[HN Gopher] M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting c... ___________________________________________________________________ M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores Author : ingve Score : 172 points Date : 2023-11-03 07:59 UTC (15 hours ago) (HTM) web link (eclecticlight.co) (TXT) w3m dump (eclecticlight.co) | stuff4ben wrote: | This is good to know. I worry about the longevity of these new | M-series processors from Apple since they're so (relatively) new. | What is the usable lifespan of a base M1-MacBook Air for example? | I guess I'll find out since I just bought one for my kid who is a | junior in HS and I'm hoping this will last until they graduate | college. | dewote wrote: | For context my M1 Air feels as good as the day I bought it and | it's just about to hit 3 years old. | | I kept my previous 2014 MBP for 6 years and I can't see this | one being any different. | jghn wrote: | Same. The only issue I have w/ my original M1 Air is that I | was impatient and got the 8GB model because I could get it | into my hands a month faster. But that's not something that's | changed over time. | | Every new release I drool over getting the new shiny but the | reality is that for my personal laptop it's AOK for almost | everything I do. Sometimes a bit slow and frustrating due to | the RAM but again, that's on me. | Detrytus wrote: | I'm running Windows (ARM) virtual machine on M1 Air, and it's | constantly thermally throttled. It was hitting 95 Celsius | degrees sometimes. I even bought one of those cooling pads | with three fans, to make up for the lack of cooling in the | laptop itself, so it is now down to 65 Celsius degress. Makes | my life little more bearable, but I'm switching to M3 Macbook | pro (with proper cooling) ASAP. | deagle50 wrote: | Add a thermal pad to connect the heatsink to the back cover | and the thermal throttling will go away. Tons of tutorials | on Youtube and it takes 5 minutes. I did it on my M1 Air | and it doesn't go above 85-90C now. | charrondev wrote: | I've got a 16 inch Pro with 32g of RAM and I can see myself | using this for development work at least a decade. | | I tend to run it with a large external 4k 120hz screen and | don't see the need to upgrade for better IO for a long time and | the thing is very, very fast. | andreasley wrote: | For a while now, the lifespan of Apple devices has mostly been | limited by Apple stopping to provide software updates. Most | Macs from 20 years ago still work fine today. If some component | died, it was usually the hard drive or the power supply in my | experience. | | Apple Silicon will definitely be the architecture best | supported by Apple for the foreseeable future. There is no | downside to it in terms or reliability or longevity. | kmmlng wrote: | To make a somewhat exaggerated comparison: horses still work | fine today, but it really doesn't make sense for people to be | using them anymore outside of niche use cases or as a hobby. | | Sure, macs from 20 years ago still work "fine", but the | reason they aren't widely used anymore is not the lack of | software updates. | SXX wrote: | I bought M1 Air 256GB with 16GB RAM on release for light web | development and professional 2D gamedev on Unity. Still using | it till now and it's really really durable hardware and I've | been usign it daily for 3+ years. | | With so little RAM had to sacrifice ability to properly run | VMs, but yet till this day there just no comparable hardware on | market. | | 8GB versions though... Certainly Apple should be damned for | selling laptops with 8GB RAM in 2023 when my x220i ran 16GB in | 2011. At some point they will all become e-waste due too little | RAM or dead soldered SSD because of extreme swapping. | stuff4ben wrote: | 8GB of RAM ought to be enough for anybody right? I'm hoping | that's true for someone who spends most of their time in | Google Docs or Word and the occasional light web browsing. | This MBA replaced a Chromebook which really was on its last | legs. | alpaca128 wrote: | I'm using an M2 Air with 16GB and M1 Mini with 8GB. On the | 8GB machine I have to restart Firefox every few days | because otherwise it completely fills up RAM + Swap and the | entire system starts getting sluggish. It's a very | noticeable bottleneck while on the 16GB Macbook I don't | really think about memory usage. | | I would not recommend the 8GB variant to anyone who plans | on using it for more than a couple browser tabs and some | light tasks. | stuff4ben wrote: | > I would not recommend the 8GB variant to anyone who | plans on using it for more than a couple browser tabs and | some light tasks. | | Which is basically all my kids do. Less than 10 tabs, | nothing else. | Synaesthesia wrote: | I'm a heavy user often do 50 tabs and lots of apps in the | background. 