Qualcomm Claims Snapdragon X Elite 21% Faster Than Apple's M3 Chip

[9secondko]

LOL @ Qualcomm.

They spent all that time, money, energy, and hype only to try to compare their best chip to Apple’s worst.

And yet it takes them 80w to compete with Apple’s 20w?

Again. LOL

WHAT QUALCOMM IS AFRAID TO SAY IS THST THEIR REAL CONPETITOR FOR THEIR “elite” is Apple’s M3 Max, which utterly wiped the floor with it at the same power draw and then flushed it down the toilet, laughing the whole time.

Qualcomm tried to cherry pick and exposed themselves for not being able to compete in the efficient processor game. You do t compete against a chip and then need four times the power.

Their chip has more cores than m3 also. That’s where m3 max comes in.

In an apples to apples comparison, it’s not even a contest. It’s a joke. And this is apples ON THE MARKET tech. The Qualcomm lameness isn’t even out. When it is, M4 variants will be available and will be the actual competition, further dusting the horrendously underwhelming Qualcomm effort.

 

[DanVM]

It's more that we don't really know what it means for the end user until there is actually a laptop sporting said processor, running windows and an ARM version of key applications. Right now, everyone is just going by what one company says.

With M1 all the way to M3, the value proposition was pretty clear. You get longer battery life (I remember being floored when my M1 MBA clocked 9 hours on zoom with a full charge). The device remains cool to the touch (I had no issues using my laptop rested on my naked thighs). Performance was great (everything was fast and snappy). With the pro Macs, there was also the added benefit of sustained performance even when not plugged in to an external power source. And it works because you have 1 company (Apple) overseeing and coordinating all the big pieces and ensuring they work properly together. They are even willing to drop Intel and go all in on ARM to force the hands of developers everywhere (not that hard for Apple when Intel has been dropping the ball for years).

That Qualcomm even had to add a disclaimer at the end acknowledging that there are a ton of variables (which they don't control) affecting the final performance shows that they are aware that consumers likely won't see anywhere near 100% of the promised benefits, especially if the other stakeholders (eg: Microsoft, software developers) refuse to play ball.

In this case, it's probably better to just reserve final judgement until we actually see it in a final product. Remember, specs are just the means, user experience is the end.

I get there are benefits of Apple vertical integration. But at the same time there are cases where it does nothing to improve the customer experience. For example, Apple is miles behind Windows devices in gaming. Intel / Nvidia / AMD do not have the level of integration of Apple devices, and still gamers have a better experience with Windows devices. This could extend for CAD / CAM and 3D apps, where Windows does better because there is better hardware than what we have with Apple today.

I also think MS is more involved with ARM than in the past. They already have MS Office and Visual Studio 2022 / Visual Studio Code, which are some of their most popular applications. Even some 3rd party applications from Adobe and Blackmagic Design already have or will have their apps natively for WoA. And I think other applications will be available in the future, when ARM hardware start to be available.

IMO, Qualcomm do not need to have faster than an Apple M3 Max. If their processor is as close to an Apple M2 / M2 Pro in performance an efficiency, they will have a winner. But as you said, we will have to wait and see the final product.

 

[spcopsmac21]

12 cores at 3.8 GHz, with boost to 4.3 when going down to 2 or 1 cores. (I think this one is homogenous?)



Well, Qualcomm claims 15,300 at up to 80W. M3 Max scores 21,049 and draws about 40W while benched. So, 38% faster at half the power. That’s quite a gap.

I presume both numbers include the RAM. In Qualcomm’s defense, theirs includes a cellular modem.

It is a gap.
But a gap that’s quickly drawing thinner and thinner. And it was done pretty fast.

 

[DanVM]

A lot of my workflows require clicking on the “show more items” button (because I need to use advanced options). Used to be that they were one click away and that I’d have to just acquire the menu item. Now I have to acquire the show more items item and then acquire the menu item. Doubles the length of time it takes to do the same task.

Have you tried Shift + right-click? It automatically opens the full context menu. You could also add a registry key if you want the change permanent.

