Razer is practically zero. Dell sold 60 million PCs in 2021 with its client solutions group recording the revenue of 48 billion $. Even if we assume that 100% of that revenue are PCs (it’s not, as this revenue displays and printers), we get $800 per PC. Adding peripherals it’s probably more like $600 per PC. The decent quality XPS start at around 1000, 1500 if you want the good display. I doubt that higher end XPS laptop make even 10% of the total sales. My gut feeling tells me that Dell might maybe sell two to three millions per year.
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.
Geekbench score for the Intel i9-13900K is out and it’s not looking pretty for Apple …
- Thread starter Retskrad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Razer is practically zero. Dell sold 60 million PCs in 2021 with its client solutions group recording the revenue of 48 billion $. Even if we assume that 100% of that revenue are PCs (it’s not, as this revenue displays and printers), we get $800 per PC. Adding peripherals it’s probably more like $600 per PC. The decent quality XPS start at around 1000, 1500 if you want the good display. I doubt that higher end XPS laptop make even 10% of the total sales. My gut feeling tells me that Dell might maybe sell two to three millions per year.
The funny thing is that the passively cooled M1 also takes the crown in many practically relevant workloads. It has excellent burst performance, it can edit high res video, it has decent GPU for its class etc. In fact, the only domain where Apple is behind x86 is in raw SIMD throughput, for obvious reasons. It’s funny that the benchmark scene is utterly dominated by raytracing which is completely irrelevant for basically every single customer out there.
Yeah, that’s what I was attempting to imply regarding specific competition. I did look up some stats, but paywalls and nonsense put me off. It would be nice to have granular data vs sweeping claims, though.
Absolutely, but there is little chance of getting it unless you have close connections in the company management.
On a Mac fan forum, I would expect us to extol the virtues of macOS hardware and software over Windows. I can see how PC centric sites can leave out Macs in comparisons because, generally, their target audience isn't interested in switching. I find it short sighted, but that more or less matches what I hear at work (well that and they are too expensive even if they are faster or last longer).
There are people that regularly come into r/Mac asking about Macs. They've never used them and are asking what they are like, what they would need to use them and if they should look into them. Word of mouth is getting more interested in Macs. Apple doesn't really seem to do a lot of marketing of their products either.
EVGA has laid off over 20% of their workforce. ASUS has laid off a "significant" proportion of their workforce and have billions of dollars of unsold inventory, and Corsair has had a 5% layoff. Source: Gamers Nexus.
Yeah I tell family to get Macs, it has helped me no longer be tech support during family gatherings. I have talked about how awesome Macs are at work, and I tend to get side eye. Though folk seem fine using iOS devices, 🤷🏽♂️.
Yeah the crazy GPU price gravy train has stopped and we are in a recession so discretionary spending is contracting. I just saw a report that EVGA is selling their 3090ti for 1200 bucks (I think the MRSP is 2200 for that part) so you know they must have a huge inventory they need to burn through before the new cards come out.
Geekbench 5 benchmarks. Right now, (you can check), there’s no Apple Silicon system as the top ranked. When the M3 comes out, they’ll score well against the M1 and M2 and a lot of other processors as well, but they will NOT hold the number one space for either single threaded or multi-threaded performance.
Maybe because Apple does not make 250-350 watts CPUS that boost like crazy.
M3 will be amazing for tablets and macbook airs.
M2 right now is the fastest single core in GB for notebooks and laptops.
i9-12900HX - This is the fastest single core Intel chip for laptops
GIGABYTE AORUS 17 YES - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a GIGABYTE AORUS 17 YES with an Intel Core i9-12900HX processor.
browser.geekbench.com
M2 - Apple's fastest single core chip
Mac14,7 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Mac14,7 with an Apple M2 processor.
browser.geekbench.com
The Intel chip requires crazy amounts of power to get score and not to mention cooling.
The M2 can easily get that in a fanless MBA or MBP.
Those desktop i9 will always be better in RAW pref but not in pref/w.
Last edited:
That’s actually exactly what I said. It doesn’t matter to Apple if Intel or AMD holds the top “single threaded” or “multithreaded” score. It only matters to Apple if the next MacBook Air is better performing than the current one. There are folks that are expecting that the M3 will “take” some “crown”. It will, as the best performing Mac in a particular form factor. Other than that, Intel and AMD can swap the winner’s circle back and forth.
Then why does the m2 throttle like crazy? Since when did watts only matter? The m2 runs hot and is not as efficient as the m1.
You people sound like you would complain about 7mpg in a 5 million dollar Bugatti. Intel is after performance and the i91300k is NOT a laptop chip and can pull 800watts if it wants to.
