6 ms·

The reduced horsepower relative to M-series isn't a problem for me as much as efficiency is. Both Intel and AMD seem to struggle with building a CPU that doesn'

The reduced horsepower relative to M-series isn't a problem for me as much as efficiency is. Both Intel and AMD seem to struggle with building a CPU that doesn't guzzle battery without also seriously restricting performance. This really sucks. The nice thing about high end (Mx Pro/Max) MBPs is that if you need desktop-like power, it's there, but they can also do a pretty good job pretending to be MacBook Airs and stretch that 100Wh battery far further than is possible with similarly powerful x86 laptops. This affects ultraportables too, though. A MacBook Air performs well in bursts and only becomes limited in sustained tasks, but competing laptops don't even do burst very well and still need active cooling to boot. On the desktop front I think AMD has been killing it but both companies need to start from scratch for laptops.

rapind 1y ago
> On the desktop front I think AMD has been killing it but both companies need to start from scratch for laptops. IMO Apple is killing it with the mac mini too. Obviously not if you're gaming (that has a lot to do with the OS though), but if you're OK with the OS, it's a powerhouse for the size, noise, and energy required.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Yeah for most "normal" users the Mini is pretty ideal. It's got enough power that it's overkill for most folks while being the least intrusive a desktop could possibily be: it's tiny, it doesn't have a power brick, it doesn't make any noise, and it's not going to impact your power bill hardly at all.
  - whyoh 1y ago
    >it doesn't make any noise You can hear the fan at full load, especially on the M4 Pro. I really wish Apple went with a larger case and fan for that chip, which would allow quieter cooling. Also, many units are affected by idle (power supply) buzzing: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255853533?sortBy=rank https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255853533?sortBy=rank The Mac Mini is quieter than a typical PC, but it's not literally silent like, say, a smartphone.
    - balder1991 1y ago
      That might be a recent phenomenon caused by the inevitable heat of the CPU getting closer and closer to its limit? Like explained in this video: https://youtu.be/AOlXmv9EiPo https://youtu.be/AOlXmv9EiPo My Mac Mini M2 never does any noise, even when I run FFMpeg the fans don’t spike. It just gets slightly warmer. Still, unless I’m doing these high CPU bound activities, every time I touch it it’s cold as if it was turned off, which is very different than my previous Intel one that was always either warm or super hot.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  I've been running a Mac mini as a gaming machine for years; an egpu is much cheaper than building a whole new desktop tower.
  - astrange 1y ago
    Apple Silicon Macs don't support eGPUs. (At the moment anyway.)
- sgarland 1y ago
  Even if you are into gaming, between native builds and Crossover, it’s quite capable. It’s not going to match a top of the line Windows build with a dedicated GPU, but it’s shockingly capable.
thewebguyd 1y ago
> The reduced horsepower relative to M-series isn't a problem for me as much as efficiency is Same here. I actually don't care for macOS much, and I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes Windows (with WSL). I tried the surface laptop 7 with the snapdragon X elite, and it's..OK. Still spins up the fans quite a bit and runs hotter than my 14" M4 Pro. It's noticeably slower than the MacBook too, and isn't instant wake from sleep (though it's a lot better than Wintel laptops used to be). So I've been on Apple Silicon macs for the last 4.5 years because there's just no other option out there that even comes close. I'm actually away from my desk a lot, battery life matters to me. I just want a laptop with great performance AND great battery life, silent, runs cool, high quality screen and touchpad, and decent speakers and microphone. MacBooks are literally the only computer on the market that checks all boxes. Even if I wanted to/preferred to run Windows or Linux instead, I can't because there just isn't equivalent hardware out there.
- ako 1y ago
  It’s even worse: Parallels on MacBooks runs windows better than a dedicated windows laptop…
  - littlecranky67 1y ago
    Before the Macbook ARM switch, from 2015 onwards I used to run Linux via Parallels and it ran better than any Linux I ever used on a natively on a modern laptop. After installing the parallel tools you had 2D/3D/video acceleration, clipboard sharing, Wifi/Ethernet bridging, and most importantly - seemless and stable suspend/resume.
  - balder1991 1y ago
    And if you don’t want to pay a subscription, VMWare also breaks no sweat since a long time ago, and it’s very polished at this point. I recently tried VirtualBox and it’s finally catching up, seems to work without any problems but I didn’t test it enough to find out the quirks.
    - throw0101d 1y ago
vient 1y ago
> building a CPU that doesn't guzzle battery It may be the software problem as well. On Windows I regularly need to find which new app started to eat battery like crazy. Usually it ends up being something third-party related to hardware, like Alienware app constantly making WMI requests (high CPU usage of svchost.exe hosting a WMI provider, disabling Alienware service helped), Intel Killer Wi-Fi software doing something when I did not even know it was installed on my PC (disabling all related services helped), Dell apps doing something, MSI apps doing something... you get the idea. It seems like a class of problems which you simply can't have on macOS because of closed ecosystem. Without all this stuff my Intel 155H works pretty decently, although I'm sure it is far away from M-series in terms of performance.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Windows doesn't do it any favors, for sure. Running Linux with with every tweak under the sun for better life still leaves a large gap between x86 laptops and MacBooks, however, and while there's probably some low hanging optimization to be taken advantage of there I think the real problem is that x86 CPUs just can't idle as low as M-series can, which is exacerbated by the CPU not being able to finish up its work and reach idle as quickly.
  - vient 1y ago
    I wonder if Windows and Linux just can't yet work on heterogeneous CPUs as well as macOS does. Intel chose an interesting direction here, going straight from one to three kinds of cores in one chip. I almost never see LPE cores being used on Windows, and on Linux you have obscure soft like Intel LPMD which I tried but was not able to notice any battery life improvements.
    - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
      I'm a bit out of my depths here, but I believe a significant contributing factor is how early Apple made multi-CPU Macs available, with the earliest being the summer 2000 revision of PowerMac G4 tower (dual 500Mhz PPC G4s), pre-dating the release of OS X. They made it easier for devs to take advantage of those cores in OS X, because this yielded performance boosts that were difficult to match in the x86 world, which was still heavily single-CPU. Because the OS and apps running on it were already taking advantage of multithreading, making them efficiency core friendly was easy since devs only had to mark already-encapsulated tasks as eligible for running on efficiency cores, so adoption was quick and deep. Meanwhile on Windows there are still piles of programs that have yet to enter the Core 2 Duo era, let alone advance any further.
hopelite 1y ago
This is just my perspective, but it seems that whatever is leading them to do so, the focus on supporting the Windows environment is extremely hamstringing. Apple effectively controls the whole hardware and software stack of any given device, AMD/Intel don't even really control the main board, let alone efficiencies between all the compatibilities. No wonder the Ferrari of computers if more efficient and effective than hobbled together junk yard monstrosity... ok, I'll be more generous... the Chrysler of computers. I don't want to suggest that Apple is ideal with its soldered constrictions, or that modularity should be done away with, but reality is that it seems to me that standards need to be tightened down A LOT if the PC market really wants to compete. I for one have no problem not dealing with all the hassle of non-Apple products because I can afford it. If Apple got its botoxed, manicured head out of their rear ends and started offering their products at competitive prices, they would likely totally dominate the majority of computing market, which would likely atrophy and effectively die out over time. Let's hope that Apple remains pretentious and sturdy greedy so that at least we have choice and it gives the PC sector at least a chance to get their standards in order, maybe even funding a gold standard functional linux distro that could at least hold water to MacOS without drooling all over itself.

