Lunar Lake +$100 to add 16GB LPDDR5X-8533MHz vs M3 +$400 to add 16GB slower LPDDR5-6400MHz

[mi7chy]

Bigger bonus for Tim Cook or more bang for your buck?

Lunar Lake

M3

Similar story with storage where Lunar Lake costs +$42 to upgrade to 1TB vs +$400 to upgrade M3 to 1TB.

Lunar Lake

M3

 

[vladi]

The only rip-off here I see is not the RAM but actual disk space because it's slower compared to 1TB option. I'm referring to Mac SSD upgrade, I don't know nothing about Yoga specs.

 

[Exclave]

Bigger bonus for Tim Cook or more bang for your buck?

Lunar Lake
View attachment 2432983

M3
View attachment 2432985

Similar story with storage where Lunar Lake costs +$42 to upgrade to 1TB vs +$400 to upgrade M3 to 1TB.

Lunar Lake
View attachment 2432986

M3
View attachment 2432993

Mi7chy I….don’t disagree with you on this. The upgrade prices for ssd and ram are ridiculous and it would be great if Apple were much more competitive here. I hope competition forces their hand but I have my doubts.

 

[Homy]

Mi7chy I….don’t disagree with you on this. The upgrade prices for ssd and ram are ridiculous and it would be great if Apple were much more competitive here. I hope competition forces their hand but I have my doubts.

There is a very simple solution to these kinds of problems. Don't buy the expensive Mac, buy the cheap PC. Problem solved. This is an even lesser problem if you don't own a Mac to begin with, like many people who do the complaining and start such threads time after time.

One could just as well replace Apple with Dell in this discussion. While not as "expensive" as Apple Dell takes $200 for 16GB extra memory (Lenovo $100) and $200 for 1TB extra storage (Lenovo $84 if they offered), so bigger bonus for Michael Dell perhaps.

Ultimately such discussions are quite meaningless if you consider the audience. Every Mac owner on this forum is aware of the prices. Have Apple’s memory and storage prices stopped people from buying Macs? Will the prices and such posts make people change their mind about buying Macs now or in the future? The answer is no to both, because people don’t buy Macs solely based on the RAM and storage prices. They do it for many other reasons and the whole experience, including the speed and performance of the whole computer, not only some parts. That’s why you don’t see any Mac users start discussions and complain about Dell’s higher prices compared to Lenovo.

Those who buy Macs don’t care about PC prices but oddly enough as usual those who don’t buy Macs seem to care more about the issue and try to prove something nobody cares about. Because if people really cared about it they would’ve already bought a PC instead of a Mac.

 

[Homy]

The only rip-off here I see is not the RAM but actual disk space because it's slower compared to 1TB option. I'm referring to Mac SSD upgrade, I don't know nothing about Yoga specs.

That's no rip-off, but how smaller SSDs work compared to larger. It's not specific to Apple but how the drives are manufactured. The larger SSD you have the more Flash modules are used and since they work in parallel the faster the SSD gets. So you can’t expect smaller SSDs in Macs or PCs have the same speed as 1TB drives and you can’t either expect Apple to put 1TB in the base Mac models because no other manufacturer does.

 

[leman]

Oh no, you pay less money to get a slower computer. What a shocker!

 

[MayaUser]

That Lenovo would scream as always to my work...while the Mac is flowing
I would not pay for that Lenovo even if it was $1000 cheaper
This should be on mac alternatives topics

 

[nonns]

There is a very simple solution to these kinds of problems. Don't buy the expensive Mac, buy the cheap PC. Problem solved. This is an even lesser problem if you don't own a Mac to begin with, like many people who do the complaining and start such threads time after time.

One could just as well replace Apple with Dell in this discussion. While not as "expensive" as Apple Dell takes $200 for 16GB extra memory (Lenovo $100) and $200 for 1TB extra storage (Lenovo $84 if they offered), so bigger bonus for Michael Dell perhaps.

Ultimately such discussions are quite meaningless if you consider the audience. Every Mac owner on this forum is aware of the prices. Have Apple’s memory and storage prices stopped people from buying Macs? Will the prices and such posts make people change their mind about buying Macs now or in the future? The answer is no to both, because people don’t buy Macs solely based on the RAM and storage prices. They do it for many other reasons and the whole experience, including the speed and performance of the whole computer, not only some parts. That’s why you don’t see any Mac users start discussions and complain about Dell’s higher prices compared to Lenovo.

