Thanks
I searched and saw that MKbhd tested the max and got , indeed .2060
Yeah max is clocked higher ! I wonder if that’s the case for the 14inch max as well
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.
Qualcomm Snapdragon is reaching parity with Apple Silicon
- Thread starter Retskrad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I searched and saw that MKbhd tested the max and got , indeed .2060
Yeah max is clocked higher ! I wonder if that’s the case for the 14inch max as well
The bottom line is, "can they steal money from Apple's phone and desktops?"
And they absolutely can. Imagine Cheap Joe saying he won't pay for a desktop and all he needs is his phone for editing Word files. 20 years ago, him trying to do that would be impossible? Today, depending on the scenario, phones today are so powerful Cheap Joe might as well be able to get away with it.
By the way: if you have an Android phone device, you actually CAN run Windows 11 natively:
It will probably be torture for running games. But for light desktop usage? Office? Definitely viable!
Last edited:
It looks like it is the same 3.49 GHz as the other M2 models. It looks like only the 16" M2 Max got a boost. But the fact that Apple is willing to boost clocks on the M2 is encouraging for upcoming desktop Macs.
Who is “competing” for Cheap Joes razor thin margins? No one. How is that a factor in this discussion?
I’m a firm believer that a 7th gen i5 is enough “oomph” for 95% of people out there. We passed the “can it run a browser while I stream a video and email” bar years ago. Now it comes down to who has a fluid experience for users.
Any credible competition is welcome in any industry or else you will have the situation where in Intel having a monopoly over all existing PC OEM customers stagnating on 14nm node from year 2014-2020.
Intel having a monopoly started in 2006 but the impact of that monopoly manifests the negative aspects of this business environment with its 14nm chips.
Over that period Intel provided a litany of tech excuses why they got stuck there while competing fabs were able to go to
- 10nm in 2016
- 7nm in 2018
- 5nm in 2020
- 4nm in Sep 2022 with iPhone 14 Pro chip
- 3nm in Dec 2022
And by Dec 2024 or later a 2nm chip
Only in 2021, after Apple reelased the M1 in November 2020, where in Intel finally released a 10nm product when Apple had 5nm chips and AMD had 7nm chips.
Intel having a monopoly started in 2006 but the impact of that monopoly manifests the negative aspects of this business environment with its 14nm chips.
Over that period Intel provided a litany of tech excuses why they got stuck there while competing fabs were able to go to
- 10nm in 2016
- 7nm in 2018
- 5nm in 2020
- 4nm in Sep 2022 with iPhone 14 Pro chip
- 3nm in Dec 2022
And by Dec 2024 or later a 2nm chip
Only in 2021, after Apple reelased the M1 in November 2020, where in Intel finally released a 10nm product when Apple had 5nm chips and AMD had 7nm chips.
Last edited:
I replace my $1,099 iPhone Pro Max every 2 years.
If Apple were to allow macOS to run on it via desktop dock with Mac mini M2-quantity I/O ports to an external 5K display and keyboard/mouse then I'd be inclined to buy the top end $1,599 iPhone Pro Max 1TB SKU.
Last edited:
Aw, thanks!
I don't run everything with just my phone.
But handheld PC are the future, definitely!
With a dock, it would definitely be possible TODAY. Maybe add a GPU on the dock or monitor for extra acceleration, and voilá.
But let's not cannibalize poor iMac's sales!
I think iPhone chips are plenty powerful as is so long as you're the market that buy base model M2 Macs without improvements.
That's why I think a $699 Macbook 12" and $299-399 Mac nano both with a 3nm iPhone chip next year would suck in a lot of mainstream PC users who can only afford that price points.
Last edited:
Zen 4 and Raptor Lake are very impressive. Apple has to compromise for its desktop SoCs as they are laptop chips. Even the M1 Ultra is essentially two laptop SoCs stuck together. Whether people like it or not, AMD and Intel can ramp up power for huge performance. Apple will always be battling against that.
GB5 is a comparatively short test. x86 devices run it at "turbo" – about 50% higher clock than M-series processors. Apple is very conservative with clocks, not having any N5 process SoCs clocked over 3.7GHz, while Zen and Lake processors have clocks that briefly go over 5GHz. IOW, Apple's processors are getting GB5 scores in about the same neighborhood as x86 processors at 67% of clock speed, which is a speed that the processor can maintain for long periods of time. On N3 they might, start to wander into 4GHz+ territory, but only if it reflects sustainable performance.
So... a phone being almost as fast as your Laptop is not competitive CPU Performance wise?
