If I had to guess, I’d say that for the companies with the money, it’s cheaper to go for the contract than it is to staff a team of people (managers salary, hourly wages, benefits, travel, etc.) to do the work. Plus, the contract is a set amount they can budget and depend on. Get a bad set of systems that all seem to die in a year? No fighting with the vendor to get them replaced, it’s in the contract, the employees are back up and running quick, and they still pay the same invoice.
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.
I feel like i'm alone to dislike M1/what is it good for (Merged Mega Thread)
- Thread starter Lyndon92
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not just battery life you'd be sacrificing, it's also "can it be done at all". For example, M1 Ultra has a 1024-bit wide LPDDR5 memory interface. One DDR5 DIMM is 64 bits wide. To make Ultra work, you'd need 16 populated DIMM sockets. That's a rackmount server board, not a small form factor desktop board.
In laptops, M1 Max would need eight DIMM sockets. Totally impractical. Even the four sockets needed to support M1 Pro wouldn't be great.
(All this would likely come with reduced memory clocks too.)
This isn't my area of expertise at all, but somehow on the Intel side of things they're still making competitive systems with lower bandwidth and removable RAM. You can explain to me how that works.
The explanation is simple: Intel isn't actually making competitive devices. Yes, you can find narrow aspects where they look like they're competing, but when you look at the entire feature set of a M1 family SoC, Intel has nothing comparable.This isn't my area of expertise at all, but somehow on the Intel side of things they're still making competitive systems with lower bandwidth and removable RAM. You can explain to me how that works.
Specifically, Intel has yet to integrate a high performance GPU and CPU into the same device. The reason M1 products need so much memory bandwidth is that they have a high performance GPU to feed.
Now take a look at the discrete GPUs an x86 PC needs to compete with M1 SoCs. Guess what you'll find connected to the dGPU chip? Not socketed memory modules, but soldered down wide & high clock rate memory, just like M1 Pro/Max/Ultra.
The reasons why dGPU memory is always soldered are the same reasons why Apple solders M1 memory, and even integrates it into the M1 package.
But unlike a PCIe dGPU, in Apple's system design, GPU memory is CPU memory is neural engine memory is NVMe memory. All these things and more are integrated into one device, and every subsystem has equal access to all memory. This is responsible for something Apple regards as a key M1 performance advantage: no copy overhead when handing data back and forth between the various blocks of their SoC. It's now possible to design software which interactively exchanges data between CPU and GPU without worrying about PCIe latency and bandwidth limitations.
(By the way, in the now-distant past, some dGPUs did have socketed RAM. I remember ATI Rage Pro cards with SODIMM sockets. That went away fairly early in the evolution of the dGPU, socketed RAM couldn't keep pace with performance demands.)
I miss the variety of Unix operating systems that were available back in the 1990s. FreeBSD, NeXT, IRIX, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, et al.
I don’t miss NetWare, though. I hated NetWare admin. What a PITA.
In terms of graphics, Apple is still lagging behind, despite their misleading charts. By the way, those discrete GPU's are inherently replaceable even if their RAM is soldered in, unless the whole GPU is also soldered down (such as in a laptop).
Hard disagree.
In terms of performance per watt (which actually matters in mobile devices) they're massively ahead.
This manifests itself in my MacBook Pro (for example) actually having graphics that are usable for things like 3d gaming without the fan screaming at 5000 rpm constantly. Or MacBook Air / iPad doing reasonable 3d with no fan at all.
If you want a 300 watt power brick and need to use noise cancelling headphones to use the GPU on your machine, go nuts. That is however not the market apple are aiming their hardware at.
Could they beat the hell out of a 3090 in 300 watts? Sure. Is there a point to that in the devices they're currently making.... no. Not really.
The reality about Apple policy is they just want to make more profit by using SoC or soldered components.
Everyone talking about performance with that, reality is 99% of people will never see difference between a soldered component or not.
Macs are great machines, and deserve to be modular.
I regret Apple policy. Too bad.
Everyone talking about performance with that, reality is 99% of people will never see difference between a soldered component or not.
