30 ms·
One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1. It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computer
by klelatti 6y ago
One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1.
It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computers means that there can be a consistent message that "M1 is great - get a new Mac and get an M1".
It also provides an opportunity to distinguish between M1 and the next generation M2 (presumably).
I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years with only the obscure (to the general public) suffix changing from generation to generation.
- the_duke 6y agoYeah the marketing effort is immense, and it's really surprising to me how many eagerly lap up the angle Apple is pushing without much reflection, even on HN. Like the good old Apple hype days. Now to be fair, the M1 is an impressive iteration on the A* chip line. But the Ryzen 5000 mobile chips really don't look bad at all in comparison, and a 5nm version of those would level the field.
- emteycz 6y agoBut there isn't a 5nm version of those... And laptop battery life is vastly different between these two.
- the_duke 6y agoCan you link a good test result that proves this? The 7nm Ryzen 5000 mobile chips are not very power hungry either.
- HatchedLake721 6y agohttps://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
- the_duke 6y agoThis doesn't contain any comparison graphs relevant to my question, and couldn't, because it's from November. The Ryzen 5000 mobile chips came out this year.
- ianai 6y agoHere’s the AMD benchmark and it’s using up to 3x the power of the M1. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16446/amd-ryzen-9-5980hs-cezanne-review-ryzen-5000-mobile-tested/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16446/amd-ryzen-9-5980hs-ceza...
- bildung 6y agoIsn't it 35W for the 5980hs vs. 26.8W for the M1, so up to 1.3x? https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
- CoolGuySteve 6y agoThat’s not the right part, the 5800U is the low power Ryzen competitor.
- ianai 6y agoI don't see any reviews for laptops with that CPU. It's hard to compare against something no one can test.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoThen why did you compare them?
- truculent 6y agoIs this relevant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5bAMoQt7EQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5bAMoQt7EQ
- oblio 6y agoThe difference isn't that big: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKN9nvXTGHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKN9nvXTGHE And for 5nm, I'm quite sure AMD already has contracts for that with TSMC. So the gap should be even smaller.
- foldr 6y agoIt has less battery life and less performance (judging by Cinebench, at least), so it is a fairly substantial difference. And it's quite possible that Apple will remain one TSMC process ahead of AMD for the next few years, even if AMD do put out 5nm chips in the near future.
- ianai 6y agoHis “as tested” was 11 hours for AMD and 13 for M1. His “max time use” for AMD was 14.5 and 20 for M1. That’s a 38% greater time for the M1 in a best possible outcome and 18% on “average”. Substantial differences that users would perceive noticeably.
- afavour 6y agoI’m not so sure. I think it reaches a meaningful maximum. Can I do an entire days work on the laptop? Yes to both. Can it last an entire flight, even a long one? Yes to both. It’s not that it doesn’t matter at all, it’s just that it matters a lot less once you’ve checked boxes like that. The effective experience of both would be “you only need to charge it overnight”
- oblio 6y agoI don't know why you're being downvoted. A 5nm version of the AMD stuff should be reasonably close to the M1. The main bottleneck is the production capacity, we badly need more manufacturers of high end chipsets.
- thehnguy 6y agoI think the issue with the comment is that it comes off as biased or distracting (regardless of the intent). The conversation is about Apple Silicon vs Intel, and then it veers off topic with discussion of Ryzen. Also, saying that people are "lapping up" the Apple marketing suggests that it's more sizzle than steak. But it's completely undeniable that the A chips, and by extension, the M1 is a beast.
- Grustaf 6y agoSo a future hypothetical AMD processor could be as good as the M1, and that shows how M1 is just marketing hype?
- afavour 6y agoI think the OP is saying that it could be a mistake to focus on the processor so much when it might turn out that worthy competition is just around the corner. Apple have ever focused on processor like this before, instead opting to focus on the whole product, fit and finish, etc. Which arguably still very few rival them on even today.
- jclardy 6y agoBut by the time "just around the corner" happens, we will be comparing it to the M2.
