2 ms·

I kinda agree with Intel. While Apple's M1/M2(..3-4) are arguably very usable (also) as desktop chips, Apple has poured in so much resources to make this happen

I kinda agree with Intel. While Apple's M1/M2(..3-4) are arguably very usable (also) as desktop chips, Apple has poured in so much resources to make this happen, that only a very few company is able to do. (They worked on it for about a decade...) Of course ARM could be more competitive on the laptop market, if either ARM, or another company with bottomless wallet would want it to happen. But there is no visible will, and as long as this doesn't change, Intel doesn't have a lot to worry on this front. And of course, there is Qualcomm... the Oracle of hardware companies...

rewmie 3y ago
> I kinda agree with Intel. While Apple's M1/M2(..3-4) are arguably very usable (also) as desktop chips, What do you mean "arguably"? They are top performers. The m2-based 2023 Macbook Air outperforms the intel-based 2019 Macbook Pro, which was already a beast of a machine. > Apple has poured in so much resources to make this happen, that only a very few company is able to do. I don't agree. We saw the likes of Raspberry Pi release the Raspberry Pi 400, which is is already a nice ARM-based desktop and is a battery and a monitor shy of being an ARM-based laptop. They didn't had to pour any significant volume of resources to get that to happen. Also, nowadays most computing needs are met with handheld devices, and some high-end models already ship with at least as much RAM and sometimes more computational resources than some mid-end intel laptops. I would argue that the only thing standing between ARM CPUs being massively adopted in consumer desktop and laptops is Microsoft releasing a Windows version that supports them.