3 ms·

> 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 bein

> 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.
- whynotminot 5y ago
  > 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. It absolutely uses more power to have things on separate dies. Why do you think monolithic designs like this are preferred for mobile first products? It's certainly not because it's cheaper or easier. SoCs like this typically have lower yields and higher costs--you do it because in return you can squeeze out better power and efficiency while also saving space on the board. > 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. This is just so emphatically not true though. Like I'm going to need to see the workload you're referencing where a device with similar benchmarks across the board (CPU and GPU) gets 10 hours of real world battery life without weighing 5 lbs. Like I have in my possession as a daily driver a 2020 MacBook Pro that uses an Intel IceLake chip--fairly recent tech! If I'm doing my actual work on it--a bit of Docker, Chrome, and an IDE--I'm lucky to make it much past lunch. A fairly recent Intel chip, that gets positively embarrassed performance-wise by an M1, and can barely turn in 6 hours of real usage. I want to see this system you have that performs like an M1 and turns in 10 hours of real world battery usage. > Or you could wait a few months for PC laptops on TSMC 5nm which will have better power efficiency. You could have already had it for well over a year now with Apple. And by the time this mythical laptop you're speaking of arrives, Apple might have already moved on to the next node. But hey, it's your life not mine. Keep waiting if it pleases you.

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.

whynotminot 5y ago
> 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. It absolutely uses more power to have things on separate dies. Why do you think monolithic designs like this are preferred for mobile first products? It's certainly not because it's cheaper or easier. SoCs like this typically have lower yields and higher costs--you do it because in return you can squeeze out better power and efficiency while also saving space on the board. > 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. This is just so emphatically not true though. Like I'm going to need to see the workload you're referencing where a device with similar benchmarks across the board (CPU and GPU) gets 10 hours of real world battery life without weighing 5 lbs. Like I have in my possession as a daily driver a 2020 MacBook Pro that uses an Intel IceLake chip--fairly recent tech! If I'm doing my actual work on it--a bit of Docker, Chrome, and an IDE--I'm lucky to make it much past lunch. A fairly recent Intel chip, that gets positively embarrassed performance-wise by an M1, and can barely turn in 6 hours of real usage. I want to see this system you have that performs like an M1 and turns in 10 hours of real world battery usage. > Or you could wait a few months for PC laptops on TSMC 5nm which will have better power efficiency. You could have already had it for well over a year now with Apple. And by the time this mythical laptop you're speaking of arrives, Apple might have already moved on to the next node. But hey, it's your life not mine. Keep waiting if it pleases you.