- theshrike79 6y agoYes competitors may have worthy opponents to the M1 "just around the corner". But do you think that Apple stopped innovating after releasing the M1 last year? Don't you think the M2 (or M1X whatever it's called) is well into design and prototyping at this point?
- igammarays 6y agoApple Silicon is NOT just an ARM CPU. It's also a deep integration with macOS, and a unified memory architecture (less unnecessary copying on the bus). For example on the M1, certain very common operations for macOS apps, like freeing Objective C pointers, which happens millions of time per second, are optimized at the hardware level. The M1 is not a CPU. So no, the Ryzen 5000 with 5nm would NOT level the field.
- slver 6y agoHow are objective c pointers handled?
- skohan 6y agoFrom what I understood, ARC operations are cheaper on M1 because of weaker memory ordering constraints. But I thought this was and ARM thing, not M1 specific, but I could be wrong
- astrange 6y agoThat's right. M1 doesn't have specific Objective-C optimizations.
- slver 6y agoAn interesting realization that it could, though. Overwhelming majority of MacOS/iOS software is written on Obj C and Swift, which have the same underlying semantics. That said ARC doesn't have such a great impact on performance as some people (esp. fans of Java's GC etc.) would convince you. Most ++/-- operations on the refcount are eliminated by the compiler.
- skohan 6y agoThe worst case performance is very bad though. I have done some playing around with pushing Swift in terms of performance, and it's very hard because of ARC.
- skohan 6y agoWhich Ryzen laptop currently competes with the latest macbooks in terms of form factor, performance, battery life and build quality? I'm honestly asking, I've been thinking about getting a Linux laptop in a while and I would be curious to see what the playing field is like
- BadOakOx 6y agoDave2D just reviewed the new surface laptop comparing it to the new MacBook Air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKN9nvXTGHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKN9nvXTGHE ...and he got pretty good battery life (11 hours on his own benchmark). edit: form factor, performance, build quality.. is also up there, I just didn't mention it, because I think the battery life is the killer feature of the M1.
- reader_mode 6y agoMicrosoft is almost always a generation behind with tech in surface products it's ridiculous because they look so appealing otherwise. I just feel like I'm buying last years model on launch.
- hhh 6y agoI haven’t really felt this way with the Surface Book. The first gen was rough, but I’ve been using an SB3 for several months now and have nothing but praise for it.
- yoz-y 6y agoThat is really a problem only if you watch tech news. In reality people use computers for years, so having a 4 or 5 year old tech doesn't really matter that much.
- zepto 6y agoIt means the usable life is shorter, so even if it’s fine for a while, you need to think of it as a much more expensive device per useful year.
- akmarinov 6y agoBy the time there’s a 5nm version of Ryzen, there’ll be a 4nm M2. AMD’s 5nm shift is scheduled for 2022 iPhone 13 (2021) rumors indicate a 4nm SoC
- ghaff 6y agoNode sizes are pretty meaningless at this point.
- phkahler 6y agoI've been trying to get to the bottom of this here: https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/972 https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/972 With my 2400G the benchmark takes 5.5 seconds. With someones M1 it takes 1.3 seconds. We still need to verify that was run at the same settings, but it looks like the M1 is going to be faster than the 5000 series APUs regardless, possibly by a large margin and I'm assuming the 5000s are between 1.4x and 2.0x the speed of the older 2400G. It will still be interesting to see AMD on a 5nm process, and Zen 4, and with 8 core, but by then Apple will probably have an M2 on the 3nm process. You gotta compare what can be obtained today.
- Macha 6y agoThe 2400G is a relatively low end part that is four generations old. In the past AMD did not release high end desktop APUs, preferring customers to buy CPUs + GPUs. This is already announced to change with a 5700G being produced. https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g - On paper this is a 5800H in a desktop form factor with a higher max TDP and higher clock speeds. The 5800H gets 2.5x on cpu benchmark's rating vs the 2400G. This is composed of a 50% single core and 300% multi-core improvement. 2400G: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+2400G&id=3183 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+2400G&i... 5800H: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+2400G&id=3183 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+2400G&i...