Yeah, but Android runs on it and that thing is still a resource inefficient mess. Plus all the garbage bloatware that gets installed by Telcos, handset makers, etc.
An iPhone 11 Pro Max with 3GB of RAM would outperform in real world this new QC chip. Those scores are peak capability.
That's like saying a Chevy Silverado and a Chevy Camaro have the same horsepower and then scratching your head when the truck can't hit 0-60 in 4 seconds and the Camaro can't tow a boat.
Qualcomm has always had better spec chips than A-Series. This isn't new.
Bertrand Serlet and Jon Rubinstein proved this with the PowerPC transition to RISC architecture needing less RAM and lower clock speeds to accomplish the same tasks in the same time as a RAM hogging CISC x86 chip.
Qualcomm chips have Android running on it, and everyone including MKBHD has exhausted the topic of how Android just can't be optimized like iOS is, because everybody and their mother wants to make a cheap, bloated Android phone.
It's the same problem Windows OEMs have had for years in the competitive PC/Laptop market. Sure, they could have better specs than their competition, but it still has to run Windows.
All this sounds like to me is spec wanking, like game console fanboys. The PS3 on paper made the 360 look like a child's toy, but it was a complete PITA to develop for and the PS3 was outsold for the first half of that generation until Microsoft got distracted by the Kinect gimmick. PS3 eventually outsold the 360, but not by much, because Sony was focused more on what YOU CAN DO rather than what YOU COULD DO.
No customer on the planet is going to buy a computer because of its single core score. They're buying what they need to accomplish a task or lifestyle. You don't buy AMD Ryzen because of TFLOPS. You buy it to build a gaming machine. You're not buying an Android phone to run an abstract dick measuring contest. The score is nothing more than basic marketing, which most consumers see right through and ask "Where's the Beef?"
Can it run email, a few fun games, let me browse the web, watch a Youtube video, check my bank accounts, connect to my work, pay bills, shop, keep up with friends and family?
Not a single app for a smartphone can I think of that needs 16GB of RAM and high usage of powerful cores other than a video game, and I have better devices (PC, PS, Xbox) to game on anyways.
You're not gonna use 16GB of RAM and high processor usage for Youtube.
And also, Apple is luring Qualcomm into the same ******** the USA lured the USSR into during the 1970s with the rocket race. We knew our older rockets worked just as fine as the newer ones. The newer ones were more expensive to produce. As soon as the Soviets started spending tons of money on their weapons program, they began to bankrupt themselves. So, we abandoned our new missiles when they became too expensive. The Soviets thought if they just kept continuing they'd get a leg up on us. Instead of wasting money on rockets, the USA put it into Submarines, Interceptors, and Aircraft Carriers, a better projection of military power anyways.
So, Qualcomm will spend all of their R&D trying to outdo Apple on the mobile phone with ridiculous RAM sizes and speed capability that nothing on the device could even possibly take advantage of. They'll essentially build a V-12 Hemi Turbocharge for a bicycle.
An iPhone 11 Pro Max with 3GB of RAM would outperform in real world this new QC chip. Those scores are peak capability.
That's like saying a Chevy Silverado and a Chevy Camaro have the same horsepower and then scratching your head when the truck can't hit 0-60 in 4 seconds and the Camaro can't tow a boat.
Qualcomm has always had better spec chips than A-Series. This isn't new.
Bertrand Serlet and Jon Rubinstein proved this with the PowerPC transition to RISC architecture needing less RAM and lower clock speeds to accomplish the same tasks in the same time as a RAM hogging CISC x86 chip.
Qualcomm chips have Android running on it, and everyone including MKBHD has exhausted the topic of how Android just can't be optimized like iOS is, because everybody and their mother wants to make a cheap, bloated Android phone.
It's the same problem Windows OEMs have had for years in the competitive PC/Laptop market. Sure, they could have better specs than their competition, but it still has to run Windows.
All this sounds like to me is spec wanking, like game console fanboys. The PS3 on paper made the 360 look like a child's toy, but it was a complete PITA to develop for and the PS3 was outsold for the first half of that generation until Microsoft got distracted by the Kinect gimmick. PS3 eventually outsold the 360, but not by much, because Sony was focused more on what YOU CAN DO rather than what YOU COULD DO.
No customer on the planet is going to buy a computer because of its single core score. They're buying what they need to accomplish a task or lifestyle. You don't buy AMD Ryzen because of TFLOPS. You buy it to build a gaming machine. You're not buying an Android phone to run an abstract dick measuring contest. The score is nothing more than basic marketing, which most consumers see right through and ask "Where's the Beef?"