 

[kc9hzn]

I get there are benefits of Apple vertical integration. But at the same time there are cases where it does nothing to improve the customer experience. For example, Apple is miles behind Windows devices in gaming. Intel / Nvidia / AMD do not have the level of integration of Apple devices, and still gamers have a better experience with Windows devices. This could extend for CAD / CAM and 3D apps, where Windows does better because there is better hardware than what we have with Apple today.

I also think MS is more involved with ARM than in the past. They already have MS Office and Visual Studio 2022 / Visual Studio Code, which are some of their most popular applications. Even some 3rd party applications from Adobe and Blackmagic Design already have or will have their apps natively for WoA. And I think other applications will be available in the future, when ARM hardware start to be available.

IMO, Qualcomm do not need to have faster than an Apple M3 Max. If their processor is as close to an Apple M2 / M2 Pro in performance an efficiency, they will have a winner. But as you said, we will have to wait and see the final product.

Of course, gaming is actually a pretty niche segment, just a very vocal niche, especially within the online tech news sphere. Console gaming is far more popular on the whole than computer gaming, so there’s little reason for Apple to aggressively pursue computer gaming. Especially when you consider that much of the PC gaming world’s philosophy runs counter to Apple’s. (It’s a philosophy very similar to that of audiophiles, they want to endlessly tweak and upgrade their systems, as opposed to Apple’s “It Just Works” philosophy.)

 

[kc9hzn]

Have you tried Shift + right-click? It automatically opens the full context menu. You could also add a registry key if you want the change permanently.

It’s a work computer, so I probably can’t change the registry settings. Thanks for the shift + right click suggestion, though!

 

[DanVM]

Of course, gaming is actually a pretty niche segment, just a very vocal niche, especially within the online tech news sphere. Console gaming is far more popular on the whole than computer gaming, so there’s little reason for Apple to aggressively pursue computer gaming. Especially when you consider that much of the PC gaming world’s philosophy runs counter to Apple’s. (It’s a philosophy very similar to that of audiophiles, they want to endlessly tweak and upgrade their systems, as opposed to Apple’s “It Just Works” philosophy.)

I just gave an example on how Apple vertical integration do not gives the best experience. We could not assume that Apple vertical integration is the best for every case. Intel / AMD / Nvidia have some advantages that Apple, and some customer will have a better experience with them over Apple.

 

[kc9hzn]

I just gave an example on how Apple vertical integration do not gives the best experience. We could not assume that Apple vertical integration is the best for every case. Intel / AMD / Nvidia have some advantages that Apple, and some customer will have a better experience with them over Apple.

Every case and every customer, sure. Likewise, Apple shouldn’t try to target every niche market. Though I’ve pointed out indirectly that gaming is typically a vertically oriented market, even more so than Apple. Consoles are nothing if not vertically oriented.

 

[Analog Kid]

What?

Words have specific meanings for a reason. Twisting them to sort others needs or points to make is just what argunenta are for, yet it doesn't change the meaning of words period.

I bake the aek because without ME the oven doesn't even turn on. I can choose a microwave or a atone oven if I so choose to, but the oven cannot choose the preparer at all in any instance.

So I bake the cake!

TSMC Makes the SoC it supplies the hardware and professional know how to get it done. APPLE claims to design theie Soc's but ill bet ita a collaboration with TSMC because obky TSMC knows their limits and workarounds per client's design needs.

Ok, so I'm in agreement with @masotime that you mean "make" in the sense of manufacture. Meanwhile @Abazigal appears to have used "make" in a different way, in the sense of to create or cause to come about.

Words do have specific meanings, but the meanings aren't always specific. I can come home after a run and say "I'm tired". If I'm told to go to bed, my answer would be "I'm not sleepy, I'm fatigued". Tired is general, other words are more specific. Make is general, other words are more specific. It's equally correct to say that you bake the cake and that the heat of the oven bakes the cake.

When a word can be taken different ways, it's a bit disingenuous to disagree with someone based on a definition of the word they didn't intend.

For the sake of example, here are the specific meanings of the verb "make" as taken from the MacOS dictionary:

make | māk |
verb (past and past participle made | mād |) [with object]
1 form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; construct; create: my grandmother made a dress for me | the body is made from four pieces of maple | baseball bats are made of ash.