- phkahler 6y ago>> The 5800H gets 2.5x on cpu benchmark's rating vs the 2400G. That's in large part because its 8 cores instead of 4. The test I ran makes good use of multicore, but going from 4 to 8 won't cut the time completely in half. I suspect the M1 will still beat it by a bit. I take back my comment on availability. We ideally need to compare things on the same process node to see which design team has done a better job ;-)
- Macha 6y agoThe M1 is also 8 cores and benefiting from that.
- baybal2 6y ago> But the Ryzen 5000 mobile chips really don't look bad at all in comparison, and a 5nm version of those would level the field. Not look too bad best to say. Even if we add a one node advantage, we still have a ~15 watt chip making 20W-30W chips sweat. If you downclock Zen 3 to match 15W TDP, you may well get M1 beating it by double digit margin. M1 is simply a way more efficient chip than any X86 chip can be because of 40 years of architectural advantage. - latest x86 chips have patently gigantic decoders metastasising into backend. They are very tightly coupled to pretty much every other piece of logic. - x86 memory model, and blockage behaviour costing huge transistor count to work around - better SMP efficiency because of laxer memory model, and SMP logic being deeper integrated into cores, rather than being an afterthought - generally better register utilisation, at lower transistor count, and the upstream software ecosystem historically having better understanding how to work with large register count - X86 cores prefetch from both main memory, and in between caches is more expensive, and less efficient because it has to rely on more complex logic, and do more guesswork than in ARM. The list can go on for a few more screens. Remember. Even if M1 is a SoC, it still manages to beat Ryzen which barely have much besides cores, memory controller, PCIE, and USB. If you give a 1 node handycap to Ryzen, and only compare cores, you will still get M1 having almost 3 to 4 times advantage at performance per square mm. It's really sad to see X86 development digging itself into a ditch with "40 years binary compatibility at any cost." With all regards to Su Lisa, I believe they very much understand all that, but nevertheless still signed under the idea that X86 market will never go anywhere. I believe it's trivial for both AMD, and Intel to easily slash X86 transistor counts, while increasing the performance by double digits if they can go in err of the X86 ISA convention on just the few most egregious anachronisms.
- canadianfella 6y ago> Not look too bad best to say. What does this mean?
- watersb 6y agoThis sounds like a Chinese proverb; there's a whole tradition of pithy groupings of four words. "Didn't look, too bad" might be a mode of "buyer beware" -- if you are not careful at the market, nyou might come home with trash.
- jbverschoor 6y agoNo reflection? The iPad Pro running the Axxx soc was already insanely powerful. x86 is a monster with this huge legacy. Sounds to me more like the usual anti-apple speak.. The whole article is about not having to choose between performance and powerusage. With "5000", which 5000 do you mean? A 100W cpu of about the full cost of a macmini? This is the whole point of the article. Apple made a monster move. Next up: Apple Cloud. M1 based cloud computing. Will save them a couple billion per year on aws which expires in '22 or '23 iirc.
- bredren 6y agoI had wondered what their first Apple Silicon powered data center would be. I thought the company would wait and deploy a later gen chip. Though with the standardization of M1 across such a wide array of products makes me think it is going to be the M1.
- thehnguy 6y agoI was bit surprised to see M1 in the iMacs. I thought the M1 was going to be a very capable proof of concept. But now we've got it in iMacs, iPads, and Macbooks. So I wouldn't be shocked if they spread it far and wide.
- bredren 6y agoYa, part of the reason I presumed there would be at least one rev was because there have been reports of system hangs and restarts on some M1 machines. So I had thought there may be something learned in the mass deployment that would trigger even minor design changes. Perhaps those are software issues. Or maybe the M1 as a product name should not be taken literally to describe the SoC in the current lineup. We know the Secure Enclave component appears to have been updated mid-production this past fall for a host of A-series chips. Perhaps, if light changes were needed Apple would not see them a sufficient to designate a new moniker. Or perhaps they are but the iMac and (theoretical) apple silicon-based data centers are intending to build consumer confidence in this bold foray. https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/12/apple-security-a12-and-s5-processors/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/12/apple-security-a12-and-s5-pro...
