10 ms·

PC user don't pay 4k for a computer, on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price.

by Thaxll 5y ago

samatman 5y ago
Link me to the $2K computer that's twice as fast as the M1 Ultra. Take all the time you need.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  > Take all the time you need Check your replies in 10 years and I'll be able to list a dozen ;P But sarcasm aside yeah this chip looks insane.
  - Thaxll 5y ago
    It took less than 6month to have a faster amd / intel CPU than the m1 back then, Apple charts are showing performance / watt which for a desktop PC is kind of irrelevant. In pure speed amd / intel are faster or will be very soon. For graphic card I don't try to argue because fps on Mac are very inferior in games than a average modern card. It's not even on the same league.
    - jamesy0ung 5y ago
      > For graphic card I don't try to argue because fps on Mac are very inferior in games than a average modern card. It's not even on the same league. The M1 is as fast as the 1650. I'm getting great frame rates at 1440P High on X-Plane > It took less than 6month to have a faster amd / intel CPU than the m1 back then, Apple charts are showing performance / watt which for a desktop PC is kind of irrelevant. In pure speed amd / intel are faster or will be very soon. Perf/Watt is very relevant. Electricity costs money and you also want a cool room.
ishansharma 5y ago
May I ask the $2000 desktop configuration with 2x the speed? Of course Apple chips won’t work well for gaming, but what other benchmarks will this $2000 desktop win?
joshstrange 5y ago
> PC user don't pay 4k for a computer I'm almost certain that's not true, especially for machines that would compete with the Studio > on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price. Citation needed. This hasn't been true for a long time as far as I can tell.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
maronato 5y ago
This hasn't been true since M1's release
- Thaxll 5y ago
  A CPU like the 5900x is better than the m1 and cost 400$.
  - yurishimo 5y ago
    That's one part of the equation though, not to mention it's a desktop chip. I can get a laptop with an M1 Max with hours of battery life running full tilt. Your $400 CPU needs at least another $1000 in parts just to boot (and those aren't even the parts you likely want to pair with it). Your cost comparison is silly. Nobody compares singular CPUs to entire machines.
    - Thaxll 5y ago
      People seem to think that the M1 is the ubber thing in term of performance which is not, it's great on many aspect, especially termal / perf per watt etc ... but for many it's a PC sitting bellow your desk it's less relevant. For laptop it's a different story.
  - astrange 5y ago
    I own one and it's worse because I had to go and read random forum guides to learn about undervolting so Windows would stop turning the fan on and off constantly.

PC user don't pay 4k for a computer, on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price.

by Thaxll 5y ago

PC user don't pay 4k for a computer, on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price.

samatman 5y ago

Link me to the $2K computer that's twice as fast as the M1 Ultra. Take all the time you need.

squeaky-clean 5y ago
> Take all the time you need Check your replies in 10 years and I'll be able to list a dozen ;P But sarcasm aside yeah this chip looks insane.
- Thaxll 5y ago
  It took less than 6month to have a faster amd / intel CPU than the m1 back then, Apple charts are showing performance / watt which for a desktop PC is kind of irrelevant. In pure speed amd / intel are faster or will be very soon. For graphic card I don't try to argue because fps on Mac are very inferior in games than a average modern card. It's not even on the same league.
  - jamesy0ung 5y ago
    > For graphic card I don't try to argue because fps on Mac are very inferior in games than a average modern card. It's not even on the same league. The M1 is as fast as the 1650. I'm getting great frame rates at 1440P High on X-Plane > It took less than 6month to have a faster amd / intel CPU than the m1 back then, Apple charts are showing performance / watt which for a desktop PC is kind of irrelevant. In pure speed amd / intel are faster or will be very soon. Perf/Watt is very relevant. Electricity costs money and you also want a cool room.

ishansharma 5y ago

May I ask the $2000 desktop configuration with 2x the speed? Of course Apple chips won’t work well for gaming, but what other benchmarks will this $2000 desktop win?

joshstrange 5y ago

> PC user don't pay 4k for a computer I'm almost certain that's not true, especially for machines that would compete with the Studio > on PC you can get 2x the speed for 2x less the price. Citation needed. This hasn't been true for a long time as far as I can tell.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

maronato 5y ago

This hasn't been true since M1's release

Thaxll 5y ago
A CPU like the 5900x is better than the m1 and cost 400$.
- yurishimo 5y ago
  That's one part of the equation though, not to mention it's a desktop chip. I can get a laptop with an M1 Max with hours of battery life running full tilt. Your $400 CPU needs at least another $1000 in parts just to boot (and those aren't even the parts you likely want to pair with it). Your cost comparison is silly. Nobody compares singular CPUs to entire machines.
  - Thaxll 5y ago
    People seem to think that the M1 is the ubber thing in term of performance which is not, it's great on many aspect, especially termal / perf per watt etc ... but for many it's a PC sitting bellow your desk it's less relevant. For laptop it's a different story.
- astrange 5y ago
  I own one and it's worse because I had to go and read random forum guides to learn about undervolting so Windows would stop turning the fan on and off constantly.