• (make something into) alter something so that it forms or constitutes (something else): buffalo's milk can be made into cheese.​

• compose, prepare, or draw up (something written or abstract): she made her will.​

• prepare (a dish, drink, or meal) for consumption: she was making lunch for Lucy and Francis | [with two objects] : I'll make us both a cup of tea.​

• arrange bedclothes tidily on (a bed) ready for use: after breakfast you'd have until 8:25 to make your bed.​

• arrange and light materials for (a fire).​

• Electronics complete or close (a circuit).​

2 cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about: the drips had made a pool on the floor.

• [with object and complement or infinitive] cause to become or seem: decorative features make brickwork more interesting | the best way to disarm your critics is to make them laugh.​

• carry out, perform, or produce (a specified action, movement, or sound): anyone can make a mistake | Unger made a speech of forty minutes | we made a deal.​

• communicate or express (an idea, request, or requirement): [with two objects] : make him an offer he can't refuse | I tend to make heavy demands on people.​

• archaic enter into a contract of (marriage): a marriage made in heaven.​

• [with object and complement] appoint or designate (someone) to a position: he was made a colonel in the Mexican army.​

• [with object and complement] represent or cause to appear in a specified way: the sale price and extended warranty make it an excellent value.​

• cause or ensure the success or advancement of: the work which really made Wordsworth's reputation.​

3 [with object and infinitive] compel (someone) to do something: she bought me a brandy and made me drink it.
4 constitute; amount to: they made an unusual duo.

• serve as or become through development or adaptation: this fern makes a good houseplant.​

• consider to be; estimate as: How many are there? I make it sixteen.​

• agree or decide on (a specified arrangement), typically one concerning a time or place: let's make it 7:30.​

5 gain or earn (money or profit): he'd made a lot of money out of hardware.
6 arrive at (a place) within a specified time or in time for (a train or other transport): we've got a lot to do if you're going to make the shuttle | they didn't always make it on time.

• (make it) succeed in something; become successful: he waited confidently for his band to make it.​

• achieve a place in: these dogs seldom make the news | they made it to the semifinals.​

• achieve the rank of: he wasn't going to make captain.​

7 [no object, with adverbial of direction] go or prepare to go in a particular direction: he struggled to his feet and made toward the car.

• [with infinitive] act as if one is about to perform an action: she made as if to leave the room.​

8 North American English informal induce (someone) to have sex with one: he had been trying to make Cynthia for two years now | his alleged quest to make it with the world's most attractive women.
9 (in bridge, whist, and similar games) win (a trick).

• win a trick with (a card).​

• win the number of tricks that fulfills (a contract).​

• shuffle (a pack of cards) for dealing.​

10 [no object] Nautical (of the tide) begin to flow or ebb.

Do you see why I say "make is a hard word to pin down"?

@Abazigal was using "make" as in definition 2 "cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about" and you chose to contest their point based on a different definition of the word, definition 1 "form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; construct". All specific meanings, all valid, so rather than implying someone is wrong it's better to add precision and choose a word that highlights the distinction you intend to, uh..., make. (I'm going to be tripping over that word all day now...)

 

[Analog Kid]

Well, Qualcomm claims 15,300 at up to 80W. M3 Max scores 21,049 and draws about 40W while benched. So, 38% faster at half the power. That’s quite a gap.

Thanks, that's what I was hoping to learn.

 

[derek4484]

Indeed.

Just as big a question is how Microsoft is coming along with Windows on ARM. Their Qualcomm exclusivity deal has already set them back at least five years.

I run Win 11 Pro on Arm in Parallels, I think it’s pretty good. Now that Qualcomm actually has a chip worth a hoot, it should get better…which I think benefits Mac users who run it in Parallels.

Also, I have the M1 Max MBP 16 and I don’t think I’ve ever heard the fans come on. Of course I’m not doing heavy duty video editing stuff for which it’s really designed for. I probably overbought what I really needed. But it will last me for years.

 

[kc9hzn]

Ok, so I'm in agreement with @masotime that you mean "make" in the sense of manufacture. Meanwhile @Abazigal appears to have used "make" in a different way, in the sense of to create or cause to come about.