- zitterbewegung 6y agoWith the M1 in the latest iPad Pros I’m not even sure if Apple will keep the Ax line but instead to upgrade their low to high end with just Mx series processors .
- kergonath 6y agoIsn’t the M1 a bit big to put in a phone? Presumably, both Mx and Ax SoCs are already very similar so the distinction could be mostly marketing. But they’ll probably want to have different names for the lower-power, fewer-cores phone SoC and the things they put in their Macs. If only to avoid the perception that Macs run on “low-performance” phone parts.
- zitterbewegung 6y agoWhat if Apple didn't care about the size and just put in an M SoC? iPhones have been getting thicker and it seems like their design language is going to have devices under certain thicknesses. Option two would just be to make an A15 be only a die shrink and surprise ! It fits.
- api 6y agoI didn’t buy the hype until I tested an actual M1. It exceeded the hype. It feels like when I was a kid and went from a 386SX to a Pentium at 4X the speed, except the M1 was also a quarter the power consumption. It’s the first time in a over a decade I’ve felt a revolutionary step forward in a chip and the only time it has ever come with less power. Process node is a factor but I find it hard to believe it’s the only factor. I know enough about the X86 legacy tax to know that is not the case. Apple didn’t do black magic. They just took a cleaner superior CPU architecture and made a desktop class muscular chip with it. Other ARM manufacturers could equal or exceed the M1 if they wanted. X86 has been delivered a death sentence. IMHO the greatest threat to AMD is ARM not Intel, and vice versa.
- ben7799 6y agoExcellent analogy, I'm old enough to remember those old generational jumps and the M1 feels like that to me. Last time it felt like there was a jump this big was around 2005-2006 when the Core 2 Duo started becoming common.
- onli 6y agoFrom what did you upgrade? Apple had no competitive product with modern processors. Where is the Zen3 macbook with which you compared that? Did the laptop you compared with had an equivalent fast SSD?
- klelatti 6y agoGiven Apple had/has competitive products with 2020/21 Intel CPUs this is patently not true.
- onli 6y agoHm, I'm surprised by that statement. The Ryzen 5000 mobile CPUs were a lot faster than the Intel competition and I am pretty sure Apple does not have them in any laptop. And the very fast SSD is a new addition, isn't it? Did I miss something?
- webmobdev 6y agoLet's look beyond the hype: - With M1, Apple has finally closed the loop and created a fully closed system that it has control over vs an x86-64 platform that is more open and gives us users more choice and control. - All new devices with M1 SoC score very poorly on repairability and upgradebility vs the x86-64 platform that still allows you to repair / upgrade RAM, memory, CPU's and other parts in an affordable manner. - And because of the above two, all M1 devices with low ram and storage, have planned obsolescence of 3-5 years built-in, along with a kill switch to totally disable the device. Apple has a found a great fit for their business model with the ARM SoCs. Even when (not if, when) AMD and Intel bring out better processors, Apple will stick with their ARM SoCs because todays computing power has far outpaced the demand made by the common softwares used by all. And Apple can cater to the common denominators with their own OS + CPU + 8GB + 256 GB NvME quite well for maybe another decade. I am happy there is some good tech development and competition in computer systems. But my Intel Mac Mini will be the last mac I will buy from Apple. macOS Mojave still runs fine on it. Otherwise there's always Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. That's the real advantage of the x86-64 platform that people like me will never sacrifice for closed systems like the M1 devices.
- woah 6y agoDo you want to buy my 2020 Intel MacBook Pro?
- kube-system 6y ago> the x86-64 platform that still allows you to repair / upgrade RAM, memory, CPU's Have you opened many x86 devices of a similar form factor to the current M1 devices? I haven’t seen a socketed CPU in a laptop in over a decade, and the vast majority of ultrabooks and thin-and-lights have soldered RAM now too. The latest trend has been to start soldering SSDs as well.
- webmobdev 6y agoTrue, other manufacturers have been trying to ape Apple and solder RAM and other parts on the x86-64 platform too. Thankfully it hasn't yet fully spread to the desktop platforms - I can still build my own PC. I pin my hope on government regulations and right to repair to stem this - EU has already emphasised that they are serious about their "right to repair" legislation. I also like the attempt being made by indie engineers to create more repairable phones and laptops.
