Geekbench score for the Intel i9-13900K is out and it’s not looking pretty for Apple …

[satcomer]

Al I know is off the grid home near me jumped one the M1 Mac Mini because of it's power sipping ways! They notice even when video processing they did take more 4 Watts, then were blown away! It draws much less power and on battery power it's a life saver compared to older Dell computer! They understand to use only Universal or pure silicon applications and getting their software at Mac Software store or MacUpdate and Roaring applications!

IMHO psst errors are because of Intel only software!

 

[pshufd]

Al I know is off the grid home near me jumped one the M1 Mac Mini because of it's power sipping ways! They notice even when video processing they did take more 4 Watts, then were blown away! It draws much less power and on battery power it's a life saver compared to older Dell computer! They understand to use only Universal or pure silicon applications and getting their software at Mac Software store or MacUpdate and Roaring applications!

IMHO psst errors are because of Intel only software!

One of the main benefits of Apple Silicon is power usage which probably isn't a big concern to most people, at least in the United States. Most of the new vehicles sold in the United States aren't particularly fuel-efficient (in terms of getting you from place to place). My main issue is heat output and quiet because my basement isn't cooled. In the winter, additional CPU heat output is actually helpful as it isn't heated either. Our electric company has put in a request to double power prices and I'm pretty sure that it's going to pass. I don't know if this will have people looking at their power bills though.

Back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, there were generally public service announcements on how to conserve energy as there were shortages. We seem to have far more capacity in a lot of areas on energy today - and we're using a lot more because it's cheap and available. I still use Intel systems but I keep the CPU load light so that they don't run hot. Stuff that requires a lot of CPU goes on Apple Silicon.

Someone off the grid or that's mostly mobile will notice a lot more. For now, the battery life is a major convenience. For someone off the grid, it's basically a necessity.

That said, I'm amazed that Intel and AMD are headed in the opposite direction in the CPU benchmark wars. My opinion is that nobody needs a 12900 or 13900 or 14900. An M1 is fine for the vast majority of people (it would be nice if they could add ports, RAM and displays).

I saw a Max Tech video of the M2 Air vs the Dell XPS 13 with the latest Alder Lake chip. The M2 Air smoked the XPS 13. Which is neat. But even the M1 Air is still a much better system than the latest XPS 13. It may well be that the M1 Air will still beat the 2023 XPS 13. Apple Silicon has just put so much power into users' hands running cool and quiet too.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

It would be interesting to see if Apple can effectively change the rules of the PC game by getting consumers to care about features beyond simply performance and benchmarks.

I don't think Apple will change the rules if its market share goes up less than 3% and Windows' drops a little more than 1% in the next 4 years, as Gartner believes.

If in 2021, in terms of the number of operating systems used, Apple accounted for 7.9% of computer shipments against 81.8% of computers with Windows, then in 2026, according to Gartner forecasts, the company’s share will increase to 10.7%, and the share of models with Windows will fall up to 80.5%.

 

[pshufd]

I don't think Apple will change the rules if its market share goes up less than 3% and Windows' drops a little more than 1% in the next 4 years, as Gartner believes.

This reminds me of when Internet Explorer had 94% marketshare back in 2000.

 

[diamond.g]

This reminds me of when Internet Explorer had 94% marketshare back in 2000.

Wasn't that due to government intervention?

 

[Romain_H]

According to this it's already happening:

Gartner: Apple M2 chips will hit Microsoft's Windows market share

Gartner: Apple M2 chips will hit Microsoft's Windows market share. Microsoft's business in the operating system market is in danger.

www.gizchina.com

Though they do make the interesting point that many consumers simply buy what's familiar, and what determines the latter is often what they use at work. Windows still dominates there, and I don't know if Apple is doing much to try to penetrate the enterprise market.

This. Plus Apple has left the lower end market segment. There is simply no product akin the iBook G3 / iMac G3 any more.

 

[pshufd]

Wasn't that due to government intervention?

A teenager started a project called Phoenix based on Mozilla along with three Mozilla engineers for competition. It was later renamed to Firebird and then Firefox. We then had Webkit and Chromium and the rest is history.

One of the big reasons why Internet Explorer lost marketshare is that they threw a few thousand engineers on it in the 1990s to kill Netscape. And they were successful but they didn't architect it well (hard to do so when you have a ton of engineers just trying to get in features as fast as possible). So it had a massive number of security holes which were revealed over the next decade.

The government stuff was really late as competition has really moved in by the time they took action.

 

[pshufd]

This. Plus Apple has left the lower end market segment. There is simply no product akin the iBook G3 / iMac G3 any more.

Give it a few years. The used M1 market is going to be Apple's low-end. M1s are still holding their value really well on the used market and the M1 mini base is still generally getting $500 but that will decline with new Apple Silicon models.

 

[thenewperson]

Wasn't that due to government intervention?

No lol. The government intervention had no real mechanism to enforce the change that effectively killed IE. Google + Mozilla, along with MS dropping the ball on keeping IE modern basically did the job.

 

[dgdosen]

According to this it's already happening:

Gartner: Apple M2 chips will hit Microsoft's Windows market share

Gartner: Apple M2 chips will hit Microsoft's Windows market share. Microsoft's business in the operating system market is in danger.

www.gizchina.com

Though they do make the interesting point that many consumers simply buy what's familiar, and what determines the latter is often what they use at work. Windows still dominates there, and I don't know if Apple is doing much to try to penetrate the enterprise market.

