> specifically efficiency
AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an advantage
AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an advantage
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpu...
Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks. And even there Apples lead is less than 2%.
That is nonsense that none of the CPU competitors would agree with. In most applications single core performance matters very much. Not every algorithm can be multi threaded and there is an unavoidable overhead with those that can be multi threaded. Only some parts of some applications can be multi threaded.
For example, a 20 core 500 MHz CPU is much less capable and responsive for real world usage than a 5 core 2 GHz CPU, despite having the same instruction count per cycle.
A 100 core 100 Mhz CPU would take forever to boot up and feel unusably slow.
So far it is looking OK. In single core, it handily beats a 7900X3D at a fraction of the power draw.
check e.g those
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
AMD and Intel beat Apple hard in perf and price benchmarks.
I just showed you that Apple is equal or better in terms of single core performance. This thread is a bunch of childish fanboy nonsense, attaching egos to some brand of CPU manufacturer and ignoring actual benchmarks.
Personally I don't care about $20 price differences. On a developer salary who gives a shit about price? I own Apple, Intel, and AMD cpus. They're all good.
So, just because you used one metric, then I shouldnt look at the other metrics?
So how should I understand this other ranking from the website that you've provided? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
Apple beats them on single-core ratings. You can see the single-core rating if you click on one of those results.
At that level its competing on efficiency and capped by power consumption. It can't reach 5 GHz with only 80 watts for all cores. Running at 3.5 GHz. The Intel and AMD CPUs need hundreds of watts and reach 5 GHz+. It's a tradeoff for efficiency. Different design decisions. Different tradeoffs. Not exactly competing in the same market segments.
Mac Pro is often used for video editing. The M2 Ultra has hardware acceleration for video encoding/decoding that would need a separate accelerator card on Intel or AMD to match: "M2 Ultra can support up to 22 streams of 8K ProRes 422 video playback"
It cannot be compared perfectly, but you can try to estimate its perf/$
I'm not saying this will be easy, but imagine if the whole laptop was e.g 10k usd instead of 4-5k, then you'd instantly feel that something is expensive
Hardly.
I don't see how one would be able to identify and normalize all the required variables, e.g. median life expectancy, average performance across metrics per watt, average power usage, residual value, etc.
For instance, I can sell my 2017 MacBook Pro for roughly twice as much as my 2017 Thinkpad, which has better specs. How do you factor that?
I wouldn't because it makes no sense. Occurance of great deals aint relevant here, imo. Why would I care that customers do crazy stuff on 2nd hand market?
>I don't see how one would be able to identify and normalize all the required variables, e.g. median life expectancy, average performance across metrics per watt, average power usage, residual value, etc.
How about building system for similar price to Macbook and comparing their performance?
It, of course won't be ideal, fair, whatever, but ain't it what gamers do? They find PC configurations and check how games run on them.
For 1) my fastest iron is i9-13700KS and Apple M2. They are very close. My Zen 3 is great and is notably more power efficient, but I'll evaluate 14700KS-Zen 5-M3 when possible.
ADD: because of winter I'm loving my i9-13700KS (not kidding, my office would be freezing without it), but come summer I'll care about efficiency.