It also supports gen 5 ssds that will break 15,000mb per second!
Last edited:
The M2 already is the fastest chip in single core in laptops in Geekbench right now.
No 12th gen P or H comes close but if they do they consume lots of power. If you want go on geekbench right now and search for 1260P or 1280P. These are ultrabook CPUs and do not come close to M2 single core in geekbench.
The 12900HX does come close to M2 but its not even an ultrabook CPU.
i9-12900HX - This is the fastest single core Intel chip for laptops
GIGABYTE AORUS 17 YES - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a GIGABYTE AORUS 17 YES with an Intel Core i9-12900HX processor.
browser.geekbench.com
M2 - Apple's fastest single core chip
Mac14,7 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Mac14,7 with an Apple M2 processor.
browser.geekbench.com
i7-1280P - It scores 1900ish but the core will consume power.
Dell Inc. XPS 9320 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Dell Inc. XPS 9320 with an Intel Core i7-1280P processor.
browser.geekbench.com
Apple is VERY good in the CPU space for laptops.
SC means P-core score, but when you look at MC and try to math it into core performance, it looks like the E cores are something like 4 times as fast as the M1's E cores.
The M2 throttles because its in a fanless macbook. The M1 also got hot, it also reached 100C in tests.
AMD is also after performance and does not need that much power like Intel does.
Gen 5 SSDs need heatsinks cause they get too hot. For now PCIe Gen 4 SSD is fine as many applications don't even use PCI gen 4 to the fullest use yet.
AGAIN why are we comparing a chip that is designed for laptops/tablets to a desktop chip?
They also use 10x more power. Different cores for different purpose. Apples E-cores are there for ultra-low power consumption. Intels E-cores are there for better sustained multi-core performance.
"throttle like crazy" really is hyperbole.
It's a weird comparison.
Especially considering the Intel i9-13900K 24-core (32-threads) Raptor Lake CPU (PL1 125 Watt / PL2 250 Watt) is the highest desktop offering in their future lineup. Whereas the M2 8-core CPU is Apple's low-end offering that's going inside completely fanless designs, like the MacBook Air and probably the next generation iPad Pro.
Because this thread is about a DESKTOP chip and it blows the doors off any cpu period.If the m2 was so efficient why is it throttling? It's ok for you to put down intel when they throttle in laptops right? But when Apple decides to put the m2 in a fan less setup and it throttles it gets a pass?
Intel is beating amd by over 150% in some benchmarks and is not anywhere near intel.
I laughed about your gen 5 claim and it reminded me when you guys said nobody needs 4g speeds on cell phones because Apple was like 2 years late to getting 4g.
Tell me when moving a 300gb file how it needs to be programmed to take advantage of a faster ssd.
Just wait until finale silicon with the memory controller tweaked and 6000mhz ddr5 ram is used on a 13900ks. It will break 2500 single core and come real close to 30,000 multi core.
Yes its about a HIGH end DESKTOP chip and the OP compared it to a TABLET/LAPTOP chip like the M2!! It stupid, can the i9 13900K be used in a LAPTOP. no? then its a BAD comparison to make.
Maybe compare with the M1 Ultra or M2 Ultra...
Even M1 throttled in the fanless Macbook Air. Of course any chip slows down more without a fan more than a chip with fan. That's why Apple will put the M2 in the MBP 13" and the Mac Mini.
show me
Simple I use 10gig ethernet.
Can that chip be used in a laptop??? Then I don't care, because Intel won't put that chip in a laptop because no laptop can sustain 250 watts.
Throttling is normal in a fanless design.
If you want to see throttling with Intel chips, just look at recent Intel MacBooks.
It's doesn't matter if it's for a laptop or not because no chip will perform without throttling in a laptop be it intel,amd or Apple. Intel will have binned laptop versions of this chip and it will throttle just like m1 and m2.
Where does your 10g ethernet get its data from? Are you saying there is no performance gain going to ssds running close to 15gb per second? I like how you mentioned they need heatsinks like anyone cares when they will be running these with a 4090 gpu pulling 700watts and a cpu pulled 300 watts full tilt. Performance runs hot and there is no free lunch. Either it will throttle or melt and that goes for Apple also.
I get it. Its not needed when Apple doesn't have it but Apple is waiting to do it right when they decide to add a feature it will be perfect etc.
Here is a 6ghz overclock of raptor lake almost hitting 40,000 cinebench and 6ghz is target top speed of the extreme edition 13900ks
Attachments
The amusing case is when i9 chips run slower than i7 chips of the same generation because of throttling. So you pay extra for the i9 but get worse performance. A common complaint about the later generation MacBook Pros.