8gb M1 air is really fast for me. | astrange wrote: | Check about:memory in Firefox. It's not reasonable to run | out of swap; that means it's trying to keep something | like 40GB in there after compression. You might have an | extension or something leaking. | stetrain wrote: | From my experience with M1, M1 Max, and M2 Max laptops, I think | the only real limitation to useful longevity of the M1 machines | is configured RAM and Apple's willingness to provide software | updates. | | A point in its favor is that Apple is still selling the M1 | MacBook Air new today as their entry level laptop, which is now | 3 years old. And it's still a great machine with better | performance and battery life than a lot of competitors and it's | completely fanless. I expect Apple to push for dropping new OS | support for Intel machines fairly quickly, but the countdown | clock on M1 support probably doesn't even start until they stop | selling them as new. | | My previous Intel MacBook Pro was still perfectly serviceable 8 | years after purchase when I traded it in, although it wasn't | going to receive major OS updates going forward. | | The only time I've had issues with my M1 MacBook Air 8GB is | when I temporarily tried using it as a real dev machine while | waiting for a backordered company laptop. As soon as you really | hit that RAM ceiling due to running docker and big IDEs you | really feel the performance drop, but until that point it was | perfectly competent, and again this is a fully fanless machine. | troupe wrote: | My experience with buying lower end intel based Macbook Airs is | that they generally last 10 years before we replace them. | Usually this comes down to asking if it is worth replacing the | battery or better to invest in a new machine. I'm assuming the | M processors will be similar. | kalleboo wrote: | For me at least the longevity is already far better than the | Intel MacBooks Pro. I bought the 2017 and 2019 models and for | my use those felt obsolete from day 1, with 2 hour battery life | and permanent full-speed fans and CPU throttling. | | I have a M1 Pro since release day and I don't see myself | wanting to replace this until probably the M5 is out. | cubefox wrote: | This seems to be a lot of effort to rationalize the surprisingly | small performance increase from M2 to M3. Initially the | assumption was that M2 to M3 would be a bigger step than M1 to | M2, not a smaller one. Perhaps TSMC 3nm is showing the limits of | scaling? | Olreich wrote: | Scaling based on node size has been limited for a long time. It | feels like it started at 13nm that every shrink was getting | less and less performance uplift, but it's likely it's been | going on for longer and we just had much more room for | improvement on chip design. | scrlk wrote: | It's a mixture of several problems: | | * TSMC N3B being a bit of a flop (yield issues, too expensive) | | * Brain drain from Apple's chip design teams over the last few | years | | * Tim Cook trying to push the average selling price up to keep | revenue growth going in the face of sales declines (e.g. | hobbling memory bandwidth, reducing the number of performance | cores for M3 Pro) | | I don't expect there to be a M1 style generational leap for a | long time, expect 2010s Intel style yearly performance gains | from here on out. | pier25 wrote: | The GPU is increasing a lot though. | | Another point is the CPU improvements are constant. In about | two years the base M3 is now on par with the M1 Max. | hajile wrote: | The GPU is critical to future profits though. Apple really | wants your monthly subscription to Apple Arcade and they | want to expand in other game areas which is why they've | been paying AAA companies to optimize for Mac. This also | ties into their VR headset where gaming will be one of the | core features. | the-golden-one wrote: | Hardly any AAA companies are optimising for the Apple | GPU. MoltenVK is where all the interest is. | | Even if they did, there is very little in Apple Arcade | which taxes the GPU, most target the lowest common | denominator in terms of supported iOS/phone combinations. | | The original Apple Arcade strategy was for AAA titles, | but for whatever reason that wasn't pursued, so now we | have a tonne of casual games and re-releases of old | titles. | | Apple just seems to run hot and cold on gaming. | zarzavat wrote: | It's true but the problem with the GPU is Apple's addiction | to RAM money. Yes the GPU is improving in performance but | it does you no good if it has to share a tiny amount of | system RAM with the CPU. | kbd wrote: | Tiny? My M2 Air has 24g, which is more ram than any other | laptop video card I've had. | zarzavat wrote: | Sure, if you pay for it. The 14" starts at 8GB. Eight! | 200$ more for another 8GB. | forrestthewoods wrote: | > The GPU is increasing a lot though. | | Is it? Does it matter? Unified RAM is cool. But I'd rather | have an Nvidia 4090. | blktiger wrote: | Weren't all of the new M3 Macs announced the same price as | they previously were or lower? Same with the recently | announced iPhones? Or am I mis-remembering? Seems like prices | not increasing given all the recent inflation are actually a | price decrease pretty much across the board not an increase | on the average selling price? | scrlk wrote: | Entry level pricing for a MacBook Pro now starts at $1599 | rather than $1299. | sroussey wrote: | And it has a downgrade from a Pro chip to a non pro chip. | npunt wrote: | 13" Macbook Pro had M2 not M2 Pro | eyelidlessness wrote: | No it doesn't. The previous (cheaper) entry level MBPs | were non-Pro M2 (and non-Pro M1 before that). | GeekyBear wrote: | > expect 2010s Intel style yearly performance gains from here | on out | | Intel saw very little gain this year at all in return for a | 400 watt power draw under load. | | The plain old M3 saw a 20% performance gain along side | efficiency gains. | | Having a 22 hour battery life is insane and you certainly | aren't going to manage that with a 400 watt power draw. | pretzel5297 wrote: | 400 watts is on a desktop chip where there is no concept of | battery life. | | 20% increase on performance is compared to M1 not, M2 - | which also had 20% increase in performance on M1. | GeekyBear wrote: | > 20% increase on performance