rapind 1y ago

> On the desktop front I think AMD has been killing it but both companies need to start from scratch for laptops. IMO Apple is killing it with the mac mini too. Obviously not if you're gaming (that has a lot to do with the OS though), but if you're OK with the OS, it's a powerhouse for the size, noise, and energy required.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
Yeah for most "normal" users the Mini is pretty ideal. It's got enough power that it's overkill for most folks while being the least intrusive a desktop could possibily be: it's tiny, it doesn't have a power brick, it doesn't make any noise, and it's not going to impact your power bill hardly at all.
- whyoh 1y ago
  >it doesn't make any noise You can hear the fan at full load, especially on the M4 Pro. I really wish Apple went with a larger case and fan for that chip, which would allow quieter cooling. Also, many units are affected by idle (power supply) buzzing: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255853533?sortBy=rank https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255853533?sortBy=rank The Mac Mini is quieter than a typical PC, but it's not literally silent like, say, a smartphone.
  - balder1991 1y ago
    That might be a recent phenomenon caused by the inevitable heat of the CPU getting closer and closer to its limit? Like explained in this video: https://youtu.be/AOlXmv9EiPo https://youtu.be/AOlXmv9EiPo My Mac Mini M2 never does any noise, even when I run FFMpeg the fans don’t spike. It just gets slightly warmer. Still, unless I’m doing these high CPU bound activities, every time I touch it it’s cold as if it was turned off, which is very different than my previous Intel one that was always either warm or super hot.
MangoToupe 1y ago
I've been running a Mac mini as a gaming machine for years; an egpu is much cheaper than building a whole new desktop tower.
- astrange 1y ago
  Apple Silicon Macs don't support eGPUs. (At the moment anyway.)
sgarland 1y ago
Even if you are into gaming, between native builds and Crossover, it’s quite capable. It’s not going to match a top of the line Windows build with a dedicated GPU, but it’s shockingly capable.