Those who buy Macs don’t care about PC prices but oddly enough as usual those who don’t buy Macs seem to care more about the issue and try to prove something nobody cares about. Because if people really cared about it they would’ve already bought a PC instead of a Mac.

People don’t give apple enough credit for the fact that they have chains of shops and you can get walk in support. Here in the uk most of these either vendors don’t have any high street presence at all. I agree that apple prices for ram and disk space are a bit much but it’s easy enough to get around if you want a Mac and some of the apple tax is justified

 

[Kazgarth]

It's doesn't come with the Apple logo.

 

[vladi]

That's no rip-off, but how smaller SSDs work compared to larger. It's not specific to Apple but how the drives are manufactured. The larger SSD you have the more Flash modules are used and since they work in parallel the faster the SSD gets. So you can’t expect smaller SSDs in Macs or PCs have the same speed as 1TB drives and you can’t either expect Apple to put 1TB in the base Mac models because no other manufacturer does.

256GB SSD on M3 machines is gimped compared to previous generations.

EDIT: That was M2 my bad, I didn't read the OT properly

 

[dmccloud]

One of the first things I noticed is that Lenovo basically gives no specific details for the SSDs in the Lenovo other than the physical size (2242 is 22mm wide x 42mm long), capacity and "Gen 4". Most PC motherboards will accommodate multiple sizes of M.2 SSDs, but a 2280 is the most common size, and what popular M.2 SSDs such as the Samsung 980/990 series, Western Digital Black SN750, and the Inland and Crucial SSDs sold at MicroCenter use. For comparison, handheld gaming devices such as the Steam Desk and ASUS Rog Ally use an even shorter 2230 SSD, which is still more common than the 42mm length Lenovo is using.

Read/write speeds are not listed anywhere, likely because Lenovo (and any other major PC manufacturer) just pop in whatever SSD and RAM they can get for the lowest price from their suppliers, which means speeds can vary depending on which SSD, RAM, etc are installed in that specific machine.

 

[AltecX]

One of the first things I noticed is that Lenovo basically gives no specific details for the SSDs in the Lenovo other than the physical size (2242 is 22mm wide x 42mm long), capacity and "Gen 4". Most PC motherboards will accommodate multiple sizes of M.2 SSDs, but a 2280 is the most common size, and what popular M.2 SSDs such as the Samsung 980/990 series, Western Digital Black SN750, and the Inland and Crucial SSDs sold at MicroCenter use. For comparison, handheld gaming devices such as the Steam Desk and ASUS Rog Ally use an even shorter 2230 SSD, which is still more common than the 42mm length Lenovo is using.

Read/write speeds are not listed anywhere, likely because Lenovo (and any other major PC manufacturer) just pop in whatever SSD and RAM they can get for the lowest price from their suppliers, which means speeds can vary depending on which SSD, RAM, etc are installed in that specific machine.

RAM speed is standard, other than timings, but I've never seen two identical machines from the same maker that have different RAM specs be it speed or timing, just different brands, and I've deployed thousands of Lenovo ThinkPad, Dell Latitude and HP EliteBooks over the years.

That said Apple does this too, or used to. The speed of the SSD used to depend on who Apple bought it from, even if the same storage size, until they started to solder them on-board. The common results were people on this site either very pissed to find they had a slower SSD or others saying, "who cares you'd never notice unless you benchmarked it". They used to do that with Display makers too. The Air used to be WELL known on the screen looking vastly different depending on if you got a LG screen or Samsung.

 

[mi7chy]

Make and model of SSD used on Lenovo is clearly listed in device manager which has usually been Samsung, Hynix, etc.

What slow budget SSD/NAND is used in the Macbook Air?

Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Aura (Lunar Lake)

M2 left (1584.3 MB/s write, 1576.4 MB/s read), M3 right (2108.9 MB/s write, 2880.2 MB/s read)

 

[Abazigal]

Bigger bonus for Tim Cook or more bang for your buck?

Lunar Lake
View attachment 2432983

M3
View attachment 2432985

Similar story with storage where Lunar Lake costs +$42 to upgrade to 1TB vs +$400 to upgrade M3 to 1TB.

Lunar Lake
View attachment 2432986

M3
View attachment 2432993

A better experience for the user.

It's still windows at the end of the day, it's still an intel processor which runs hotter, slower and has worse battery life, and it still won't have the integration with my other apple devices.

I would rather spend more upfront on something that I genuinely prefer using, than save a little money right now on something I know won't work as well for me (and this is something I will likely be using for the next couple of years).

 

[dmccloud]

RAM speed is standard, other than timings, but I've never seen two identical machines from the same maker that have different RAM specs be it speed or timing, just different brands, and I've deployed thousands of Lenovo ThinkPad, Dell Latitude and HP EliteBooks over the years.

That said Apple does this too, or used to. The speed of the SSD used to depend on who Apple bought it from, even if the same storage size, until they started to solder them on-board. The common results were people on this site either very pissed to find they had a slower SSD or others saying, "who cares you'd never notice unless you benchmarked it". They used to do that with Display makers too. The Air used to be WELL known on the screen looking vastly different depending on if you got a LG screen or Samsung.

And the RAM speed is irrelevant when discussing the SSDs Lenovo is using. I just used RAM as an example of how the major companies source third-party components for their devices.

 

[mi7chy]

RAM speed is only irrelevant now after he pointed out that you're wrong. It's standard for PC laptops to publish the RAM speed so they can't willy nilly source any RAM speed as you stated. SSD speed isn't published but it's not bottom budget bin like M2.

Read/write speeds are not listed anywhere, likely because Lenovo (and any other major PC manufacturer) just pop in whatever SSD and RAM they can get for the lowest price from their suppliers, which means speeds can vary depending on which SSD, RAM, etc are installed in that specific machine.

 

[falainber]

A better experience for the user.

It's still windows at the end of the day, it's still an intel processor which runs hotter, slower and has worse battery life, and it still won't have the integration with my other apple devices.

I would rather spend more upfront on something that I genuinely prefer using, than save a little money right now on something I know won't work as well for me (and this is something I will likely be using for the next couple of years).

Did not we just saw reports about Lunar Lake based laptops having much longer battery life than M3-based laptops (by 5 hours in some tests)? And Windows is preferred by most users. There is nothing special about macOS.

 

[Abazigal]

Did not we just saw reports about Lunar Lake based laptops having much longer battery life than M3-based laptops (by 5 hours in some tests)? And Windows is preferred by most users. There is nothing special about macOS.

My guess is that those laptops are either thicker with a larger battery, or windows being windows, you end up discounting any battery life claims by up to 50%. 🤔

 

[leman]

Did not we just saw reports about Lunar Lake based laptops having much longer battery life than M3-based laptops (by 5 hours in some tests)?

Lunar Lake appears to have excellent battery life in simple video playback tests. I suppose the system is heavily optimized for it, powering down most components. There are not too many benchmarks available, but one you are probably referring to is the Zenbook S 14 that pairs an energy-efficient OLED display with a very large battery for its weight and class (72Wh). I have not seen any battery tests for Lunar Lake under more realistic scenarios.

And Windows is preferred by most users. There is nothing special about macOS.

Good that one has a choice, isn't it?

 

[leman]

Did not we just saw reports about Lunar Lake based laptops having much longer battery life than M3-based laptops (by 5 hours in some tests)? And Windows is preferred by most users. There is nothing special about macOS.

So, I just had a look at notebookcheck's review of the new HP Elitebook x360 1040 G11 with the base full-HD panel, and it scored 970 minutes in their WiFi battery test. The similar-sized M3 15" Air scored 1016 minutes. So pretty much the same, despite a higher-res panel.

Definitely a big improvement for Intel, at the same time I would not call it a world-shattering result. They caught up in battery life, but the performance is lackluster and per-core power draw under load is still fairly high. I think Lunar Lake is a very interesting example, because Intel is obviously trying to emulate Apple's design (wide arch, large OoO structures, split int/fp domains), and yet it very clearly falls short despite using the same process. Lunar Lake performs much closer to N5 M2 — while still drawing more power. And I think that is an interesting statement about the current state of x86.

Edit: as was pointed out to me, this model does not use the new Lunar Lake platform. Sorry for the noise!

 

[mi7chy]

HP Elitebook x360 1040 G11 is previous gen Meteor Lake and not Lunar Lake. Lunar Lake on TSMC node parity gets crazy battery life. Used it from 9:30pm for like 4 hours, woke up at 5am and used it on and off throughout the day until about 6pm when it needed to be recharged. Benefit is everything runs natively without having to deal with ARM software incompatibilities, translation layer overhead, paying for subscriptions to Crossover/Parallels, etc. so Lunar Lake can be over 2x faster than M3.