Macs are great machines, and deserve to be modular.
I regret Apple policy. Too bad.
Emm...no. A whole day battery life without many compromises in terms of performance is something 99% of the people will notice.
SoC is the future, AMD do it and intel are moving to it. There are many benefits over monolithic chips beyond yield rates, better get used to it.
Oh yeah, I agree Apple is leaps and bounds ahead in performance per watt.
You clearly do not understand the benefit of a SOC and short data lines. Perhaps go and inform yourself before making such wrong statements.
SoC: Advantages and Disadvantages of System-on-a-Chip - Profolus
A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of system-on-a-chip or SoC, as well as its characteristics and applications.
www.profolus.com
Another interesting link you guys might like:
Seems we have more bandwidth than can be utilised by the CPU and GPU on the Max chip.
Seems we have more bandwidth than can be utilised by the CPU and GPU on the Max chip.
I remember back in my PC gaming days when I got my first Intel Core 2 Quad machine. It was the first consumer quad core CPU Intel made, whatever that model was called. (No, it still couldn't handle the last third of Crysis back then.) When I was putting everything together I used a hot-swappable motherboard tray so that if I wanted to upgrade the machine I could just slide the old one out and the new one in.
Guess how many times I ever used that capability even for repairs or upgrades: 0
I feel like some of the people that complain about this stuff probably don't upgrade internals nearly as much as they talk about wanting to be able to. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with just wanting the option available if needed. What I'm saying is that most of the world doesn't care about that option and would never dare even opening the case of their desktop Dell much less a Mac laptop.
It is definitely about extending the lifespan of the device and keeping it relatively usable for myself or someone I hand it down to. Some years ago a friend bought a used unibody MacBook, this was the aluminum model that was not a Pro. It was a bit old at the time, but adding an SSD breathed new life into the machine and had it running very well and snappy for years to come. Should do the same with cars, don't make the tires replaceable or when the oil or battery goes it is time for a new one. What are you a cheapskate for wanting to extend and have a car be able to run longer then the life of your tires?
Not sure of your point regarding what gamers use. I would say most gamers are not using top end specs, I am sure that is pretty obvious as the price of a 3090 is out of reach for most. The difference is a gamer on a PC has choice. Do they want a new multi core CPU? They can add it without a whole new computer and without worrying about the specs they ordered (pre built) being all they can do with it till they reach out and buy a new computer. Every component is replaceable in a PC. If you are out of warranty and your power supply goes? Replace it with ease. CPU fried? No need for a whole new computer, replace just that. Now on the opposite end, say you stick with Apples 1 year warranty and opt out of the extended Apple care, what happens if your PSU goes? Or graphic issues? Even a CPU? You are left with crazy high prices from Apple that basically have you buying a new computer.
Additional storage prices are not worth it from Apple because they charge 3 to 4x more then what it should cost for the space given. As you spoke about cheapskates in the beginning that is the mentality of Apple, they are a premium brand and you pay premium prices, they are not marketing or going after the "cheapskates" as you call them who want to stretch their dollar or can't afford a new Mac. I still think Apple makes a good product, I have used many of them over the years and still do professionally. I am not head over heals or blind though to Apples anti consumer practices. I have both Mac and PC, higher end machines as well with M1 Max and a PC built from scratch with above average specs. Both worlds have pros and cons, don't be blind to how Apple purposely blocks and stops people from upgrading.
Don’t you mean ryzen 9 5900hx? windows 11 is an abomination, stick to 10 for a while longer.
Good post 👍 I like the car analogy. With hardware finally getting ahead of software, all our devices will soon be so good that the hardware will likely just be a commodity, and software the big differentiator. People will likely wish to hold on to their hardware for longer than before, which will make Apple's decisions even more frustrating.
I think most of the world does care which is why Apple's marketshare is so small. Most of the world can't afford an Apple computer or would spend the price for a micro fibre cleaning cloth with the insane Apple price simply because of a logo. Most of the world would not spend $350 USD on an air tag case with scrap leather from a high end leather producer. Apple is a premium product (for the most part) that has many great things going for it, but the Apple tax is alive and real and the anti consumer features Apple throws into its tech is real and tangible, not the stuff of conspiracy theories. They develop all their own hardware so the limitations are set by Apple and Apple alone.