is compared to M1 not, M2 | | Nope. | | > The M3 chip has single-core and multi-core scores of | about 3,000 and 11,700, respectively, in the Geekbench 6 | database. When you compare these scores to those of the | M2's single-core and multi-core scores (around 2,600 and | 9,700, respectively), the M3 chip is indeed up to 20% | faster like Apple claims. | | https://www.laptopmag.com/laptops/macbooks/apple-m3-bench | mar... | | > 400 watts is on a desktop chip where there is no | concept of battery life. | | Yes, and in exchange for that ridiculous 400 watt power | draw, Intel saw negligible performance gains. | | > In some areas, the extra clock speeds available on the | Core i9-14900K show some benefit, but generally speaking, | it won't make much difference in most areas. | | https://www.anandtech.com/show/21084/intel- | core-i9-14900k-co... | | Intel only wishes they could hit a 20% gain in exchange | for all that increased power draw and heat. As that | review noted the best improvement they saw in any of the | common benchmarks was just 6%. | llm_nerd wrote: | Apple seems to be focusing on efficiency more than anything, | and maybe a little more market segmentation where the lesser | chips are less competitive with the bigger chips. The Pro | offers fewer performance cores, trading them for efficiency | cores. It has reduced memory bandwidth. | | From a generational perspective, the M3 Max is offering the | same level of performance as the M2 Ultra. That's amazing as | the m3 max is 12p/4e vs 16p/8e in the m2 Ultra. The M3 Ultra | should be a substantial lift. | Zetobal wrote: | It's a tick and some people... especially marketing departments | want to sell it as a tock. | solardev wrote: | Wait, is that the sound the minute hand makes?! I never | realized. | xattt wrote: | Assuming you don't have a single-hand clock. | vbezhenar wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-tock_model | camillomiller wrote: | I don't know where you get the idea of small performance | increase. What I'm seeing until now, also in pre-review unites, | is actually the opposite, especially when ray tracing and mesh | shading get taken into account. For anything GPU related these | new machines are a giant leap. | jeffbee wrote: | Are these mainstream use cases? These always feel like they | are chosen to demonstrate the processor's strengths, instead | of talking about the ways the processor helps in real | applications. | brigadier132 wrote: | Isn't it a 15% increase? I really don't consider any double | digit percent increases to be small. | hajile wrote: | Actual IPC increase is 1-2%. The rest is from ramping the | clockspeeds. This is a problem because power consumption goes | up exponentially with frequency. Go up too high and they'll | be doing what AMD or Intel does where a single core is using | 50+ watts to hit those peak numbers. | svnt wrote: | Power is polynomial (it goes with the square of frequency), | not exponential. | _ph_ wrote: | How is this a problem? It just looks that they didn't try | to improve the general architecture but make one step to | ramp up the clock speeds without increasing the power | consumption thanks to the process step. Which is a great | achievement, because any tape out on a new advanced process | - here for the first time a "3nm" - is a big achievement. | One has to consider that Apple now has yearly updates in | its processor lineup. The next step will probably introduce | more architectural changes. Only if those would stop | showing up for several years in a row I would get | concerned. | hajile wrote: | With each recent node step, you basically get +10-15% | clockspeed or -30% power consumption. They just blew | their entire node on a small clockspeed ramp. | | Now, if they want a wider core for M4, that means more | transistors and more heat. They are then forced to: not | go wider, decrease max clockspeed, hold max clockspeed | for a pitiful amount of time, or increase power | consumption. | | On the whole, I'd rather have a wider core and lower | clockspeeds then turn the other power savings into either | battery life or a few more E-cores. | GeekyBear wrote: | > Isn't it a 15% increase? | | At least according to Geekbench, it's a 20% performance | increase. | | > The M3 chip has single-core and multi-core scores of about | 3,000 and 11,700, respectively, in the Geekbench 6 database. | When you compare these scores to those of the M2's single- | core and multi-core scores (around 2,600 and 9,700, | respectively), the M3 chip is indeed up to 20% faster like | Apple claims. | | https://www.laptopmag.com/laptops/macbooks/apple-m3-benchmar. | .. | | Along side a battery life increase to 22 hours? It's been a | pretty good showing. | pretzel5297 wrote: | Benchmarks are optimized for specifically. | wtallis wrote: | Are you alleging that a chip which was in development for | years was optimized specifically for a benchmark that was | released a few months ago? | deagle50 wrote: | The surface area of the M3 Pro vs M2 Pro tells you everything | you need to know. | DesiLurker wrote: | have a handy link and few more sentences for my friend who | does not gets it? | deagle50 wrote: | Search "M3 Pro" on Twitter and you'll see some decent | comparisons. | Keyframe wrote: | Everytime Apple oversells there are apologists putting a spin | on it. Nothing new to see. | Tagbert wrote: | And there are detractors downplaying improvements. Nothing | new to see. | tambourine_man wrote: | 10-15% increase in single threaded code every year is pretty | good these days. | aeonik wrote: | The graph needs a legend. Explaining the graph in the several | paragraphs below and then cross referencing shape names and | spatial relationships, is not a fun game to play. