5 ms·
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
by 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 agoAnd 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.