.
Meanwhile I look forward to getting an M# 16” MacBook to replace this infernal jet engine of a 16” I currently have using Intel chips. I’m very happy to pay more money for less features, because I’ll still be receiving my primary desired feature — macOS — and it’s gonna run better than it ever did on Intel, even as these first generation M1 issues are worked out.
I hope someday you discover the primary deciding factor of life choices is personal human experience, innocence, and preference, not a spec sheet superiority complex.
That's because CB is a CPU benchmark. The M1's CPU doesn't take more than 15ish Watts. If you want to see it draw 20ish Watts you need to fully max out CPU and GPU at the same time. The only occasion I have seen that happen in real-life workloads was during 8k60 rendering and export with Final Cut. That's also the only time I have ever heard the fan of my MBP going full blast, sounding like a jet engine hehe.
M1 CPU can draw over 20W in certain benchmarks. Cinebench is simply not the most CPU-intense thing out there.
P.S. the very post you have quoted refers to a tweet that explains this very thing
I just went it’s 959, 8 gb of ram, 1000 nits low-res screen. They don’t even offer 16 gb ram on that link
IBM did a study of how in the long run Macs are actually cheaper than its counterparts because fail rate and support costs are lower than PC systems, QA is higher, significantly higher, with Apple devices, and support if you need it is best in class for consumers, though this study was focused on corporate deployments.
To me, the transition to Apple Silicon is a real threat to the PC business model, as you have better performing, longer lasting, cooler systems that are also cheaper, vis-a-vis, than the competition. From the $679 Mac Mini to the $899 MBA, edu pricing, with the performance of a top-specced 16”i9 MBP or a Mac Pro tower.
How old is that study and is it still relevant today?
From a perspective of someone who professionally managed IT infrastructure of a mid-size research group (I think in total there were around 500 computers under my care over the years), I don’t think that Macs are any more reliable than non-Macs. They are however much more reliable than cheap non-Macs. If you want a decent quality, semi-reliable laptop, you’ll have to spend close to 2000 in your currency anyway. Where the Macs do have a decisive edge is ease of administration, automation, service and support. Over 90% of the support effort went to a few folks who were using Windows (the admin team and one senior researcher who refused to learn new things). So yeah, we definitely saved a lot of money by buying Macs - simply because that allowed us to save money on support personnel - and wages are so much more expensive than computers.
Judge for yourself, here is one from 2020, another one from 2016.
I think that’s the whole point, calls to IT support are lower, links:
Forrester Research and IBM Studies Show Macs Are Cheaper than PCs
It’s taken as gospel that Macs are more expensive than PCs. A quick look at the Dell Web site reveals laptops for as low as $300. Sure, we can s...
mbsdirect.com
IBM says it is 3X more expensive to manage PCs than Macs
Saving up to $535 per Mac per four years in comparison to PCs
The difference now being that Apple Silicon Macs are cheaper not in the long run but just plain upfront when compared vis-a-vis, specially in terms of performance (and battery life).
Finally, you have the practical, real world implications, such as a freshman film student being able to have a 4K/8K DaVinci Resolve capable system for $679 instead of a $2000 Mac/PC pre M1 era.
Last edited:
Oh, definitely. The bang for buck of these M1 machines is incredible. With Intel Macs, you could always argue “but I can buy an XPS for less”, now that argument is pretty much void.
Not necessarily the M1 specifically, a variant of it. i.e., scale the ARCHITECTURE.
i.e., if i were apple i would be building something on the same architecture, but with 2, 4 or 8x the core count, and run those cores up near 4Ghz, not 3.2 with more power, which will be feasible in a reasonable power envelope.
Those people comparing threadripper to the M1 that is out in the macbooks today are missing the point but also proving something that shoots down their own comparison: threadripper is RATED at 180 watts plus (may draw more if allowed to boost with XFR, etc.). The M1 is under 15 watts including a GPU.
Threadripper gets 10x the perf in cinebench (which doesn't use native M1 features as far as I'm aware yet anyway) in >12x the power (and it doesn't even have a GPU in it).
yay i guess?
Threadripper is great for what it is, and in PC land you'd be mad to buy intel. I just bought a bunch of EPYC 1RU boxes for my datacenter (7542s with 1/2 TB of RAM each).
But... if you think M1 is anything like the best apple have to offer for their higher end machines in 2021-2023 .... you're deluded. As others have pointed out above, this is Apple's equivalent of a low power Atom or Celeron or i3. Its the cheapest, smallest, slowest Apple silicon laptop part they're releasing - for their entry level macbooks and their entry level desktop, at a cheaper price than the intel versions were. It is a small, cheap, easily manufactured/high yielding, low power part aimed at their entry level machines. It is not intended to compete at the high end.
