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
Oh good, another of these threads. Thanks for the troll OP!
As mentioned multiple times already, this is true only at the expense of power which in turn impacts both heat and battery life in a laptop. Constrained to the same thermals, Ryzen isn't actually faster in multicore. And it's also important to point out that the M1 has replaced only the lowest-rung Macs in the lineup - e.g. for the mini Apple is still selling i5 and i7 machines. Just to make clear: not a knock on Ryzen - Zen is great and does really well on a lower process node. EDIT: I guess I should say larger process node for clarity. ?
Anyway, by the end of next year we'll have a much better understanding of how the two stack up as architectures: Apple will hopefully have executed on its roadmap and released its full stack by then; both Ryzen and Apple Silicon be on the pretty much the same, if not exactly the same, process node (TSMC 5nm+); and both sets of chips (Ryzen 4 vs M-series) will be relatively new. Also, Qualcomm-Nuvia chips should be out by then and we'll see where Intel is. Should be very interesting times ahead.
As mentioned multiple times already, this is true only at the expense of power which in turn impacts both heat and battery life in a laptop. Constrained to the same thermals, Ryzen isn't actually faster in multicore. And it's also important to point out that the M1 has replaced only the lowest-rung Macs in the lineup - e.g. for the mini Apple is still selling i5 and i7 machines. Just to make clear: not a knock on Ryzen - Zen is great and does really well on a lower process node. EDIT: I guess I should say larger process node for clarity. ?
Anyway, by the end of next year we'll have a much better understanding of how the two stack up as architectures: Apple will hopefully have executed on its roadmap and released its full stack by then; both Ryzen and Apple Silicon be on the pretty much the same, if not exactly the same, process node (TSMC 5nm+); and both sets of chips (Ryzen 4 vs M-series) will be relatively new. Also, Qualcomm-Nuvia chips should be out by then and we'll see where Intel is. Should be very interesting times ahead.
Last edited:
So? I'd rather have the performance. As I also mentioned previously.
Why would I want to constrain it...
It's too soon to talk about different, more powerful versions of the M1,i.e., only low-est rung Macs. I'll certainly be interested in seeing what comes next! And I have one of those i7 Mac Mini's, bought early last year. It's really kind of low end for i7's these days.
I haven't owned an AMD processor machine for quite some time.. I've been all Intel for a long time on the Windows side, it's easier to get. The last AMD I had was some kind of 6 core chip that wouldn't even compete with a low end processor these days.
I'm not so sure about that, the chip shortage is delaying a lot of things.
Always -- love it! Though I'm not as interested in power efficiency, I still like to see the next gen...
The same was said about the Mac compared to the Apple II. As then, time will continue to roll forward and any near term detriment will fade into the mists of history.
What I find really remarkable is that these same tales are told over and over again in tech. 20 years from today, you can count on it, someone will be saying some new technology isn’t better than the old, and 20 years later, someone will be saying THAT technology is now not as good as the next thing coming up
So? I'd rather have the performance. As I also mentioned previously.
Why would I want to constrain it...
It's too soon to talk about different, more powerful versions of the M1,i.e., only low-est rung Macs. I'll certainly be interested in seeing what comes next! And I have one of those i7 Mac Mini's, bought early last year. It's really kind of low end for i7's these days.
I haven't owned an AMD processor machine for quite some time.. I've been all Intel for a long time on the Windows side, it's easier to get. The last AMD I had was some kind of 6 core chip that wouldn't even compete with a low end processor these days.
I'm not so sure about that, the chip shortage is delaying a lot of things.
Always -- love it! Though I'm not as interested in power efficiency, I still like to see the next gen...
The chip shortage really seems to be one of demand rather than supply (at least for the CPUs we're discussing, others like automotive seems to be a different story). So timetables of these *shouldn't* be too affected. Fingers crossed anyway.
