in fact, remember exodus? they had a building down near great america and 101. they went bankrupt because they were apparently 10 years too early to the 'cloud' party.
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.
Intel Alder Lake vs. Apple M1
- Thread starter leman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
in fact, remember exodus? they had a building down near great america and 101. they went bankrupt because they were apparently 10 years too early to the 'cloud' party.
I don’t remember them in particular, but of course the cloud was nothing new.
I remember spending entire summers at great America (cheaper than a babysitter) while mom worked at a nearby .com infra company.
With the trend toward virtualization (NFV, vRAN etc.) it's actually moving from special-purpose hardware to (predominantly) x86.
Intel is building an open RAN fortress, but it's also under attack | Light Reading
Operators believe open RAN can spur competition and supplier diversity in the radio access network. So how come today's ecosystem is built around one giant chipmaker?
Not surprised although it is nice to see AMD not letting up! Until Intel gets their process down in the 7-4nm range AMD is going to keep killing it! Sure Intel is still the fastest but it is not the best by far unless you are talking desktop.
The M1 Max may not be the fastest (well, is not) out there but honestly, the battery life combined with the silence (I've had my fan come on three times, and it was barely audible) makes it worth it.
I have to wonder what the Max could do if Apple gave it a TDP like the combined TDP of the Intel processor and Nvidia GPU.
I have to wonder what the Max could do if Apple gave it a TDP like the combined TDP of the Intel processor and Nvidia GPU.
Intel acted like asses for the past decade; I'm happy to see AMD doing well. I haven't watched any videos yet but I will. My laptop is the M1 Pro 16 and it's going to stay like that for at least five years and maybe ten.
Watching the video and good analysis done by AMD. They came out with chips and Intel put their best foot forward and AMD did a lot of analysis on PPW and published them. I'd love to see the M1 Pro/Max in there but it's not required as I've already made my purchase. Now if Apple could just fix the Monty bugs.
More interested in the 6800U since it might finally be fast enough in an ultralight like Surface Pro to play AAA games at 1080p without needing a dGPU.
So basically like M1 just with higher power consumption?
By the way, what’s wrong with AMD marketing these days? Are they really so desperate? Reporting max FPS at 720p and pretending it’s full HD?
M1 doesn't count since it can't run most if not all of the games listed per applegamingwiki. It's an iPad with a keyboard.
Just have to learn how to read the chart which has both FSR/RSR and without.
Rubbish. Of course it can run anything. The fact that some software isn‘t available does NOT mean M1 can‘t run it.
Your iPad with keyboard beats anything x86 easily. So your attempted insult (iPad lah lah) fires backwards, actually
Dunno, I’m currently having a blast playing Total War at 4K on my M1. But sure…
Oh the irony! Telling others to learn to read while ignoring that the charts report maximal, not average FPS. Cut them down by 30% or so to see what you’ll actually get.
This whole thing reminds me of the old 90s argument of Mac vs. PC! This whole thread reminds me of those arguments!
It's about as productive as well
It's to show off their new upscaling technology. Much like Nvidias DLSS (though it doesn't use AI), you can get near 1080p quality visuals by upscaling 720p (or even lower resolutions).
It's about as productive as well
Mac vs PC is still an interesting argument but I see far fewer people making the argument. What I see more is someone dropping by r/Mac and stating that they're interested in getting an M1 Air and if it would be wise to do so. We ask the person what they do now, what they want to do, and their current hardware and software and then advise accordingly.
Mac vs PC is simplistic. What matters more is what you do and how you do it and whether or not you can go with Apple Silicon. If the person wants to game, then we typically point them to PC or macOS x86. If they need to run Windows or Linux VMs, then we do the same.
Alder Lake 12900, M1 Max and Threadripper are parts that 99% of PC users don't need and aren't going to buy. Top performance does provide bragging rights and is useful for some people. Usable performance in mobile is PPW. Performance in desktop varies.
Those three are very different products in very different categories.
The 12900 is a mainstream consumer chip. Many people – gamers among others – will seriously consider it, but most of them will choose either 12600, 12700, or an AMD chip. While ultra high end gaming is affordable to many, cost-effectiveness usually wins.
The M1 Max is a niche product, but only because it's a Mac-only ARM chip. An x86 chip with similar specs would sell like crazy, because a lot of people would buy it for their gaming laptops and midrange gaming desktops. The GPU is far from the fastest, but it's competitive with the current console generation, and you could easily make quiet small form factor devices based on it.
Threadrippers are weird. They are not true workstation chips, but they are not consumer chips either, but something in between. I might be in the target audience for one if Apple doesn't release cost-effective desktops with a few hundred gigabytes of ECC RAM, but I'm clearly in the minority.
Marketshare is still tiny for all three.
If you want to see what the vast majority buys, go to the "PC" section of WalMart.
Because they write “up to”. Which translated from marketing speak means “it’s the highest number we got”.
to be clear you think the numbers for both the 680M and the 1650 Max Q are high not average?
You will find the low end there rather than the vast majority. Most sources seem to agree than the median price of a new consumer laptop sold in the US is somewhere in the $700 to $800 range. The prices were a bit lower before the pandemic, but component shortages and increased usage have driven people to spend more money on their computers.
Pyramid-shaped markets make intuitive sense, but they don't happen that often in reality. People don't like buying cheapest products, and the primary purpose of such products is often getting people to buy midrange models. High-end products tend to be more popular and low-end products less popular than people expect.