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Feels like we've gone from "it's just better, it's obviously | better you can see with your eyes and feel it as you use it" when | M1/2 dropped. | | To trying to justify why the M3 is 20% faster than the M1 and the | M2 was also 20% faster than the M1 and weirdly Apple is only | comparing it to their older processor. | | Like people, maybe it's just an underwhelming update... no need | to pretend it's not. | dmix wrote: | Every Apple update that's not a new product/major revision | people rush to HN to say how underwhelmed they are. This says | more about the high bar they set for announcements and people's | own expectations... rather than how steady and efficient | progress works in reality. | | This is what product iterations look like, M2 only came out a | year ago and M3 is a notable speed increase and just as | important bump in battery life (22hrs is insane for the | performance you get). | | They compared to M1 and intel because people almost always wait | 1-2 cycles before upgrading because MacBooks easily last 2yrs | under heavy use and it's an expensive upgrade. | runjake wrote: | 1. I think you set your expectations too high. | | 2. I assume Apple compared the M3 to M1 because most of the | customers they are targeting are still on the M1. | | M2 customers bought a computer less than a year ago and that | pool of people is relatively small compared to the number on M1 | today. | mcphage wrote: | > I think you set your expectations too high. | | Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast". I | mean there's always marketing exaggeration, but I did expect | more than trying to understand if it's even faster _at all_. | Otherwise I 'm not entirely certain what the point was. | whynotminot wrote: | Literally the only point of confusion here is M3 Pro versus | M2 Pro, where Apple seems to have simply made different | choices around what the Pro chip should be. | | M3 Max is a _massive_ gain over M2 Max. And M3 is a nice | improvement over M2. | | Hope that helps. | stetrain wrote: | It felt like half the event was listing different types of | workload and saying that the new chips were 15-20% faster | than the M2 generation at that task, and 30-40% faster than | the M1 generation. | | The only real exception to that is the M3 Pro, which is | closer to the performance of the M2 Pro at a reduced core | count. | runjake wrote: | > Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary | fast". | | It was the night before Halloween. > I mean | there's always marketing exaggeration | | Apple's marketing people are notorious for exaggeration. | > I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even | faster at all | | Their stated performance improvements seem to be accurate. | Although I'm surprised at _how much_ faster the M3 Max | seems to be. > I'm not entirely certain | what the point was. | | The point was this year's revisions with a speed bump. They | do this almost every year. | | That said, early benchmarks are indicating that the M3 Max | performance is on par with the M2 Ultra. I consider that | "scary fast" myself. | FireBeyond wrote: | > 2. I assume Apple compared the M3 to M1 because most of the | customers they are targeting are still on the M1. | | I feel like this is giving Apple the benefit of the doubt. | | Most people here wouldn't say the same of Intel if they | started comparing to 2 or 3 generations ago. | | No, most likely they're comparing to M1 because it's the | biggest difference that is still plausible to explain. | pohl wrote: | The M3 Max performs similarly to an M2 Ultra. That feels pretty | big to me as a current M1 Max user. | steve1977 wrote: | It's also more expensive than a M2 Max or M1 Max if I'm not | mistaken. | stetrain wrote: | 14" MBP with the highest M2 Max configuration, 64GB RAM, | 1TB SSD was $3899. | | A new model with the same configuration is also $3899. | steve1977 wrote: | Interesting, they seem to be bit more expensive where I | live, although I cannot compare them 1:1 (spec'd one with | M2 Max 30 Core GPU and 64 GB RAM some months ago, however | for 64 GB RAM I would need to go with the M3 Max 40 Core | GPU now, so not a fair comparison) | | Edit: But in any case, the difference would not be huge | from what I can see, so I guess my point is moot | speedgoose wrote: | Wow, that's overpriced for such low specs. | grecy wrote: | Please show me a laptop from another manufacturer that | has similar specs, similar screen, similar battery life | that costs less. | speedgoose wrote: | It's more that those specs are not worth the price bump. | I have a M1 that is slightly less capable but cost much | much less. I use it to access machines that are faster | than this M3 laptop when needed. | stetrain wrote: | For 16 core CPU, a dedicated GPU equivalent, 400GB/s | LPDDR5 memory, 3024x1964 Mini-LED, and 18 hours of | battery? | | The closest I can configure a Dell XPS 15 is $3099, and | that's a 14 core CPU and likely lower memory bandwidth | and lower performance SSD. They claim 18 hours of battery | but only with the base screen, the upgraded screen is | presumably less. | | And from personal experience using an XPS 15 is a | significantly worse experience in stability, heat, fan | noise, and real-world battery life. | | And here are benchmarks for the XPS