Words do have specific meanings, but the meanings aren't always specific. I can come home after a run and say "I'm tired". If I'm told to go to bed, my answer would be "I'm not sleepy, I'm fatigued". Tired is general, other words are more specific. Make is general, other words are more specific. It's equally correct to say that you bake the cake and that the heat of the oven bakes the cake.

When a word can be taken different ways, it's a bit disingenuous to disagree with someone based on a definition of the word they didn't intend.

For the sake of example, here are the specific meanings of the verb "make" as taken from the MacOS dictionary:



Do you see why I say "make is hard word to pin down"?

@Abazigal was using "make" as in definition 2 "cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about" and you chose to contest their point based on a different definition of the word, definition 1 "form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; construct". All specific meanings, all valid, so rather than implying someone is wrong it's better to add precision and choose a word that highlights the distinction you intend to, uh..., make. (I'm going to be tripping over that word all day now...)

Make, or its nearest equivalent in any given language, is almost always a slippery word (like the word “do”). Inevitably, it gets used for various idioms, slang expressions, and multiple definitions of the general concept of “cause something to come into existence”. Any language I’ve studied has had an equally slippery word for “make”. (I feel like the French equivalent is even more slippery, it gets used in grammatical expressions that simply can’t be translated into English literally [ie English uses dramatically different grammatical forms, typically verb tenses].)

 

[Abazigal]

I get there are benefits of Apple vertical integration. But at the same time there are cases where it does nothing to improve the customer experience. For example, Apple is miles behind Windows devices in gaming. Intel / Nvidia / AMD do not have the level of integration of Apple devices, and still gamers have a better experience with Windows devices. This could extend for CAD / CAM and 3D apps, where Windows does better because there is better hardware than what we have with Apple today.

Is this a hardware issue, or a market one?

The Nintendo Switch sports a 7-year old processor (which I am pretty sure the M1 chip easily runs rings around), yet there is no shortage of games released for the platform. If Darksiders 3 or Hogwarts Legacy were released for iOS, I am pretty sure those titles can run decently on an M1 Mac or iPad. The main issue is probably that the Switch user base is prepared to pay $60 for a AAA title, so the market is there. On the flip side, the iOS game store is home to tons of games, just that the overwhelming majority tend to be freemium titles, which again, seems to be a consequence of users being conditioned to not paying for apps. A more pricey game may not sell well.

Maybe Apple could be doing more to court game developers, or maybe it's just not that high on their priority list because they are swimming in app revenue from gaming IAPs. To them, a game is a game, whether it's a freemium title like Genshin Impact or a larger title like Doom Eternal?

The Mac could have more powerful processors than what Intel and AMD have to offer, and game developers may not think it's worth their while to release games for the Mac platform because the user base is simply too small. I still feel it's not a matter of specs. Apple Silicon may not be the absolutely most powerful in the market, but it's still pretty powerful, and like you said, there's tons of windows software which runs on less powerful PCs. Meaning the ball is still in the developers' court as to whether they want to port their apps over to macOS, and take the time to properly optimise it for said platform.

The same challenge likely applies for ARM PCs.

 

[Abazigal]

Make, or its nearest equivalent in any given language, is almost always a slippery word (like the word “do”). Inevitably, it gets used for various idioms, slang expressions, and multiple definitions of the general concept of “cause something to come into existence”. Any language I’ve studied has had an equally slippery word for “make”. (I feel like the French equivalent is even more slippery, it gets used in grammatical expressions that simply can’t be translated into English literally [ie English uses dramatically different grammatical forms, typically verb tenses].)

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't being very particular about the definition of "make". For example, when I go to a restaurant to eat, I don't really care whether the chefs grew the vegetables themselves or raised the cows from birth before slaughtering them for beef. What I care is whether they are able to put all these ingredients together in a manner which results in a great tasting dish for me.

Same goes for Apple. I am aware that they do not manufacture many of the components that go into their products, and honestly, that feels like a distinction without a difference. What does it matter whether Apple makes their apple silicon in-house (like what Samsung does for their screens) or outsources it to TSMC so long as it's built to spec and performs as desired?

 

[v3rlon]

What? Theie first try and its VERY significant compared to Apple's 2nd generation and possibly 3rd generation chips and you're making this kind of comment?

