4 ms·

If you don't like SPEC then look at workload benchmarks like video rendering or code compilation. The M series chips acquit themselves quite well. > There are

If you don't like SPEC then look at workload benchmarks like video rendering or code compilation. The M series chips acquit themselves quite well. > There are already PC laptops with 9+ hours of battery life Not when they're actually doing anything. To compete with what the M series chips bring, you need a discrete GPU and a very hungry CPU. Such a machine does not get 9+ hours of battery life. > The point is that we already had this. Both the CPU and GPU are competitive with existing CPUs and GPUs. Which is a first in a long time for anybody outside of AMD/Intel/Nvidia. But "competitive" and "dramatically better" are not the same thing. Right, you already had something like this in multiple discrete components that consume a huge amount of battery life when cobbled together into one system. My entire point has been that the impressiveness of the M series chips comes from their efficiency and what they are able to do holistically in a single SoC. > A lot of this is also attributable to how good Apple's marketing is Sigh. Alright I know what I'm dealing with now. Good day to you sir!

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> If you don't like SPEC then look at workload benchmarks like video rendering or code compilation. The M series chips acquit themselves quite well. Then you get results that are equivalent rather than superior. > Not when they're actually doing anything. Yes, when they're actually doing anything. The M1 Macbooks get around 16 hours. Under the same kind of load a similarly performing PC laptop might get around 10 hours. Other PC laptops will get 16 hours (or more) by having a lower TDP and then being slower, especially on multi-threaded workloads. This obviously only matters to people who care about not just long, but very long battery life, and very high performance, and aren't willing to make the weight trade off of getting one with a bigger battery. > My entire point has been that the impressiveness of the M series chips comes from their efficiency and what they are able to do holistically in a single SoC. It has very little to do with being in a single SoC. The CPU being able to use the memory bandwidth which is there for the GPU is a neat parlor trick but it only matters if memory bandwidth is the bottleneck, which it usually isn't. > Sigh. Alright I know what I'm dealing with now. You don't think that Apple has excellent marketing? They've done this for decades. They make a competitive product and then convince their customers that alternatives are dramatically inferior by pointing to narrow edge cases.
- whynotminot 5y ago
  > It has very little to do with being in a single SoC. The part where the efficiency is radically better than competing parts has everything to do with it being an integrated SoC. > Then you get results that are equivalent rather than superior. Equivalent to what? Your desktop at 5+ times the wattage? A Windows laptop with half the battery life and twice the weight? > Yes, when they're actually doing anything. The M1 Macbooks get around 16 hours. Under the same kind of load a similarly performing PC laptop might get around 10 hours. Other PC laptops will get 16 hours (or more) by having a lower TDP and then being slower, especially on multi-threaded workloads. Ok this is so ambiguous as to be nearly meaningless. 10 hours of what? At the least you're conceding that in this undefined workload the MacBook gets 6 more hours, which again, has been my whole point. The holistic efficiency is the whole story. > This obviously only matters to people who care about not just long, but very long battery life, and very high performance, and aren't willing to make the weight trade off of getting one with a bigger battery. "Only people who want better performance and better battery life should get an Apple Laptop" ... is that basically what you're saying here? Because we might just finally be in agreement. If you don't care about performance or battery life or weight there are plenty of Windows options available. This is true.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > The part where the efficiency is radically better than competing parts has everything to do with it being an integrated SoC. What makes you think that? The CPU is about the same speed as other CPUs, the GPU is about the same speed as other GPUs, and it uses less power in no small part because it's the first thing to use TSMC 5nm. Being an SoC allows you to save a certain amount of overlap, e.g. you don't need separate memory controllers for the CPU and GPU, but none of that stuff uses a significant amount of power. > If you don't care about performance or battery life or weight there are plenty of Windows options available. It's not matter of not caring. You can get PC laptops with similar performance and similar weight and 10 hours of battery life instead of 16. Ten hours is not exactly oppressive. If you really, really need sixteen, you can trade it against weight or performance at your option -- it's not necessary to do both. Or you could wait a few months for PC laptops on TSMC 5nm which will have better power efficiency.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> If you don't like SPEC then look at workload benchmarks like video rendering or code compilation. The M series chips acquit themselves quite well. Then you get results that are equivalent rather than superior. > Not when they're actually doing anything. Yes, when they're actually doing anything. The M1 Macbooks get around 16 hours. Under the same kind of load a similarly performing PC laptop might get around 10 hours. Other PC laptops will get 16 hours (or more) by having a lower TDP and then being slower, especially on multi-threaded workloads. This obviously only matters to people who care about not just long, but very long battery life, and very high performance, and aren't willing to make the weight trade off of getting one with a bigger battery. > My entire point has been that the impressiveness of the M series chips comes from their efficiency and what they are able to do holistically in a single SoC. It has very little to do with being in a single SoC. The CPU being able to use the memory bandwidth which is there for the GPU is a neat parlor trick but it only matters if memory bandwidth is the bottleneck, which it usually isn't. > Sigh. Alright I know what I'm dealing with now. You don't think that Apple has excellent marketing? They've done this for decades. They make a competitive product and then convince their customers that alternatives are dramatically inferior by pointing to narrow edge cases.

whynotminot 5y ago
> It has very little to do with being in a single SoC. The part where the efficiency is radically better than competing parts has everything to do with it being an integrated SoC. > Then you get results that are equivalent rather than superior. Equivalent to what? Your desktop at 5+ times the wattage? A Windows laptop with half the battery life and twice the weight? > Yes, when they're actually doing anything. The M1 Macbooks get around 16 hours. Under the same kind of load a similarly performing PC laptop might get around 10 hours. Other PC laptops will get 16 hours (or more) by having a lower TDP and then being slower, especially on multi-threaded workloads. Ok this is so ambiguous as to be nearly meaningless. 10 hours of what? At the least you're conceding that in this undefined workload the MacBook gets 6 more hours, which again, has been my whole point. The holistic efficiency is the whole story. > This obviously only matters to people who care about not just long, but very long battery life, and very high performance, and aren't willing to make the weight trade off of getting one with a bigger battery. "Only people who want better performance and better battery life should get an Apple Laptop" ... is that basically what you're saying here? Because we might just finally be in agreement. If you don't care about performance or battery life or weight there are plenty of Windows options available. This is true.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > The part where the efficiency is radically better than competing parts has everything to do with it being an integrated SoC. What makes you think that? The CPU is about the same speed as other CPUs, the GPU is about the same speed as other GPUs, and it uses less power in no small part because it's the first thing to use TSMC 5nm. Being an SoC allows you to save a certain amount of overlap, e.g. you don't need separate memory controllers for the CPU and GPU, but none of that stuff uses a significant amount of power. > If you don't care about performance or battery life or weight there are plenty of Windows options available. It's not matter of not caring. You can get PC laptops with similar performance and similar weight and 10 hours of battery life instead of 16. Ten hours is not exactly oppressive. If you really, really need sixteen, you can trade it against weight or performance at your option -- it's not necessary to do both. Or you could wait a few months for PC laptops on TSMC 5nm which will have better power efficiency.