Per the article, Microsoft has a "niche" of the operating system market. Is that what the kids call if these days?

All for the competition. I hope there's a competent, competitive response.

 

[pshufd]

Per the article, Microsoft has a "niche" of the operating system market. Is that what the kids call if these days?

All for the competition. I hope there's a competent, competitive response.

Microsoft has been moving many of their programs so that you can run them on the cloud which means that you can use non-Windows platforms for services. There are advantages to this model such as a steady revenue stream vs one-time payments.

 

[Pressure]

This. Plus Apple has left the lower end market segment. There is simply no product akin the iBook G3 / iMac G3 any more.

The iBook G3 launched for $1,599 in 1999 (or equivalent to $2,601 today) while the iMac G3 launched for $1,299 in 1998 (or equivalent to $2,160 today).

 

[1096bimu]

That looks like killer performance for a desktop gaming CPU, I might get one for my next desktop gaming PC upgrade.

But for laptop? Hell no.

 

[pshufd]

Per the article, Microsoft has a "niche" of the operating system market. Is that what the kids call if these days?

All for the competition. I hope there's a competent, competitive response.

Internet Explorer basically became a meme. It was smart to rebrand their browser.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This. Plus Apple has left the lower end market segment. There is simply no product akin the iBook G3 / iMac G3 any more.

iBook G3… lower end? It sold for $1,599. The iMac G3 sold for $1,299. They didn’t leave the lower end market, Apple’s never really ever done “low end”.

 

[jdb8167]

iBook G3… lower end? It sold for $1,599. The iMac G3 sold for $1,299. They didn’t leave the lower end market, Apple’s never really ever done “low end”.

The 2005 G4 Mac mini was $499 ($760 in todays $s). That compares pretty closely to the current $699 M1 Mac mini. That is the closest I could find for old Mac prices compared to current. Most prices were significantly higher than today when adjusted for inflation.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The 2005 G4 Mac mini was $499 ($760 in todays $s). That compares pretty closely to the current $699 M1 Mac mini. That is the closest I could find for old Mac prices compared to current. Most prices were significantly higher than today when adjusted for inflation.

And that was without a Keyboard or Mouse! I found the same thing that, adjusted for inflation, I don’t think anyone can seriously say that Apple were ever in the low end market. Low end for performance, maybe, but not price (and these days, the low end has single threaded operation numbers that are near the high end!) For a lot of day to day tasks, a user won’t notice a huge difference between the two.

That is wild.

 

[leman]

And that was without a Keyboard or Mouse! I found the same thing that, adjusted for inflation, I don’t think anyone can seriously say that Apple were ever in the low end market. Low end for performance, maybe, but not price (and these days, the low end has single threaded operation numbers that are near the high end!) For a lot of day to day tasks, a user won’t notice a huge difference between the two.

I wouldnt say that Apple was ever low end performance. They always used premium, performance-oriented parts, they just balanced things differently from the rest of the industry. Their focus was always on compact, all-round premium devices. They wouldnt put high-performance graphics in their laptop for example because they didn’t want to exceed certain power consumption limits (interestingly enough those limits have reimagined unchanged for the last 15 or so years).

 

[JouniS]

iBook G3… lower end? It sold for $1,599. The iMac G3 sold for $1,299. They didn’t leave the lower end market, Apple’s never really ever done “low end”.

That was the low end back then. The kind of ultra-cheap devices people buy today didn't really exist yet, because the hardware wasn't good enough. Decent business laptops were something like $3k to $5k, depending on your requirements.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

iBook G3… lower end? It sold for $1,599. The iMac G3 sold for $1,299. They didn’t leave the lower end market, Apple’s never really ever done “low end”.

This is really true. About the time I was getting my iBook (which I still have somewhere), there were so many complaints about Apple not having a netbook (remember those???).

 

[AltecX]

That said, I'm amazed that Intel and AMD are headed in the opposite direction in the CPU benchmark wars. My opinion is that nobody needs a 12900 or 13900 or 14900. An M1 is fine for the vast majority of people (it would be nice if they could add ports, RAM and displays).

Anyone that enjoys gaming would massively disagree with you.

As soon as you say 'nobody' you know your point is invalid. "Nobody" should get a $1300 Air when you can get a really good quality 13in HP laptop with a great screen for $900 that has more storage. See how dumb that sounds?

 

[pshufd]

Anyone that enjoys gaming would massively disagree with you.

As soon as you say 'nobody' you know your point is invalid. "Nobody" should get a $1300 Air when you can get a really good quality 13in HP laptop with a great screen for $900 that has more storage. See how dumb that sounds?

Needs.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That was the low end back then. The kind of ultra-cheap devices people buy today didn't really exist yet, because the hardware wasn't good enough. Decent business laptops were something like $3k to $5k, depending on your requirements.

I don’t think anything +$1000 has ever been considered low end.

 

[unrigestered]

the CPU rarely is the most important factorr though, even for very demanding games.
The GPU actually is, and that’s where the (admittedly extremely power hungry) top of the line PC graphics cards are still way faster than Apple Silicon

 

[JouniS]

I don’t think anything +$1000 has ever been considered low end.

The price of a typical home PC was something like $1k to $2k in the 1990s. Ultra-cheap sub-$1k PCs only became a thing after CPU progress slowed down in the 2000s. Before that, any processor cheap enough for a <$1k system would have been too slow to run mainstream software.