vs the M3 Max: | | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3367184 | | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3372431 | speedgoose wrote: | Yes I guess if you absolutely need those specs in a small | laptop and you don't care about value it makes sense. I | think it's more that the laptop is not a good deal | compared to other Apple laptops. | stetrain wrote: | Oh for sure. The value return per dollar gets worse the | higher you go up Apple's options list. Especially their | RAM and SSD upgrade prices. | ttoinou wrote: | So, with inflation, the actual price got down | strangescript wrote: | Exactly, how are people overlooking this. Its like saying I | am going to drop a near silent windows laptop, that is thin | and cool, oh and has BETTER performance than last year's | desktop windows machines. | abrouwers wrote: | I agree it's impressive, in the same way Ferrari announcing | a new super car is impressive. But, I drive a hatchback, | and was just hoping they'd cave on 8gb/256gb for | ram/storage, or support for multiple monitors. | adolph wrote: | Well they just caved on the 128G storage last year (2022 | [0]), so it seems premature to think that might happen. | The last bump in base RAM was 2017 [1] and before that | 2012, so one might think that would increase soonish. | However, the shift from Intel to Apple silicon changed | the nature of RAM in the machines. Its too soon to tell | what a base-level upgrade would look like. | | 0. https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook- | air/specs/macbook... | | 1. https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook- | air/specs/macbook... | rahoulb wrote: | I bought my M1 MacBook Pro not long after they were released. | It's approaching 3 years old which is a pretty standard age for | people to start looking at a replacement - I guess that's why | they're comparing it to the M1. | | Slight tangent - even though the MBP has been struggling to | handle my dev work (partly because the codebase I'm working on | has grown significantly in the last two years) I won't be | upgrading. Work bought me a MacStudio (M2 Max), which mainly | runs headlessly on my desk (also running Homebridge and plugged | into my big speakers for AirPlay). This means I'm keeping the | MBP as my portable machine (using VSCode's remote extensions | and/or CodeServer to do dev work from wherever). I also have a | late-2015 27" iMac at the office (with OpenCore Legacy Patcher | so it can run whatever the latest macOS is called nowadays). | This also works perfectly well now all the hard stuff is done | on the MacStudio - and the screen is still lovely. (My previous | 27" iMac was in active service for 10 years, although it was | almost unusable towards the end). | | Another tangent - I bet that's why they're not doing the larger | "pro" iMacs. If it weren't for VSCode Remote Extensions and | OCLP, I would have ended up with a beautiful monitor that was | essentially useless (as was my original 27" iMac). People who | need that extra power should probably avoid all-in-ones and I | won't be getting one again. | | But for most people, who tend to have a single machine, a | comparison to the 3 year old equivalent seems pretty fair to | me. | bee_rider wrote: | Comparing against the device 2 generations back does seem to | make more sense from a "should I upgrade" point of view, and | seems like a fine thing to put in marketing slides (as well | as comparisons vs current peers, since that's relevant to the | question of "what should I upgrade to." | | The lackluster year-to-year is a bit of a bad sign WRT the | long term trajectory, but they've been doing this | successfully for quite a while, they've recovered from worse | I suspect. | dnissley wrote: | Oldest MBPs with an M1 are from late 2021, so only 2 years | old. | rahoulb wrote: | Those were the redesigned M1 Max/Pro versions. | | Mine is the M1-with-touchbar (same design as the intel | version) which was released at the same time as the M1 | MacBook Air - late 2020. | cesaref wrote: | Having been all over the apple range over the years, the M1 | Max Macbook Pro i'm currently using has been I would say the | best of their laptops since the original G4 Powerbook. A | couple of years into ownership of this machine, and it's been | an excellent experience. | | I develop on it every day, and i've no need to upgrade it, so | i'll wait for the M4 :) | karolist wrote: | This is the way, portable machine should have a good battery | life, good screen and good keyboard for me, everything else | gets done on a remote, network connected machine with gobs of | RAM and Linux. | Jaxan wrote: | > It's approaching 3 years old which is a pretty standard age | for people to start looking at a replacement | | Is this really true? Three years sounds very new to me, and | no one in their right minds would replace it. | fouc wrote: | The apple marketing compared their m3 to both m2 and m1, saying | it was 50% faster than m1, and 30% (or 20%?) faster than m2 | stetrain wrote: | 20% performance increases generation over generation, every 18 | months or so, seems pretty great to me. | | If people were expecting gains like the Intel to M1 transition | on an annual basis I'm not sure that was ever realistic. | Frost1x wrote: | >Like people, maybe it's just an underwhelming update... no | need to pretend it's not. | | _" Buy the new M3, a small incremental improvement on the | M1/M2"_ would probably get a lot of people fired as a marketing | campaign. | | While I agree with you, we live in