3 ms·

It also fails to mention that the new laptops are 1/2 the price of the desktops and have at least 2x the battery life of the desktops as well. They need to upd

It also fails to mention that the new laptops are 1/2 the price of the desktops and have at least 2x the battery life of the desktops as well. They need to update the benchmarks to show the performance when they're unplugged from the wall.

lhl 6y ago
Did we read the same article? It seems to explicitly mention that: "These units only cost around $1,500 as configured, however, so the fact that they are half the performance shouldn't be unexpected since they are also half the cost. What will be very interesting to see is how performance will shake out as Adobe improves support for native Apple Silicon and when (or if) Apple launches a higher-end laptop - or even better, a more powerful desktop variant than the Mac Mini."
- databyte 6y ago
  And they follow up with: "Another way to look at it is that these new MacBooks (and presumably the Mac Mini) are roughly equivalent to a desktop that is around 4-5 years old. So if you have a PC from 2015 or 2016, be aware that these MacBooks likely won't be any faster." Lots of hand waving at the end. Did this fictional PC also cost $4k 4-5 years ago? I'm a fan of both PCs and Macs. Just way too much marketing and not enough substance here. Someone wanted their SEO juice from a blog article and they got it. And you're right, it's not even native binaries. They really should've showed how fast image processing in Photoshop on the iPad was compared to Wintel. It's just all marketing BS.
aspyct 6y ago
Actually they do clarify that they are not comparing similarly priced systems. But yes, that could have been made more obvious. Also they compare the apple silicon performances to older systems as well, to have a better comparison point. But again, they could have made a (much) better job of displaying the data. And still, indeed, Rosettta2 is in the way, so that's no real result here.
- databyte 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm joking. It's just not even close to an apples-to-oranges comparison. Not only is it Rosetta2 but it's also Mac vs Windows binaries. They couldn't add in another variable to make it more different if they tried. But if you were to build/buy a "AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X", I would check their numbers on geekbench.com. It seems like there's a lot of builds with the same specs and better numbers than even this. For the amount of money they're asking of a desktop, I'll check these numbers elsewhere.

lhl 6y ago

Did we read the same article? It seems to explicitly mention that: "These units only cost around $1,500 as configured, however, so the fact that they are half the performance shouldn't be unexpected since they are also half the cost. What will be very interesting to see is how performance will shake out as Adobe improves support for native Apple Silicon and when (or if) Apple launches a higher-end laptop - or even better, a more powerful desktop variant than the Mac Mini."

databyte 6y ago
And they follow up with: "Another way to look at it is that these new MacBooks (and presumably the Mac Mini) are roughly equivalent to a desktop that is around 4-5 years old. So if you have a PC from 2015 or 2016, be aware that these MacBooks likely won't be any faster." Lots of hand waving at the end. Did this fictional PC also cost $4k 4-5 years ago? I'm a fan of both PCs and Macs. Just way too much marketing and not enough substance here. Someone wanted their SEO juice from a blog article and they got it. And you're right, it's not even native binaries. They really should've showed how fast image processing in Photoshop on the iPad was compared to Wintel. It's just all marketing BS.

aspyct 6y ago

Actually they do clarify that they are not comparing similarly priced systems. But yes, that could have been made more obvious. Also they compare the apple silicon performances to older systems as well, to have a better comparison point. But again, they could have made a (much) better job of displaying the data. And still, indeed, Rosettta2 is in the way, so that's no real result here.

databyte 6y ago
Yeah, I'm joking. It's just not even close to an apples-to-oranges comparison. Not only is it Rosetta2 but it's also Mac vs Windows binaries. They couldn't add in another variable to make it more different if they tried. But if you were to build/buy a "AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X", I would check their numbers on geekbench.com. It seems like there's a lot of builds with the same specs and better numbers than even this. For the amount of money they're asking of a desktop, I'll check these numbers elsewhere.