- whynotminot 6y agoSure, if we don't care about performance per watt. (Hint: we do)
- kareful4mktng 6y ago>it's really surprising to me how many eagerly lap up the angle Apple is pushing without much reflection, even on HN. Like the good old Apple hype days. Post purchase Rationalization or Apple uses upvote farms or fake accounts. All 3 are marketing. Not surprising in the slightest bit. Apple lives by marketing where the competition has to live by product quality. I look at my real world peers that fall for Apple and none of them are excellent when it comes to tech.
- itsokimbatman 6y agoI don’t think “impressive iteration” begins to describe it. I am very rarely impressed by new tech these days, and the M1 is the first piece of new hardware I’ve seen in years that seems downright magical. My previous laptop was a 2016 MBP with an i7, and the M1 destroys it. I can build large projects like LLVM or WebKit fast and it doesn’t even get hot. I’ve also been running Linux VMs with the new Parallels and they feel native speed. Rosetta 2 is incredible, Intel apps are very responsive on M1. My work computer is a high end 16” 2019 MBP with 64 GB of RAM and honestly if it weren’t for needing the extra RAM or the occasional x86 VM I’d trade it in for an M1 in a heartbeat. I’ll agree the Apple hype is unrealistic at times, but the M1 is one that absolutely deserves it.
- Blumfid 6y agoIt's not a helpful comparison if you compare a chip from 2016 with a chip from 2020. You would need to benchmark it against a current chip from someone else.
- acdha 6y agoYou're certainly correct for, say, highly-controlled benchmarks but don't discount subjective user experience. I've heard _far_ more M1 users talk about the subjective feel compared to even the previous generation MacBook hardware whereas it's been a long time since I've heard that about an Intel to Intel upgrade (basically since the Core -> Core Duo period) other than people with GPU-heavy needs and that seems like an interesting data-point to me.
- CountHackulus 6y agoI do wonder how much of that is just getting a nice new laptop? If the average user was handed the equivalent laptop with an Intel CPU but told it was an M1 would they notice? Would they also think it was nice and fast?
- acdha 6y agoPossibly but it feels like that should have but has not happened to anything like this degree when people were getting shiny new Intel CPUs after the early 2010s.
- emteycz 6y agoThere's a value in that too - people know immediately that i7 is powerful, and everyone [that cares] already knows that processors are renewed frequently. Though yeah, perhaps something like 7i1, 7i2 would've been better. Apple solved this nicely (given the naming is confirmed) with M1X.
- mysterydip 6y agoThat's fine if you're buying new. Is there an i5 that beats an older i7 in performance? When buying a used laptop or desktop, how much extra research do I need to do to figure out which processor I'm actually getting? There's been 13 years of i7's.
- gambiting 6y ago>>Is there an i5 that beats an older i7 in performance? Of course. I got a new laptop last year with a Core i5-10300H, and it easily beats my desktop i7-4790K, despite the same number of cores, in every workload. UserBenchmark is your friend for this kind of thing really: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ I do have to say that nowadays buying an Intel CPU is a really bad idea though.
- oblio 6y agoI can't ever imagine why manufactures of <<everything>> don't use dates. Product lines 1 - 10. Bigger is better. A minimal number of qualifiers next to the numbers, ideally just 1 of them next to a product line number (Pro/Home/Hobby/Enterprise/whatever). Date, month and year format if you really want flexibility. OblioCorp Oblio 1 Home 2020.06. Oblio 10 Enterprise 2021.04. How hard is that? Not that hard, from where I'm standing.
- bakatubas 6y agoIt makes sense for software release versions, but I think this lacks marketing prowess. Consider; “hey man check out my new M1 machine!” Versus: “hey man check out my M1 2021.04” Even with the Core series it’s short and sweet. “10th gen. Core i7” still sounds futuristic and always will. Ryzen 7 also. Honestly I think folks here are overthinking this stuff. It’s easy enough to compare the specs on a 10th gen cpu vs 8th gen. I think that’s easier than comparing different product names. For instance, just by the names: Pentium 5 versus Core i5 it’s not quite clear unless folks were old enough to remember Pentiums. Whereas, everyone knows current generation has better processing than previous generation.