No, the world is, for the most part, buying un-upgradable laptops and other mobile devices like the un-upgradable iPad, the un-upgradable Chromebooks, etc. Apple’s marketshare is so small because they make a very specific type of computer that the majority of the billions of people in the world just aren’t interested in. Lucky for Apple, they only have to sell around 20 million a year to stay profitable enough with the Mac to keep making it.
They seem to be able to find around 20 million consumers a year fairly reliably.
Lots of smart phones have expandable memory, which is probably the big thing people would want, as I think processing power for the average user is beyond what is needed now anyways. That is all I wish I could have upgraded in the past, now I stick with 128 gigs as that is the sweet spot for me. If I decided I wanted to start film or snapping more then I am out of luck and have to buy a new device to do that. Not because my phone is under powered but because the storage cannot be upgraded.
Chrome books are under 15% of the market and I would guess that the majority of those are being used by school boards, and that number probably ballooned because of Covid. I could be wrong on that, will be curious to see how sales go with things opening up and heading back to normal.
Apple's marketshare is small for a few reasons as you mentioned. I do believe part of it is again the price for an Apple product. For many it is just out of reach, and the base models are just so lack lustre that paying that kind of money seems better spent on something with better specs and serviceability. Apple knows what it is doing and knows how to make money, they are up there with the best in the world for doing that.
Most tech buyers don’t know enough about computers to even have an opinion on whether or not the base models are fast enough. They just buy the size and shape they like best as well as the one that runs the software they’re familiar with. They will not ask “How much RAM?”, but rather, “Which one is faster?”
I don’t think I’m selling consumers short here. Most of them are clueless on RAM, clock speeds, display refresh rates, etc. They go to Apple for quality, reliability, and a just overall nicer experience or they go elsewhere for cheaper (and less secure/stable). Multithread performance stats aren’t even something they’ve heard of.
Poor analogy as, again, Apple devices do have replaceable batteries. Using the oil aspect, Apple’s <80% battery health requirement would be akin to automative service centers saying they won’t replace oil until you’ve driven more than 1500 miles/km since the previous oil change because it’s unnecessary and wasteful to do sooner.
My point is they do have a choice to upgrade components, yet, the Steam stats show many (probably most) do not. In other words, the ability to swap components easily affects only a very small portion of owners/users.
How often does that happen? Beyond a few periods of poor manufacturing, which Apple eventually initiates a free repair program, I’ve read very few failures over the decades. In fact, I have yet to read about an SSD failure on a Mac.
I assume, one factor of reliability is that Apple does not allow hardware tweaking and modding is far more difficult (even for enthusiasts). That is, for example, a user is not going to try putting 400 W through a CPU or CPU designed to support 250 to 300 W for primarily bragging rights (i.e. benchmark leaderboards). Quite frankly, it also appears most Mac users have zero interest in such ridiculousness.
I do not know the percentage but my guess is less than one percent of companies have truly significant consumer priorities. They care enough about the consumer to coerce them into buying products/services.
I own both as well. And, yes, each has benefits and disadvantages. Neither is or ever will be perfect in general or every use. Because these differences are assets, I am not trying to mash the two platforms together. Just like I have both Android and iOS devices. Pick what works for your preferences and needs (which could be both).
I won’t downvote this feature request. However, I have not yet tried USB storage (i.e., using the following to transfer videos and photos to a Mac, USB thumb/flash drive, or USB NVMe drive).
Lightning to USB Camera Adapter
Lightning to USB Camera Adapter lets you import photos and videos from a digital camera to your iPad. Get fast, free shipping when you shop online.
www.apple.com
If it’s reliable and not overly convoluted, it would reduce the need to buy a very high capacity iPhone if you storage concern is video recording) — which is mine.
EDIT: A few small grammar improvements.
Last edited: