You can easily place the start menu back in the left side via Settings in Taskbar settings.
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.
M2 smokes 13th gen Intel Raptor Lake P mobile CPU in single core benchmarks?
- Thread starter Wizec
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can move it to the left. It starts in the middle, but it can be configured however you like in the taskbar settings. It's not a big issue. The most annoying thing is the new context menu, but that can easily be restored with this registry fix download: https://www.howtogeek.com/759449/ho...indows-11s-file-explorer/#moka_anchor_method2
I honestly like Windows 11. But I like macOS more.
Last edited:
This is far from being true and neither is the full lineup covered in your link. The i7-1370P typically has its TDP set between 25 and 30W in contemporary devices. For 15-25W TDP devices Intel has the U series like the i7-1255U - which is below the P-series.
Geekbench Score for the Dell Inspiron 14 7420 - which has a i7-1255U set to 23W PL1 - is 1640 - which is below M1 while still having a higher PL1.
And below this we have the 9W series like the i7-1250U. This is finally the Intel CPU you can put into a fan-less device and compare to the Macbook Air.
Last edited:
Just a quick nitpick regarding something I've been pondering lately. I think it would be good if we avoid using notions like TDP, PL1 etc. when discussing Apple Silicon — these are all vendor-specific marketing terms that obfuscate what's really going on. It might be better to talk about the actual power consumption.
To put these things into perspective, something like i7-1370P will use up to 20-25 watts in single core workloads, around 80+ watts in short multi-core burst and around 25-30 watts for long-running sustained multicore work. In contrast, M1 will use up to 5W for single core workloads and up to 20W for multi-core workloads (no matter burst or sustain). This should illustrate the massive efficiency gap between Apple and Intel.
It’s not cost effective to use a MBP to save on electricity.
The purchase price difference between a MBP with 1tb of storage and at least 32gb ram compared with my windows laptop is so great that the machine will be long obsolete before the electricity savings make up the difference.
You can hardly berate people for not being rich enough to buy a MacBook Pro.
Apple have the power to change this. But they won’t.
I'm a poor fellow myself, that's why I want my computers to last 10-12 years. (Basically all the way through to the next silicon transition.😂) The number one killer of computers is heat and for mobile devices battery health. The more heat a cpu radiates and the more power it draws, the sooner you can throw your laptop in the bin.
And that's not even talking about the software issues, which let Windows run slower after a few years for no apparent reason. Millions of PCs are thrown away because of slow software every year.
The cost effectiveness of any product (including toilet seats) is best determined by dividing the purchase price through the days of use. The cheapest break and you've got to buy new. Most Apple products easily last until you've payed less than 1$ per day of use. That's affordable for most people in the 1st world.
Other than the battery. Heat isn’t a huge issue for electronics if they’re operating within their designed range.
Silicon degradation is a thing. But it’s not having a significant impact over the span of a decade.
I had expensive laptops who melted under their own heat, monitors which discolored during a hot summer and batteries don't like heat at all. Companies sell you the best technology they have, not the one you need. And they design their devices to win some artificial benchmarks, not to last a long time. Only the consumer himself can safeguard his own interests. Apple in particular is known to design thin laptops with severe heat problems.
So you’re trying to say. That the thermals got so high it was beyond just being a signal timing issue (which is the primary reason for throttling as components are typically good for well over 100c).
The system then didn’t reduce power, the system didn’t detect thermals were out of control, and you had physical damage caused by system protections failing?
Typically power circuits are what fail, but this is only really common with poor quality, cheap devices.
OK, now test user perceived latency and virtualization features. Maybe in constrained scenarios, like video editing, the MacBook can beat a Wintel computer. However, from a basic functionality stand point, the ARM Macs are like a 20 year regression. This is the least responsive computer I've ever owned, and I had a Celeron that ran Windows ME. The current MacBooks are embarrassing and an insult after I paid almost $2K. The ARM hype is all based around completely synthetic benchmarks. The Mac experience is now worse than Windows XP and closer to par with Windows ME in terms of quality. Almost all the crap they add now is useless bloatware that I don't use but can't turn off. My computer has like 100+ processes running at idle. If you don't have an ARM Mac, do not be misled by these benchmarks. The experience of using an ARM MacBook today is literally horrible.
Last edited:
Your “experience” is unlike that of any other person using an Apple silicon Mac that I’ve heard of. Have you contacted Apple support? There seems to be something wrong with your computer.
I'm talking about a Sony VAIO Note Z505, the most expensive notebook I could afford at the time. After a few years the coating of the palmrest began to develop small bubbles which over time began to eat away the entire front. It looked as if the computer had smallpox. Why do you think we have laws regulating the maximum heat of laptop surfaces? Because otherwise companies would still build laptops that burn your lap.
This wasn't a defective product, but the intended thermal design with a modern processor at the state of the art. If you'd ask me it should be illegal by now to put x86 cpus into notebooks. Thermal throttling is the least of the problems coming from putting so much heat into ever smaller ultrabooks.
Go to your Programs folder, select all (⌘A) installed apps and open them all at the same time.
Do this on a Celeron under Windows ME.
Raw power doesn't change the fact that latency at idle is horrible and a step backwards two decades at least. Latency under load is even worse obviously. My computer will just lock up from running one virtual machine. It comes back, but it takes a while sometimes.
Last edited:
I think we should report two numbers:
- An instantaneous power consumption while doing some workload (geekbench, photo editing, complex web JS loading)
- Total power required to complete the task
Could also be hindsight bias. Side by side video comparisons of two machines in close to identical states (both freshly installed) with latency measurements would probably show that the M1 series is more responsive but that would require effort to set up...
I am very puzzled by this description. My ARM MacBook Pro is by far the most responsive computer I have ever owned, with most operations happening instantaneously. I routinely have to perform small tasks on older Macs as well as newer Windows machines (e.g. helping colleagues and students with scripting and various troubleshooting), and the micro-delays when executing common actions on those computers compared to my ARM Mac are a source of great annoyance to me.
Seems to me that your computer is either defective, misconfigured, or you are using some software that hasn't really been adjusted to run on these machines.
I am using TDP and PL1 as the longterm (thermal) power limit of the device. Something like this certainly does exist for Apple Silicon devices under nominal ambient temperatures, even if it is not explicitly quoted by Apple. As far as I am concerned, it does not make much sense to come up with yet another term for the same metric.
These numbers are meaningless though, especially since many Intel CPUs let the OEM set different limits (even in laptops). Measured power consumption has often shown that Intel and AMD CPUs use more power than the TDP would suggest they would. People come on this forum and claim that AMD CPUs are killing apple in performance per watt at 15W but then even the tiniest bit of digging shows that the AMD CPUs are using more like 25-30W ...
The only reasonable way of comparing power consumption is actual measured power consumption.
First of all I am normally quoting TDP only for Intel CPUs - and of course I am referring to the limit the OEM has configured for the device and not the nominal TDP from Intels CPU spec. Please read my other post further up, where I made this perfectly clear.
Ironically the only Windows laptops, which are passively cooled are ARM devices - with other words no OEM dares to limit TDP to 9W with Intel CPUs in order to put them into a fanless laptop. The performance would be embarassingly low.
You are aware that AS devices run at similar temps to many x86 based laptops?
Admittedly with much less fan noise etc. but for pure temps AS still hits the higher temps you’re complaining about.