- bluedino 6y agoThe i7 name was ruined by dual core mobile parts It meant at one time “quad core”
- klelatti 6y agoAt one point I think hyperthreading was i7 only too?
- gambiting 6y agoMobile i5s always had hyperthreading from the beginning. Edit: nope, actually, I'm wrong - Core i5-430M was a straight dual core, no hyperthreading part.
- ethbr0 6y agoOriginally, my memory says "i7 meant 4+ core & hyper threading", "i5 meant 4 cores w/o HT", "i3 meant 2 cores (with or without HT)". But I'm sure even at the beginning there were SKUs that broke the coding due to customer demand.
- jandrese 6y agoI think the lesson here is that Intel's marketing for these chips has been a mess from day one. Some of it is inevitable, they have too many aspects to contain in a reasonable product name, but letting the names become divorced from any sort of reality helps nobody.
- usefulcat 6y agoI'm writing this on a dual core i3 with hyper threading.
- gambiting 6y agoI mean......the very first generation of i7s already had a dual-core mobile part, i7-620M was a dual core cpu. So I'd argue you can't really "ruin" something you've just introduced. I do agree that for a while it was standard that a desktop i7 was a quad core and a mobile one was dual core.
- noir_lord 6y agoIt could be clearer but I suspect they do it on purpose for a purpose I've never understood. I've always thought that a system like i7-4-8-10-M (4 cores, 8 threads, 10th gen - Mobile) i5-8-8-11-H (8 cores, 8 threads, 11th gen - High perf/Desktop) There has to be a reason they haven't just been explicit with it. When I shop for a cpu I care about a handful of things, manufacturer, cores, threads, generation, model
- klelatti 6y agoJust remembered a bit of history: the first (4 bit) Intel microprocessor would have been called the 1202 according to Intel's chip naming convention at that time until Federico Faggin pushed to get it changed to the 4004. The 4004 was a hit and the rest is history!
- apexalpha 6y agoI like to read news and keep up to date on silicon development but when it comes down to buying a laptop with an Intel CPU I really can't tell how good it is from the name. I usually end up putting it into cpubenchmark to get any sort of comparable numbers. Nowadays a chip from 2014 and 2019 can both be named i5, and the 2014 can have higher clockspeed while being half as slow... You just can't tell, and maybe that's the goal.
- XorNot 6y agoKeep in mind this is all fallout from the 90s/really 00's where "clockspeed was king" which AMD worked hard to disabuse the market of. We've never really recovered from that.
- AnonC 6y ago> I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years with only the obscure (to the general public) suffix changing from generation to generation. It's been a mess for a long time. An i7 may be less performant than an i5, which may be less performant than an i3...all depending on which specific processor is chosen.
- hutrdvnj 6y ago> I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 stays the same over 10+ years I think that is because the performance has been the same for the past 10+ years.
- kevstev 6y agoI am continually astounded that the quad core sandy bridge core-i7 I bought in January 2011 is still completely serviceable for pretty much all tasks outside of gaming. The bezel and overall form factor is clownishly large by todays standards, and the screen is starting to look a bit faded, but as a portable but mostly stationary PC it still works great alongside my main laptop I use for work. I knew back in 2011 I was buying something that was going to be pretty future proof, but 10 years... I would have laughed at you.
- cptnapalm 6y agoI got a 2009 Mac Pro with dual sockets at a state auction and put in a couple of inexpensive hexcore Xeons. The sum total after 2 graphics cards and 48 GB of RAM was less than $750 and it runs everything pretty well.
- KMnO4 6y agoI think that’s because 99% of regular computer tasks don’t need 24 cores operating at 5 billion cycles per second. The differences between an i7-4xxx and i7-11xxx are more about hardware acceleration, eg HEVC and SIMD. That’s why they look so much better in benchmarks that are designed with that in mind. My main desktop is an unRAID server that hosts multiple VMs. Only yesterday I discovered that I accidentally only gave Windows four (of my 16) cores. Literally 3/4 of the processor was unused for months, and I didn’t notice any slow performance the entire time.