Can it run email, a few fun games, let me browse the web, watch a Youtube video, check my bank accounts, connect to my work, pay bills, shop, keep up with friends and family?
Not a single app for a smartphone can I think of that needs 16GB of RAM and high usage of powerful cores other than a video game, and I have better devices (PC, PS, Xbox) to game on anyways.
You're not gonna use 16GB of RAM and high processor usage for Youtube.
And also, Apple is luring Qualcomm into the same ******** the USA lured the USSR into during the 1970s with the rocket race. We knew our older rockets worked just as fine as the newer ones. The newer ones were more expensive to produce. As soon as the Soviets started spending tons of money on their weapons program, they began to bankrupt themselves. So, we abandoned our new missiles when they became too expensive. The Soviets thought if they just kept continuing they'd get a leg up on us. Instead of wasting money on rockets, the USA put it into Submarines, Interceptors, and Aircraft Carriers, a better projection of military power anyways.
So, Qualcomm will spend all of their R&D trying to outdo Apple on the mobile phone with ridiculous RAM sizes and speed capability that nothing on the device could even possibly take advantage of. They'll essentially build a V-12 Hemi Turbocharge for a bicycle.
Last edited:
A single company *NOT* resting on their laurels is good. Let them compete. Personally I’m excited for this new performance war between AMD, Apple, Intel and Qualcomm. Watching it unfold as if it was a basketball match is quite entertaining, to be honest.
edit: grammar
edit: grammar
Competition keeps Apple & AMD honest. Without it they'll turn into another Intel & .... whichever Android brand
Yup. Everyone’s latest offerings look promising at reasonable power envelopes these days (with Intel still being somewhat behind imo) but Qualcomm has genuinely piqued my interest.
Just hoping no one has a 14nm++++++ Skylake moment I guess. Saying this because of the “Apple resting their laurels” thing, which I happen to agree with
Tim Apple knows that if Android ever has metrics that surpasses any currently sold iPhone will slowly ween users away.
That's the reason why they left. They could not key differntiator industrial designs because Intel chips ran too hot, too slow and too much power consumption.
Apple was very clever by leveraging their access to the most advanced die shrink onto Mac chips.
If I knew Apple used the same node as the current iPhone I would not have bought any 14nm Intel chip after 2015.
Just checked and it seems like only the 16 inch can do 3.7 GHz whereas the 14 inch Max tops off at ~3.45 GHz
Honestly I’m kinda thankful for Skylake’s bad QA, etc. It was just the right catalyst for Apple to switch to in house SoCs across the board and the reason we got the Mac Studio and now a Mac mini with M2 Pro, which they didn’t have to re/design around a certain chip as they were already working with an extremely competitive power envelope from the beginning.
The unfortunate problem here are the moving targets.
Office software was more or less feature complete 30+ years ago. But just like the web, software is becoming increasingly more bloated and more resource intensive. A computer that used to do it all, now struggles with any individual task.
The rapid increases in processor capabilities have supported this wasteful software progression. And we're now caught in a loop, where each one pushes the other.
The amount that a cheap phone of today's hardware could do, with 20 year old software (or that design mentality), would be absolutely mind boggling.
And that’s where this all comes in. The Qualcomm architecture seems to be a perfect fit for a computer OS. If you just add some performance cores and maybe another 16Gb of Ram, you have a winner.
The idea that any Browser should even be able to use 1+GB if RAM still makes me mad.The unfortunate problem here are the moving targets.
Office software was more or less feature complete 30+ years ago. But just like the web, software is becoming increasingly more bloated and more resource intensive. A computer that used to do it all, now struggles with any individual task.
The rapid increases in processor capabilities have supported this wasteful software progression. And we're now caught in a loop, where each one pushes the other.
The amount that a cheap phone of today's hardware could do, with 20 year old software (or that design mentality), would be absolutely mind boggling.
I get it if you’re an “ocean of tabs” user, but having 3 tabs open should not capable of using more RAM than the entire Windows XP OS fits within.
Waste on the web is absolutely infuriating to me.
What do you mean, "seems"?
You already CAN run Windows ARM under a Qualcomm processor. It's a reality NOW.
All it takes is your smartphone allowing it.
I mean the way it's been designed. Seems designed more for a Pc/Laptop that simple Smartphone. But probably yeah, it was probably design in such a way as to let your phone replace your Pc/Laptop.