That's coming. Soon.
The fact that it does is an embarrassment for intel.
Last edited:
That IBM study wasn't anything to do with hardware failure, it was to do with service desk tickets.
i.e., it took into account application usability issues, patching, software crashes, user problems, configuration problems, device setup problems (can't print, print output not right for example), malware, etc.
As an IT pro if 20+ years with about 1800 boxes under my care, i'd vouch for it still being relevant. Mac software is just far nicer and has less problems in general. I mean jeez.... Windows update lately causes all manner of hell.
Judge for yourself, here is one from 2020, another one from 2016.
I think that’s the whole point, calls to IT support are lower, links:
Forrester Research and IBM Studies Show Macs Are Cheaper than PCs
It’s taken as gospel that Macs are more expensive than PCs. A quick look at the Dell Web site reveals laptops for as low as $300. Sure, we can s...
IBM says it is 3X more expensive to manage PCs than Macs
Saving up to $535 per Mac per four years in comparison to PCswww.computerworld.com
The difference now being that Apple Silicon Macs are cheaper not in the long run but just plain upfront when compared vis-a-vis, specially in terms of performance (and battery life).
Finally, you have the practical, real world implications, such as a freshman film student being able to have a 4K/8K DaVinci Resolve capable system for $679 instead of a $2000 Mac/PC pre M1 era.
Of course, if you are doing anything that is either memory intensive, CPU intensive, or GPU intensive, your argument goes out the window.
Ok I been researching the M1 more. It only consumes 15Watts max for the CPU alone. Thats very impressive.
The 4700U Ryzen costumes 40 watts max, not really 15watts. But after a while it comes to 15 watts.
Whereas the M1 goes up to 15Watts for the CPU only. NOW that is impressive.
I will edit my first post with this information.
View attachment 1755850
You should have done more research from the start but it's good that you show more interest. I don't see anything about M1 in that link but Anandtech has another in-depth article about M1 and Mac Mini: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested
Regarding the SSD memory swap it's not a big deal actually. Watch these two videos for more info:
And soon Apple will switch to ARMv9. The performance boost is additional to the performance gain from node shrinking.
"Arm says it expects the first Armv9-based silicon to ship before the end of the year. It expects CPU performance to increase by over 30 percent across the next two generations, with further boosts performance coming from software and hardware optimizations."
www.theverge.com
"Arm says it expects the first Armv9-based silicon to ship before the end of the year. It expects CPU performance to increase by over 30 percent across the next two generations, with further boosts performance coming from software and hardware optimizations."
Arm’s first new architecture in a decade is designed for security and AI
Benefiting everything from phones to servers.
Last edited:
And soon Apple will switch to ARMv9. The performance boost is additional to the performance gain from node shrinking.
"Arm says it expects the first Armv9-based silicon to ship before the end of the year. It expects CPU performance to increase by over 30 percent across the next two generations, with further boosts performance coming from software and hardware optimizations."
Arm’s first new architecture in a decade is designed for security and AI
Benefiting everything from phones to servers.
It will also bring Ray Tracing, variable rate shading and advanced rendering techniques to iPhones and Macs.
Arm Announces Armv9 Architecture: SVE2, Security, and the Next Decade
www.anandtech.com
ARM were talking about their own CPUs, which Apple does not use. ARMv9 has nothing to do with ray tracing, GPUs or any other things you mention. The claimed 30% boost also refers to ARM CPUs, so to put it differently ARM expects to take a couple of years be where Apple is now.
Apple GPUs have supported variable rate rasterization for a while now, and ray tracing is supported in Metal since last year (although the GPUs themselves lach hardware acceleration for RT, so performance is not very good).
You're right about the GPU. ARM is talking about their Mali GPUs which Apple doesn't use and yes Metal has software Ray Tracing. I thought the meant hardware ray tracing. I misunderstood the article.
Of course they're talking about their own CPUs but Apple uses ARMv8.4-A and M1 uses 128-bit Neon instructions. ARMv9 brings SVE2 (Scalable Vector Extension 2) with no fixed width, from 128-bit to 2048-bit. This is something Apple could use. Are you saying they're not going to use such advantages of ARMv9?
Last edited:
SVE/SVE2 is a great technology and I have actually hoped that Apple would have implemented it in M1. You don’t need to commit to ARMv9 for SVE as that is an extension that was around for a while.
As to how much performance SVE would bring to the table is unclear. Apples vector compute units are very strong, maybe SVE could give another 5-10% in FP-intensive code.