4 ms·
And meanwhile they're both getting cucked by Apple because the Intel/AMD brand monoliths are too heavy to make any groundbreaking/architectural changes now.
by SuperShibe 3y ago
And meanwhile they're both getting cucked by Apple because the Intel/AMD brand monoliths are too heavy to make any groundbreaking/architectural changes now.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- evilduck 3y agoAMD's Zen 4 chips are competing with Apple's M2 on performance and at least closing the gap on efficiency. Intel's Alder Lake is losing on efficiency but is still trading blows for performance. I am generally a fan of Apple but the M2 was just a modest iteration of the M1, it's not a groundbreaking architectural change either. Even the Pro/Max/Ultra die multiplication strategy is unlikely to continue competing much longer, the latest M2 Ultra is losing to AMD and Intel in some aspects right out of the gate.
- Atotalnoob 3y agoIn most aspects. The m2 chip is more power efficient, but it can't compete against Intel and amd
- evilduck 3y agoI don't know about that either, based on Tom's Hardware review of the M2 Ultra it is still pretty competitive and well rounded. Intel beats Apple at most specs but the margin is too small to say Apple "can't compete", especially for a company that didn't even have a desktop CPU three years ago.
- paulmd 3y agoM2 is still quite far ahead in user-interactive tasks like browser and JVM, as shown by actual user experience in battery life. Cinebench isn't exactly the only efficiency test and Anandtech shows AMD still trailing far behind on the SPEC2017 suite (a variety of real-world applications). In desktops (Mac Studio etc) where you can run unlimited watts, yeah Apple doesn't do as well there, but the efficiency is still amazing. And in the laptops, the actual user experience shows the cinebench numbers aren't capturing something.
- augustl 3y agoI'm not sure if I even trust Intel/Windows at this point. The m1 macs are just so much snappier in absolutely every way imaginable than my old 11th gen Dell. My old PC would some times take minutes (!) to fully wake up from sleep, the battery drained in a couple of hours when coding, and it was sluggish the whole time compared to plugged in performance. I plan to see if I can borrow someone's 13th gen PC and use it for a week and see how it compares. I'm not able to find any reviews that covers the user experience on and off wall power.
- fennecfoxy 3y ago"My old PC" Well of course a newer laptop of going to be "snappier" lmao. "My new car is faster and more fuel efficient than my old car"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- evilduck 3y ago11th gen Intel isn't some ancient PC, it released in 2021, before the M1 that user compared it to. Don't be disingenuous.
- fennecfoxy 3y agoAha, it's still a perfectly cromulent point. _every_ device starts off fast, phones laptops, whatever. I've had quite a few MBs and they all slow down after a while, needing an overhaul/refresh in the same way that windows machines, phones etc do. Get that red memory pressure and kernel desperately swapping pages in & out, woooo. Perhaps things are different with >16GB machines with the SSD mostly empty.
- evilduck 3y agoI've never had slowdown issues with PCs or Macs unless hardware is outright failing. You can stop gaslighting us now.
- fennecfoxy 3y agoBy Apple? Or by ARM? There's a reason it's an "ARM" processor & not an "Apple" one, even though yes, Apple did contribute a lot of their own design to their specific chip. Unfortunately, Apple took the shortcut of gaining performance by having memory/SB/NB/kitchen sink all together on the same die, which is very...not scalable. It's a good way to be "top in class" for the class your in, but it comes with a ceiling; you can't hit the higher levels because where competitors can use the whole die for processor, Apple are stuck using only part of the die, the rest being used for memory/controllers, etc. Absolutely stellar architecture for laptops for sure, but not so great for desktops/servers, imo.