a reality where hype, | hyperbole, misleading, and intentionally manipulative | information is accepted and common place for selling things. It | sure would be nice to look at a product or service and get a | clear comparison without having to read between the lines, pick | out subtle vague language usage, and keep up with the latest | propaganda techniques but alas, it's everywhere. | | On the bright side it should teach everyone you shouldn't trust | the majority of information at face value, which is a useful | skill in life. On the downside we continuously erode trust in | one another and I worry it's wearing on social structures and | relationships everywhere as more people see and mimic these | behaviors everywhere for everything. | fsociety wrote: | Why would you market to people who just bought an M2 Pro this | year? Those who are going to upgrade, will anyways. Seems silly | to market to people telling them to buy new multi-thousand | dollar laptops every year. | creativenolo wrote: | Yeah and in addition, people know Intel to Apple silicon was | a massive leap, so why market how much fast it is than the | intel version. That play has been played. | | The stats compare to m2 are there. They are just not the | headline/summary. | lostlogin wrote: | Most of the customers are going to be Mac users, and I'll bet | that most already have M series machines. | | Comparing M3s to old Intel Macs would also be lame, and a | fairly meaningless comparison. | | It would be interesting to know how many people compare M | series performance to Intel performance when buying, as those | are usually going to be different markets surely? | jmull wrote: | It seems like the M3 favors efficiency and thermals over raw | power. This makes sense for the devices they've put it in. | | I wonder if we're going to see different processors (M3X or M4) | for the next release of the pro desktops, that favor power over | thermals and efficiency? | | Maybe there will be a kind of tick-tock, with odd numbered | processors favoring efficiency and even numbered processors for | power? | | M3, M5, M7 for the laptops | | M4, M6, M8 for the pro desktops | | ? | pohl wrote: | Doesn't prioritizing efficiency and thermals make sense for any | device? Even a desktop has moments when it's doing almost | nothing but has tasks that can adequately be handled by an E | core where powering up a P core is overkill. Doesn't being | efficient mean that more of the thermal budget can be held in | reserve for when it's actually needed? Don't desktop users | desire for their powerful machine to also be quiet? | jeffbee wrote: | The blue-logo CPU company gives you a choice. You can adopt | their most aggressive power profiles and get marginal | performance gains if you want them. Or, you can tune them | down to levels where they are pretty fast and fairly quiet. | Or, you can dial them all the way down to their most | efficient operating point, which pretty much nobody wants | because that point is around 1W/core and they are pretty | slow. | | Apple is dictating how much power the CPU is allowed to draw | and they don't let it scale up. They are also making a static | choice about how much die area and power to spend on the GPU, | which might not suit every user. I know I personally don't | give a rip about the GPU in my M2 mac mini, beyond the fact | that it can draw things on the screen. | diffeomorphism wrote: | Not really, no. Case in point: | | https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-9-7940HS-analysis- | Ze... | | Adjusting the TDP from 80W all the way down to 35W costs you | relatively little in performance and gives you about the same | efficiency as an M2 Pro. That is not done because it does not | sell. | | > Don't desktop users desire for their powerful machine to | also be quiet? | | No. That is not an "also" but an "instead". People claim they | would make that trade-off but that is just not the case. Same | for "make it heavier but give me more battery life". | bgirard wrote: | If I can tuck away my desktop under my desk and it acts as | a large space heater in the below zero winter I don't mind | if it's helping me get my compiles down faster. | | There's some jobs I want a fast desktop for and other jobs, | like browsing cooking recipes, I'll take my M1 macbook air | for. | arcticbull wrote: | > That is not done because it does not sell. | | It's not done because it doesn't sell in the PC market. | Apple's kind of your only choice and if they say you're | getting perf/W you're getting perf/W :) | | > People claim they would make that trade-off but that is | just not the case. | | It's not 2 dimensional, tdp vs noise. It's tdp vs size vs | noise vs price. You get a large ATX mid-tower and throw | some Noctua 140mm fans in there and you won't hear a thing | as it dispenses 1KW of heat into your feet area. | crest wrote: | > Doesn't prioritising efficiency and thermals make sense for | any device? | | No. If you have the cooling to sustain the higher power mode | it can be worth it to pay the power bill to get work done | faster. Compared to the productivity gains for compute | limited workloads the increased power bill is little more | than a rounding error or even a net power saving because you | need less supporting infrastructure per worker to accomplish | the same assuming that the tasks are even efficiently | parallelizable to multiple (human) workers. | GeekyBear wrote: | > Doesn't prioritizing efficiency and thermals make sense for | any device? | | Intel did just ship 14th Gen Core