thewebguyd 1y ago

> The reduced horsepower relative to M-series isn't a problem for me as much as efficiency is Same here. I actually don't care for macOS much, and I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes Windows (with WSL). I tried the surface laptop 7 with the snapdragon X elite, and it's..OK. Still spins up the fans quite a bit and runs hotter than my 14" M4 Pro. It's noticeably slower than the MacBook too, and isn't instant wake from sleep (though it's a lot better than Wintel laptops used to be). So I've been on Apple Silicon macs for the last 4.5 years because there's just no other option out there that even comes close. I'm actually away from my desk a lot, battery life matters to me. I just want a laptop with great performance AND great battery life, silent, runs cool, high quality screen and touchpad, and decent speakers and microphone. MacBooks are literally the only computer on the market that checks all boxes. Even if I wanted to/preferred to run Windows or Linux instead, I can't because there just isn't equivalent hardware out there.

ako 1y ago
It’s even worse: Parallels on MacBooks runs windows better than a dedicated windows laptop…
- littlecranky67 1y ago
  Before the Macbook ARM switch, from 2015 onwards I used to run Linux via Parallels and it ran better than any Linux I ever used on a natively on a modern laptop. After installing the parallel tools you had 2D/3D/video acceleration, clipboard sharing, Wifi/Ethernet bridging, and most importantly - seemless and stable suspend/resume.
- balder1991 1y ago
  And if you don’t want to pay a subscription, VMWare also breaks no sweat since a long time ago, and it’s very polished at this point. I recently tried VirtualBox and it’s finally catching up, seems to work without any problems but I didn’t test it enough to find out the quirks.
  - throw0101d 1y ago

vient 1y ago

> building a CPU that doesn't guzzle battery It may be the software problem as well. On Windows I regularly need to find which new app started to eat battery like crazy. Usually it ends up being something third-party related to hardware, like Alienware app constantly making WMI requests (high CPU usage of svchost.exe hosting a WMI provider, disabling Alienware service helped), Intel Killer Wi-Fi software doing something when I did not even know it was installed on my PC (disabling all related services helped), Dell apps doing something, MSI apps doing something... you get the idea. It seems like a class of problems which you simply can't have on macOS because of closed ecosystem. Without all this stuff my Intel 155H works pretty decently, although I'm sure it is far away from M-series in terms of performance.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
Windows doesn't do it any favors, for sure. Running Linux with with every tweak under the sun for better life still leaves a large gap between x86 laptops and MacBooks, however, and while there's probably some low hanging optimization to be taken advantage of there I think the real problem is that x86 CPUs just can't idle as low as M-series can, which is exacerbated by the CPU not being able to finish up its work and reach idle as quickly.
- vient 1y ago
  I wonder if Windows and Linux just can't yet work on heterogeneous CPUs as well as macOS does. Intel chose an interesting direction here, going straight from one to three kinds of cores in one chip. I almost never see LPE cores being used on Windows, and on Linux you have obscure soft like Intel LPMD which I tried but was not able to notice any battery life improvements.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    I'm a bit out of my depths here, but I believe a significant contributing factor is how early Apple made multi-CPU Macs available, with the earliest being the summer 2000 revision of PowerMac G4 tower (dual 500Mhz PPC G4s), pre-dating the release of OS X. They made it easier for devs to take advantage of those cores in OS X, because this yielded performance boosts that were difficult to match in the x86 world, which was still heavily single-CPU. Because the OS and apps running on it were already taking advantage of multithreading, making them efficiency core friendly was easy since devs only had to mark already-encapsulated tasks as eligible for running on efficiency cores, so adoption was quick and deep. Meanwhile on Windows there are still piles of programs that have yet to enter the Core 2 Duo era, let alone advance any further.

hopelite 1y ago

This is just my perspective, but it seems that whatever is leading them to do so, the focus on supporting the Windows environment is extremely hamstringing. Apple effectively controls the whole hardware and software stack of any given device, AMD/Intel don't even really control the main board, let alone efficiencies between all the compatibilities. No wonder the Ferrari of computers if more efficient and effective than hobbled together junk yard monstrosity... ok, I'll be more generous... the Chrysler of computers. I don't want to suggest that Apple is ideal with its soldered constrictions, or that modularity should be done away with, but reality is that it seems to me that standards need to be tightened down A LOT if the PC market really wants to compete. I for one have no problem not dealing with all the hassle of non-Apple products because I can afford it. If Apple got its botoxed, manicured head out of their rear ends and started offering their products at competitive prices, they would likely totally dominate the majority of computing market, which would likely atrophy and effectively die out over time. Let's hope that Apple remains pretentious and sturdy greedy so that at least we have choice and it gives the PC sector at least a chance to get their standards in order, maybe even funding a gold standard functional linux distro that could at least hold water to MacOS without drooling all over itself.