Ideally your comment should be simply stating let's wait until the product ships into real windows laptops, then let's see real.woeld benchmarks and performance.

Yet you sound like M.R. post of this thread ....



So BOTH Apple's and Qualcomm's arm chips require active cooling then, because EACH generates more heat, Got It!!

Uh, Qualcomm's first try? That was 2007 or nearly 17 years ago. The first Snapdragon came along the same year as the first iPhone.

So yeah, we're making this comment. Also, they very carefully cherry picked one part of one benchmark (Geekbench > multicore, while having more cores) and didn't provide a lot of relevant information that manufacturers are known to throw out there.

Not all Apply M series chips use active cooling - see the MacBook Air or the iPad, for example.

 

[DanVM]

Every case and every customer, sure. Likewise, Apple shouldn’t try to target every niche market. Though I’ve pointed out indirectly that gaming is typically a vertically oriented market, even more so than Apple. Consoles are nothing if not vertically oriented.

Desktop / console gaming maybe is niche for Apple. But for Tencent, Sony, Nintendo and MS is not niche at all. And consoles are vertical to a some degree. Still, and Xbox or PS5 are not completely designed in the same line as an Apple device, where Apple control the whole process.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I run Win 11 Pro on Arm in Parallels, I think it’s pretty good. Now that Qualcomm actually has a chip worth a hoot, it should get better…which I think benefits Mac users who run it in Parallels.

Also, I have the M1 Max MBP 16 and I don’t think I’ve ever heard the fans come on. Of course I’m not doing heavy duty video editing stuff for which it’s really designed for. I probably overbought what I really needed. But it will last me for years.

I do too but that’s a little bit of a special case. Let’s see how it works on native hardware running natively supposed to be able to do everything Windows does. From printing to virtualization. I don’t think it’s as finished as it seems when running it in Parallels. Parallels is running a specially modified build.

 

[DanVM]

Is this a hardware issue, or a market one?

The Nintendo Switch sports a 7-year old processor (which I am pretty sure the M1 chip easily runs rings around), yet there is no shortage of games released for the platform. If Darksiders 3 or Hogwarts Legacy were released for iOS, I am pretty sure those titles can run decently on an M1 Mac or iPad. The main issue is probably that the Switch user base is prepared to pay $60 for a AAA title, so the market is there. On the flip side, the iOS game store is home to tons of games, just that the overwhelming majority tend to be freemium titles, which again, seems to be a consequence of users being conditioned to not paying for apps. A more pricey game may not sell well.

Maybe Apple could be doing more to court game developers, or maybe it's just not that high on their priority list because they are swimming in app revenue from gaming IAPs. To them, a game is a game, whether it's a freemium title like Genshin Impact or a larger title like Doom Eternal?

The Mac could have more powerful processors than what Intel and AMD have to offer, and game developers may not think it's worth their while to release games for the Mac platform because the user base is simply too small. I still feel it's not a matter of specs. Apple Silicon may not be the absolutely most powerful in the market, but it's still pretty powerful, and like you said, there's tons of windows software which runs on less powerful PCs. Meaning the ball is still in the developers' court as to whether they want to port their apps over to macOS, and take the time to properly optimise it for said platform.

The same challenge likely applies for ARM PCs.

Considering I was talking about PC's, it could be both, hardware and market wise. One of the benefits of Apple SoC is efficiency, and mid to high end gaming do not care about efficiency. They just care about performance and quality of graphics. And at the moment, Apple doesn't have something similar to Nvidia RTX 40 or Radeon RX7800.

In the case of the Nintendo Switch, people go to their platform to play their exclusive games, not 3rd party games because of the poor performance. And at the momento, does not have a GPU as fast as the Nvidia RTX 40 or Radeon RX 7000 series. You also have to consider other limitations, like no option to replacer or upgrade your device. So it goes to my point, there are cases where Apple vertical integration does not offer benefits to a group of customers, in this case, gamers, and this could extend to users that work with CAD / CAM and 3D applications.

 

[Abazigal]

Considering I was talking about PC's, it could be both, hardware and market wise. One of the benefits of Apple SoC is efficiency, and mid to high end gaming do not care about efficiency. They just care about performance and quality of graphics. And at the moment, Apple doesn't have something similar to Nvidia RTX 40 or Radeon RX7800.