i9 chips with a 400 watt | power draw under load and very little in the way of a | performance gain. | | > In some areas, the extra clock speeds available on the Core | i9-14900K show some benefit, but generally speaking, it won't | make much difference in most areas. | | The most significant win performance for the Core i9-14900K | came in CineBench R23 MT... the Core i9-14900K sits 6% ahead | in this benchmark | | https://www.anandtech.com/show/21084/intel- | core-i9-14900k-co... | | Having your best benchmark result only see a 6% gain in | return for a more than 400 watt power draw makes it pretty | clear that just as with the Pentium IV of old, Intel isn't on | a sustainable path. | | It also makes the M3's 20% performance gain along side | efficiency gains look pretty darn good in comparison. | solardev wrote: | You can just stack more of them for performance, no? You can't | magically cool them down for idle periods though. | jmull wrote: | Dollars are never unlimited though, so you can't just add | more chips/chiplets/cores. | stetrain wrote: | For the M3 and M3 Pro, they kept the same number of cores or in | the case of the Pro actually decreased them. | | On the other hand, the M3 Max gained 4 Performance cores for a | total of 16 cores (12P 4E) vs the M2 Max's 12 cores (8P 4E). | | The M3 Max beats the M2 Ultra (2x M2 Max dies) in single and | multicore benchmarks. | | Seems like Apple is leaning towards efficiency on their lower | end chips, but also using the extra transistor density to push | performance on M3 Max, increasing the gap between the low and | high end chips. | | That M3 Max is presumably going to be turned into an M3 Ultra | sometime next year with 32 cores, which would roughly double | the M2 Ultra multicore performance. | jltsiren wrote: | The M3 Max beats the M2 Ultra in single-task benchmarks, that | measure how well various kinds of software can take advantage | of the hardware. Such benchmarks don't scale well with the | number of CPU cores, because many tasks involve sequential | bottlenecks. | | With higher-end hardware, you should get more meaningful | results by running a few copies of the benchmark software in | parallel and reporting the sum of multicore scores as the | true multicore score. That would reflect the common use case | of running several independent tasks in parallel. | deagle50 wrote: | Apple is favoring yields and margin over everything else. They | cut the M3 Pro as much as possible so it's half the area of the | M2 Pro. | hajile wrote: | I think it's more accurate to say that M3 favors smaller chips | because N3B has atrocious yields (not to mention cost savings). | | When they switch to N3E and get better yields, I imagine that | we'll see chip size grow. As we're getting close to the number | of cores that the average consumer can use or would want to use | in a desktop, I imagine that we'll be seeing an increase in | GPU, NPU, and other specialized units instead of more CPUs | though. | Fluorescence wrote: | > I wonder if we're going to see different processors (M3X or | M4) for the next release of the pro desktops | | I don't think they care much about pro desktops given the | pretty embarrassing MacPro. They just don't mean much for the | bottom line compared to consumer lifestyle devices. | | I expect they would be happily rid of the customer segment - | annoying power users wanting low-level access and | customisation. They keep their machines for too long and don't | give much upselling opportunity for subscriptions, fashion | accessories, house and family trinkets. | jwells89 wrote: | It can make sense for desktops too, like in the case of the Mac | Studio. The role it plays there is keeping fans inaudible while | maintaining good thermals rather than conserving battery. | Dritzzka wrote: | Apple needs to stop explaining stats in vague weeb speak and just | give us what the actual compile times in GCC are. | | >Then again, that takes courage. | whynotminot wrote: | Given what appears to be a reduced performance focus for the M3 | Pro chip, and the M3 Max has taken off to the stratosphere in | both performance and unfortunately price, I'm wondering if for a | lot of professional users if getting a refurbished M2 Max machine | is actually the best price to performance move right now. | | Really looking forward to some detailed M3 Pro analysis. | asylteltine wrote: | And yet the air can't support more than one monitor. I know Apple | is a small company with only a few engineers so it must have been | too hard. | | Sarcasm obviously. As an Apple enthusiast it's so annoying how | they sniff farts. | sneak wrote: | The Air is not the computer for people who use a lot of | external monitors. 99.9%+ of MBAir users will never connect | even one external monitor. | | They make a small MacBook Pro that is suited for that task. | Detrytus wrote: | And yet it's a dick move from Apple to artificially limit | number of external screens supported. | sneak wrote: | Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the size, | weight, and most importantly, price point (ie sub-$1k) that | it is. | | It is Apple's best selling computer by quite a bit. They | sell metric assloads of the $999 base model each fall when | school starts. | | IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is | literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer | available today or at any time in my recent memory. It's | astounding how good it is for that price. | user_7832 wrote: | > Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the | size, weight, and most importantly, price point (ie | sub-$1k) that it is. | | > IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is | literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer | available today or at any time in my recent memory. It's | astounding how good it is for that price. | | It is possible for your comment to be correct while the | poster above is also correct. The M chips are amazing, | but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't knowingly gimp | the hardware to upsell the more expensive versions. | | _" But that would make it more expensive."