Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

This comment sounds like the exact same hopium I heard about Intel in 2016. I get what you're saying, and there are definitely smaller changes packed in here, but my point is that Apple's performance crown is looking mighty easy to usurp right about now. Hell, they even showed a graph with the i7 1280p beating the M2's single-core performance by ~20% at the WWDC today; they know they're on notice.

View on HN

M2 isn’t intended to have high performance. It’s intended to have a high perf-power ratio, as they said.

Often it gets the performance too, but that’s kind of like a lucky break.

Still M1 Pro/Max/Ultra single core performance is basically same as M1. It's not good sign for M2 Pro/whatever's single core performance. It's fine for M2.

And why do I care about perf-power ratio if my laptop is plugged in? WHY? I can understand if it switched to high perf-power ration when Im not plugged, but why would I need that when Im plugged in? Seems like a made up, just because metric.

Because lots of power makes a system hot. And a hot system is a slow system, even if the battery is full.

https://www.novatech.co.uk/blog/cpu-and-thermal-throttling/

Nothing you said here doesn't not apply to M1 which also overheat under high load and gets throttled, and some of them dont even have a fan.

https://medium.com/illumination/how-to-solve-overheating-iss....

A lot of these benchmarks run for several minutes and test the system as it OVERHEATs, simulating real conditions and Intel i12 beats M1/M2. So this doesnt change anything or bring any new information.

This is the first sentence of that article, “MacBook rarely shows overheating issues.”

I can say that’s definitely not the case of the Intel laptop I’m currently using.

Otherwise it would throttle instantly because your MBAir has a passive cooling system.

Also, it would make you infertile and it’d drain the battery faster than the charger can recharge it.

There's more to comparing computers than just CPU benchmarks. Benchmarks can be manipulated. Raw CPU only matters when your workload involves lots of CPU work. (And, if it does, maybe a desktop is a better choice.)

But, more importantly, it's like comparing two cars based on horsepower when in practice both will get you to the same place, on the same road, at the same time.

That 20% better perf was at 4x the power though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com