~72fps Lunar Lake 1080p low FSR 2.1 ultra performance on battery (my own purchased Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Aura)

~25.60fps M3 1080p low FSR 2.1 ultra performance (from video linked below)

 

[Exclave]

HP Elitebook x360 1040 G11 is previous gen Meteor Lake and not Lunar Lake. Lunar Lake on TSMC node parity gets crazy battery life. Used it from 9:30pm for like 4 hours, woke up at 5am and used it on and off throughout the day until about 6pm when it needed to be recharged. Benefit is everything runs natively without having to deal with ARM software incompatibilities, translation layer overhead, paying for subscriptions to Crossover/Parallels, etc. so Lunar Lake can be over 2x faster than M3.

~72fps Lunar Lake 1080p low FSR 2.1 ultra performance on battery
View attachment 2434774

~25.60fps M3 1080p low FSR 2.1 ultra performance
View attachment 2434773

Would you be able to provide links to the videos from which the screenshots were taken please?

 

[leman]

HP Elitebook x360 1040 G11 is previous gen Meteor Lake and not Lunar Lake.

You are right, my mistake! I’m looking forward to see some in-depth reviews of Lunar Lake.

so Lunar Lake can be over 2x faster than M3.

Cherry-picking much?

 

[dmr727]

You are right, my mistake! I’m looking forward to see some in-depth reviews of Lunar Lake.

Ars had a pretty good one a couple of weeks ago:

Review: Intel Lunar Lake CPUs combine good battery life and x86 compatibility

But it’s too bad that Intel had to turn to TSMC to make its chips competitive.

arstechnica.com

It's not fast (slower than M3), but it's a good improvement in efficiency. I'm no fan of Apple's upgrade pricing, but if they get me to the point where I rage quit and buy a PC laptop, it'll be powered by AMD and running Linux.

 

[Homy]

Cherry-picking much?

Indeed! It doesn’t take a genius to realize that a Windows game in Crossover runs through three translation layers, just as Andrew Tsai says himself in the video. You have DirextX to D3DMetal via Wine/Crossover/GPTK, Windows to macOS and X86 to ARM64 via Rosetta. Anybody with basic understanding of computer science should know that a performance comparison between a native app and a translated app through multiple compatibility layers is meaningless and misleading.

There are already several reviews of Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Aurora with Lunar Lake, like this one by Just Josh. Compared with MBA 15” it’s heavier, thicker, has a ”really stupid” placed power button, can’t be opened with one hand despite being heavier, has really subpar speakers, worst 1080p webcam seen, inferior in common synthetic benchmarks used frequently by PC advocates on this forum, much higher power draw, much louder fan noise (thanks to MBA being fanless), shorter battery time despite larger battery and weaker GPU in native graphics benchmarks.

Here is another of his reviews compared with MBA 13":

Here is a review by Hardware Canucks. MBA 13” ”crushes”, as PC advocates usually say, Lenovo Yoga in Photoshop, Lightroom, DaVinci Resolve, Premiere Pro, Photoshop on battery and even Blender which is a favorite among PC guys here.

When it comes to native gaming MBA M3 10c GPU can run games at higher quality and frame rates than Lenovo Yoga with 140V iGPU.

Lenovo can run Resident Evil 4 with around 30 fps at 1080p with most settings at Low or OFF with FSR 2 Quality while MBA M3 can run it with 30 fps VSync ON with Prioritize Graphics and MetalFX OFF.

Lenovo gets a bit better performance in Baldur’s Gate 3 with 41 fps at 1080p compared with 25-30 fps on MBA but Lenovo runs the game at Low with FSR 2 Performance while MBA runs the game at Medium with FSR 1 Quality in the heaviest part, the third act. Before that it gets similar frame rates around 40 fps with higher quality.

So again one can wonder what’s the purpose of such posts other than personal amusement and satisfaction. Who even enjoys playing Cyberpunk at 1080p Low with FSR Ultra Performance on a high-res screen? That’s the lowest and worse quality you can choose to play a AAA game. A real gamer wouldn’t for sure buy such a laptop for gaming or even less recommend it. A Mac gamer wouldn’t certainly buy such a PC laptop for gaming either.

Why would I pay $1300 for such an inferior Lunar Lake laptop when I can buy a gaming console for 400-500 dollars? I can also get 52 years of renewal of Crossover. If that is not good enough I could get 6 and a half year of GFN 4K subscription. After that you have to replace that PC anyway so I could keep paying for GFN instead. I could also easily pay $1300 for a Mac Mini with M4 Pro with 20c GPU with double the performance of MBA or pay only 300-500 dollars extra for a Mac Studio with M4 Max and get at least 60 fps at 1440p High with frame generation in Cyberpunk with Crossover.

Any solution is better than that Lunar Lake laptop if you have or want to buy a Mac. You get what you pay for.