3 ms·
Apple is faster at single core and can match or exceed the 14900k at multi core in some applications. They are not for gaming. They are much faster than Intel
by johnb231 1y ago
Apple is faster at single core and can match or exceed the 14900k at multi core in some applications.
They are not for gaming. They are much faster than Intel for video editing due to hardware codecs.
The Mac Mini / iMac / Apple Studio / Mac Pro are more than enough for most desktop users and provide high performance without obnoxious fan noise. The high end Intel chips draw ~300 watts. I need a silent desktop.
- wqaatwt 1y ago> Apple is faster at single core and can match or exceed the 14900k Well yeah, if price is not a factor and you don’t care about gaming and such. That’s a perfectly reasonable use case. The original premise was that Apple’s M series chips would be extremely successful if Apple started selling them directly (and presumably provided Windows/Linux drivers. Which obviously can’t and won’t happen due to clear reasons but even if it did they probably wouldn’t be very popular as desktop chips (of course that also comes down to pricing). There aren’t that many people who’d want or need a desktop with a chip like that (instead of just getting a laptop ).
- johnb231 1y agoIf Apple released x86 desktop processors with the same performance as the M series of course they would be popular. M3 Ultra https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/10919322 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/10919322 M4 Pro https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8786129 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8786129 AMD 9950X https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12194580 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/12194580 Intel Ultra 9 285K https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7609759 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/7609759
- wqaatwt 1y agoWell sure, it comes down to price. If they continued charging $200 for 12GB of memory then I’m doubtful.