5 ms·

I don't know if you meant to imply that a Macbook Air starts at $500-600, but if you did then you'd be incorrect based on https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/ htt

I don't know if you meant to imply that a Macbook Air starts at $500-600, but if you did then you'd be incorrect based on https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/ https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/. In any case, I think the switch from Intel to ARM makes any such comparisons meaningless until we start seeing more ARM-based laptops in the same niche.

extra88 3y ago
They meant if the person was right, the PC would have to cost $500-600. A PC laptop being in that price range and equal or better than a MacBook Air is a fantasy. ARM and Intel laptops are directly comparable because you can compare what people can do them. Not all ARM processors are created equal, Apple's are superior in iPhones and laptops, there's no reason to expect that to change in the near future.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > Not all ARM processors are created equal Hence the words "in the same niche" in the comment to which you replied.
  - extra88 3y ago
    I don't know what niche you're referring to. Apple Silicon are the sole occupants of a "niche," delivering high performance with excellent processing per Watt. When shopping for a laptop, there's nothing unfair about comparing ones with different processor architectures when they all can run the software needed. Plenty of people don't care about how long you can run off the battery or processing per Watt in general, just performance. For those people, there are x86 laptops that can outperform Apple's ARM-based laptops (not to mention having discrete GPI options).
    - mlinhares 3y ago
      What are these x86 laptops that are the same size and price range of an Air or MBP that outperform the M2s in processing power that doesn't involve GPU? Almost all the benchmarks out there of similarly sized laptops have the M2s (and previously had the M1s) topping the charts in single and multi threaded workloads.
      - yellowapple 3y ago
        "that doesn't involve GPU" is a bit of an arbitrary restriction. GPU performance is performance, is it not?
        extra88 3y ago
        Only when you're using software that can use it. Multicore processing also doesn't matter when you are doing tasks that can't be spread across cores.
        mlinhares 3y ago
        It isn’t, I work as a developer and most developers have no use for a GPU unless you’re doing machine learning or gaming. For this case Macs are really hard to beat, especially given the UNIX like environment.
        yellowapple 3y ago
        > It isn’t, I work as a developer and most developers have no use for a GPU unless you’re doing machine learning or gaming. Okay, well 1. Not every Macbook user is a developer 2. Not every developer has no use for a GPU If we're going to make comparisons about performance requirements for a specific subset of a specific subset of users, then let's be explicit about that. Otherwise, arbitrarily ignoring a rather substantial contributor to overall performance is indeed arbitrary.
      - extra88 3y ago
        It looks like the Razer Blade 16, with a i9-13950HX can beat the fastest MacBook Pro and is cheaper than that model. I didn't mention size and don't know how they compare. Size comparisons are largely related to processing per Watt because others need bigger heat pipes and fans than the Macs. I'm basically an Apple guy and don't pay tons of attention to all the alternatives, I just recognize the Apple products are not the right choice for everyone.
        mlinhares 3y ago
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      > I don't know what niche you're referring to. Apple Silicon are the sole occupants of a "niche," delivering high performance with excellent processing per Watt. You clearly do know what niche I'm referring to, since you just described it. Like you say: Apple's laptops are the sole occupants of their niche, so what would you even compare against? I'm sure there are other ARM chips out there with comparable or better "performance" per Watt, but Apple Silicon's pretty unique right now in maximizing the "performance" half of that equation instead of minimizing the "per Watt" half. > When shopping for a laptop, there's nothing unfair about comparing ones with different processor architectures when they all can run the software needed. I never said it was "unfair". I said it was meaningless - because it is. There are myriad metrics by which one could evaluate "performance" (per Watt or otherwise), and Apple Silicon doesn't necessarily win at all of them. When other manufacturers start putting out ARM laptops targeting the same (or at least remotely similar) performance metrics as a Macbook targets, then there'd be a worthwhile discussion to be had.

extra88 3y ago

They meant if the person was right, the PC would have to cost $500-600. A PC laptop being in that price range and equal or better than a MacBook Air is a fantasy. ARM and Intel laptops are directly comparable because you can compare what people can do them. Not all ARM processors are created equal, Apple's are superior in iPhones and laptops, there's no reason to expect that to change in the near future.

yellowapple 3y ago
> Not all ARM processors are created equal Hence the words "in the same niche" in the comment to which you replied.
- extra88 3y ago
  I don't know what niche you're referring to. Apple Silicon are the sole occupants of a "niche," delivering high performance with excellent processing per Watt. When shopping for a laptop, there's nothing unfair about comparing ones with different processor architectures when they all can run the software needed. Plenty of people don't care about how long you can run off the battery or processing per Watt in general, just performance. For those people, there are x86 laptops that can outperform Apple's ARM-based laptops (not to mention having discrete GPI options).
  - mlinhares 3y ago
    What are these x86 laptops that are the same size and price range of an Air or MBP that outperform the M2s in processing power that doesn't involve GPU? Almost all the benchmarks out there of similarly sized laptops have the M2s (and previously had the M1s) topping the charts in single and multi threaded workloads.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      "that doesn't involve GPU" is a bit of an arbitrary restriction. GPU performance is performance, is it not?
      - extra88 3y ago
        Only when you're using software that can use it. Multicore processing also doesn't matter when you are doing tasks that can't be spread across cores.
      - mlinhares 3y ago
        It isn’t, I work as a developer and most developers have no use for a GPU unless you’re doing machine learning or gaming. For this case Macs are really hard to beat, especially given the UNIX like environment.
        yellowapple 3y ago
        > It isn’t, I work as a developer and most developers have no use for a GPU unless you’re doing machine learning or gaming. Okay, well 1. Not every Macbook user is a developer 2. Not every developer has no use for a GPU If we're going to make comparisons about performance requirements for a specific subset of a specific subset of users, then let's be explicit about that. Otherwise, arbitrarily ignoring a rather substantial contributor to overall performance is indeed arbitrary.
    - extra88 3y ago
      It looks like the Razer Blade 16, with a i9-13950HX can beat the fastest MacBook Pro and is cheaper than that model. I didn't mention size and don't know how they compare. Size comparisons are largely related to processing per Watt because others need bigger heat pipes and fans than the Macs. I'm basically an Apple guy and don't pay tons of attention to all the alternatives, I just recognize the Apple products are not the right choice for everyone.
      - mlinhares 3y ago
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    > I don't know what niche you're referring to. Apple Silicon are the sole occupants of a "niche," delivering high performance with excellent processing per Watt. You clearly do know what niche I'm referring to, since you just described it. Like you say: Apple's laptops are the sole occupants of their niche, so what would you even compare against? I'm sure there are other ARM chips out there with comparable or better "performance" per Watt, but Apple Silicon's pretty unique right now in maximizing the "performance" half of that equation instead of minimizing the "per Watt" half. > When shopping for a laptop, there's nothing unfair about comparing ones with different processor architectures when they all can run the software needed. I never said it was "unfair". I said it was meaningless - because it is. There are myriad metrics by which one could evaluate "performance" (per Watt or otherwise), and Apple Silicon doesn't necessarily win at all of them. When other manufacturers start putting out ARM laptops targeting the same (or at least remotely similar) performance metrics as a Macbook targets, then there'd be a worthwhile discussion to be had.