In the case of the Nintendo Switch, people go to their platform to play their exclusive games, not 3rd party games because of the poor performance. And at the momento, does not have a GPU as fast as the Nvidia RTX 40 or Radeon RX 7000 series. You also have to consider other limitations, like no option to replacer or upgrade your device. So it goes to my point, there are cases where Apple vertical integration does not offer benefits to a group of customers, in this case, gamers, and this could extend to users that work with CAD / CAM and 3D applications.

I guess you are right. Apple's focus on power efficiency and thin form factors is often at odds with what you would require of a gaming machine. For example, the 27" iMac has a gorgeous display, but rather anaemic graphics cards (probably because the form factor would throttle quickly anyways). Desktop Macs are also pretty pricey and you can't upgrade the internals.

What then does this mean for devices like the steam deck? It has 16gb ram and integrated graphics that likely can't be upgraded. Yet it's marketed as a serious gaming machine that can output to 4k when necessary. Clearly not every game requires the full power of a RTX40 or RX7800 to properly run, otherwise game devs would have a dramatically smaller market to sell to.

 

[akbarali.ch]

There is no M3 air, yet, but I won't buy a laptop with a fan ever again. I waited 25 years for a fanless computer.

Good luck with that at 80w, Qualcomm.

I hope they release a fanless pro version with a large soaking heatsink. I used open mbpro 2013 every 3 months to blow clean the dirt to stop throtling.

 

[svish]

Competition is good. But not fair to compare with M3. Maybe a better comparison would be with M3 Pro/M3 Max

 

[Confused-User]

LOL @ Qualcomm.
[...]
In an apples to apples comparison, it’s not even a contest. It’s a joke. And this is apples ON THE MARKET tech. The Qualcomm lameness isn’t even out. When it is, M4 variants will be available and will be the actual competition, further dusting the horrendously underwhelming Qualcomm effort.

You're basically repeating what I said, but with a bit more certainty than is warranted. The M4 may be out shortly after the Oryon, *if* Apple goes with a 1-year cadence. I hope they do, and if I had to bet I would bet that they will. But it's far from a sure thing. The Oryon will be out before the M4 though unless QC screws up *really* hard. That's extremely unlikely at this point, given that they're already showing working chips.

Also, as I said, your claim (and mine) is valid from an engineering standpoint, but if QC decides to sell this chip at a price point low enough that Windows laptop vendors can sell Oryon laptops at a price competitive with a MacBook Air, then their comparison has some justification. It *still* won't be able to compete on battery life for heavy-duty users, but it might well compete just fine for light work (email, most browsing, typical office apps, etc.).

On a pure engineering level, of course, their claims stink like the giant pile of bullsh*t they are.

It is a gap.
But a gap that’s quickly drawing thinner and thinner. And it was done pretty fast.

No, it's not, and it wasn't. It's massively delayed, and it doesn't close the gap that much. The last 20% of the gap probably takes longer than the first 80%, and they're not even there yet.

 

[MayaUser]

Not even with M3 will be in the same boat in world applications
On gpu side for sure will not compete with base M3 (let alone M3 pro/max)
People should wait for this to be in real consumer products first and you will see how those graphs are not even close

 

[NetMage]

AV1 encoding ... which Apple doesn't have.

Really? Just one example of how wrong you are:

All three chips in the M3 family also have an advanced media engine, providing hardware acceleration to the most popular video codecs, including H.264, HEVC, ProRes, and ProRes RAW. And for the first time, the media engine supports AV1 decoding, enabling power-efficient playback of streaming services to further extend battery life.

 

[NetMage]

I'm confused where the ISA comes into play. The question was whether a different ARM SoC could boot macOS, and yes, barring some cryptographic mechanism on Apple's part that prevents boot from non-Apple chips, a shim to emulate their device tree is ultimately all it takes.

It comes into play because macOS is compiled to take advantage of the custom instructions and modes Apple has added to Apple Silicon and will not boot or run on a standard ARM core or understand Qualcomm's custom instructions. This isn't the x64 world.