The reason I mention constraining Ryzen by power usage is because otherwise it's an Apples to Oranges comparison (yes I know, forgive the expression). E.g. I could plop a threadripper in and of course the M1 would be absolutely dwarfed in performance but also by power used (and price too naturally, but I wanted to pick a silly, extreme example). Normalizing by power negates this issue to a degree (though I'll admit by how much is debatable especially for single thread results since different chips scale performance per watt differently for single thread and even multithreaded scaling is far from guaranteed for all workloads).
I really understood your point, but since power draw is not an issue for me, or really even in the equation, it's an apples to apples comparison. Unless the power draw is in the thousands of watts I suppose.
Price and performance are the things I look for. POV is pretty important when comparing computers.
This post is absurd. It's the beginning of the end for x86. It's a dying, inefficient platform that, like it or not, will be on life-support in less than a decade. What's crazy is the M1 is Apples first attempt at an ARM notebook processor and they absolutely knocked it out of the park. OP is stuck on the idea that M1 runs neck and neck with flagship Intel and AMD processors but forgets the fact it does so on a fraction of the power required by those processors.
Delete this post. It's embarrassing.
I really understood your point, but since power draw is not an issue for me, or really even in the equation, it's an apples to apples comparison. Unless the power draw is in the thousands of watts I suppose.
Price and performance are the things I look for. POV is pretty important when comparing computers.
Certainly price is a fair way to normalize as well, though I’d argue Apple’s M1 does fairly well here too (a nice change), though not as good as they do on wattage and of course everyone has different needs and priorities. You won’t hear me arguing that no one should get a PC!
Edit: in terms of needs and priorities I don’t have an M1 because the form factors available are not yet what I’m looking for either. But often the argument is that Apple shouldn’t have switched or Apple silicon is inherently worse because of Ryzen multithread CB23 scores, which is obviously a silly argument and different from, “right now, can I get an M-series Mac that fits my needs?”. For both of us that answer is no.
Last edited:
It's certainly better. I hope the new middle and high end machines aren't as insanely expensive as the last intel one's were. I *really* wanted an i9 iMac Pro, but I could never justify the cost.
.
I think the OP has buyer's remorse and seems to prefer Windows for his needs.
The only hype is what some people create in their own mind.
The only hype is what some people create in their own mind.
Criteria will obviously differ from user to user. It is absolutely correct that you can get a faster (in burst or even sustained multicore) machine than M1 laptops for the same money if you are willing to sacrifice battery, display and build quality.
The “bigger” 13/14” will probably retain the $1799 price point and compete performance-wise with high-end PC desktops.
Couple weeks ago I considered selling my Lenovo S740 because there was a buy-back promotion that offered me almost 700 bucks if I buy a M1-Mac of my choice. After reading about all the Pros and Cons of the new Macs I stopped considering a switch back to Apple and bought a new 75“ TV and sold my old 55“ for 500 bucks.
I will buy a MacBook again, that‘s for sure. But it‘s a lose-lose for me right now, if I‘m not using it enough to justify the 1000 bucks and more.
This way I can enjoy movies on a bigger screen and my wife can enjoy her time with Windows until she can :x
Not supporting two screens (after I setup two screens for Home Office) and the compatibility with apps was a letdown for me - for now.
I will buy a MacBook again, that‘s for sure. But it‘s a lose-lose for me right now, if I‘m not using it enough to justify the 1000 bucks and more.
This way I can enjoy movies on a bigger screen and my wife can enjoy her time with Windows until she can :x
Not supporting two screens (after I setup two screens for Home Office) and the compatibility with apps was a letdown for me - for now.
I really understood your point, but since power draw is not an issue for me, or really even in the equation, it's an apples to apples comparison. Unless the power draw is in the thousands of watts I suppose.
Price and performance are the things I look for. POV is pretty important when comparing computers.
For me this is the dealbreaker (video below). So different user cases, simply put.
Dealbreaker
I beg to differ on the display and build quality, Apple doesn't really have the advantage it did before. But anyway, my point was I would gladly sacrifice battery for better performance.
I doubt it will compare in real world scenarios. (Mx laptop to intel type desktop. Cooling is always going to be a problem in a laptop) I'm more interested in the desktop to desktop comparison anyway.
Did you buy this laptop to replace your 16-inch Intel MBP?