- thehnguy 6y agoThis is perhaps the real genius of the M1. It's a great chip and all. But when you make it the only choice, people are finding the only choice is more than sufficient. And now Apple only has to produce one piece of silicon for their iMacs, iPad Pro, and Laptops. What a boon for logistics.
- fiatSuxxxx 6y agoI'm not convinced this is all Organic. Given Apples poor ethics I imagine lots of this is astroturfing or free equipment that demands positive reviews. Along with an upvote factory.
- Anther 6y agoI ran a gadget shop for years. The amount of times people would say ‘What I have must be better because it has an i7 and that is an i5’. Then I’d have to explain that their i7 is ten years old and that they aren’t even in the same realm. Confusing marketing indeed.
- Too 6y agoThe gadget shops around here turns this to their advantage. Trying to sell a five year old i7 at premium prices. Usually hiding the generation in very small fine-print. Makes it next to impossible to give advice to family members what to look for when buying a new laptop. Simply Macbook M1 becomes much easier to recommend. As bonus you don't have to worry about underpowered ssd, noisy fans, weak backlight or what else the oem might have saved on.
- jsight 6y agoThat's a good point. I think this will finally be the thing that makes Intel move away from that marketing approach too. Its outlived its usefulness.
- jrm4 6y agoInteresting. Marketing about "computer guts" has never been an Apple thing,so it's interesting to consider the motivation here. It could be that the M1 is that revolutionary, but Moore's Law et al makes me think this is not about new chip technology. More likely competing against Intel or whoever.
- rsynnott 6y agoYeah, it's arguably quite weird that Intel don't market this way anymore (they used to, particularly with the Pentium brand). EDIT: Though, thinking about it, I can see why they might have been reluctant. Of the big releases over the last 15 years or so, Core 2 was, while a massive improvement, also essentially an admission that P4, and their whole strategy around it, had failed, and Skylake had a lot of teething troubles. The only big microarch shift that was an unqualified plus was Haswell, and I don't understand why they weren't louder about that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SavantIdiot 6y agoRemember when Intel was 8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, then ... insanity.
- smitty1110 6y agoThe insanity started with the Pentium 4, specifically the HT versions. HT made the CPU slower, it was quite the anti-feature.
- glsdfgkjsklfj 6y agoHow can you say Marketing is not being commented. Outside of consumerist/fanboy forums (here is the later) it is the only thing being talked about. M1 is apple doing a mattress-store on the CPU market. It is 90% marketing. Would people be talking about apple if either of these were true: - they announced the cpu architecture and metioned a integrated GPU with a few cuda cores - they used numbers in the axis of their promo graphs :)
- FalconSensei 6y ago> i7 stays the same over 10+ years with only the obscure (to the general public) suffix changing from generation to generation. My wife was confused about that earlier this week. She was like: 'you mean i7 is not newer than i5? And if i7 is better than i5, why can an i5 be better than an i7? (when it's an old i7)' I get they have the generation. But: 1 - it's not easy to compare different models of different generations. How can a non-technical person compare 7th gen i5 with 5th gen i7? 2 - Many places that sell computers don't put the generation on the 'headline'. You have to dig in the specs to discover that, if you can find it at all
- itslennysfault 6y agoI keep seeing an Intel ad on Twitter that is a picture of a MacBook Pro and says "Can this computer turn into a tablet? Hint: no" It honestly just feels desperate to me.
- ngcc_hk 6y agoWords of mouth is not just marketing. Whilst I still wait for the 32GB version :-) I may still jump in after having holding those hot macbook, MacBook Air and not to mention i9 MacBook Pro with turbo off already. Even MACmini is hot air. Only the decade old Mac Pro is hotter (but other than noise, it is not on my hand, my lap etc. And hence it is fine for a decade old mac). It is not just “advertisement”. Btw I still confuse marketing meant segmentation, target selling, ... may be they are as so far only on low end. As said by a YouTuber it is so much better if they do Color on macbook aid or macbook 12”.