_ | | Yes it would... by pennies. It is a bit ridiculous to | sell a phone as expensive as the current iphones and | limit them to USB 2. | sneak wrote: | Generally speaking, people don't use the port on an | iPhone for anything other than charging. The fact that it | supports USB v-anything is mostly unnecessary cost. | | If you are thinking in any way whatsoever about the non- | wireless data transfer speeds on your phone, you are not | the market or user it was designed for. Same goes for | external monitors on an MBA. | user_7832 wrote: | I agree that USB isn't commonly used but that's kinda the | point - it doesn't hurt apple much to do it (and they're | not saving anything remotely significant), but they still | do it to force the few who do want to use fast USBs. A | more common example where nearly everyone would notice | would be the abysmal ram in their phones until very | recently. | lukas099 wrote: | > knowingly gimp the hardware to upsell the more | expensive versions. | | I'm skeptical. A ton of money is dumped into optimizing | everything and then they just throw it down the drain? | That would drive more people to the competition than to | higher-priced Macs. | user_7832 wrote: | I meant that bit in general and not specifically for the | mac, but for eg they sold iPads with 32gb storage as | recently as 2020 iirc. Even now the base level macs have | much less ram and storage than similarly priced windows | counterparts. I think part of it is just so they can say | "macbooks start at $xx!". There are more examples I can't | think of right now. | masklinn wrote: | Come off it. | | - the 14" M3 is $1600, but limited to a single external | display, and actually only has two TB ports, it's just | sad | | - the M3 Pro is limited to two external displays, despite | an entry price of $2000 | | $3199 is the baseline to be able to use 3 external | displays (although at that price you can plug up to 4). | MikusR wrote: | the 2000 Euro M3 Macbook pro also supports only one | external display and is the same size and weight as the | ones that support more. | _ph_ wrote: | They are not artificially limiting the number of external | screens. To support more screens, they would have to | reserve die area for an additional controller. That could | mean a gpu less or something. This is about engineering | tradeoffs. | masklinn wrote: | Considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1, | I'm sure they could have found some room for a third | display controller, or a more capable one (one with MST | support for instance), or just a more _flexible_ one. | | They're selling a $1600 machine which can't drive two | external displays, it's sad. Intel's HD Graphics have | been doing better since 2012 and they're trash. | nomel wrote: | > considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1 | | And that's why everyone loves node shrinks. You can stuff | more transistors for the same cost. | willseth wrote: | It's a business decision. You don't think Apple knows the | demand for multiple external displays? If they thought it | would sell more Macs, they would do it. | masklinn wrote: | > It's a business decision. | | That doesn't make it less frustrating. | | > If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do | it. | | It's short term thinking, it generates bad feeling of | nickel and diming and unnecessary upsells: on M3 you need | to pay $2000 to be able to use two external displays, and | $3200 for 3, even if you have no need for the rest of the | processing power. | | Not only that but they managed to create more range | confusion with the expensive but gimped entry-level 14". | willseth wrote: | What you describe is only considered by a vanishingly | small number of their customers. The vast majority don't | care or even own an external display. You could be right | about range confusion, but I doubt it simply because, | like everything else, Apple is so disciplined about | market research. Time will tell | matwood wrote: | > The vast majority don't care or even own an external | display. | | Or more than 1 external display. The vast majority own | none or a single. Few people have multiples, and those | people are generally enthusiasts who will also tend to | pay more. | freeAgent wrote: | You can say, "it's a business decision," about nearly | anything that a business does. That's not really an | argument for or against something. | wubrr wrote: | Engineering tradeoffs to support something intel/amd PCs | have supported for 15+ years? Maybe apple is just shit at | engineering? | shepherdjerred wrote: | Intel/AMD chips don't approach the efficiency of what | Apple makes. | jamespo wrote: | I don't understand this pretence that the vast majority | of the time laptops are plugged into the power anyway. | FireBeyond wrote: | There's always one reason after another. "It won't fit", | you say sure it can, others do it, "Well, they don't do | it efficiently", you say okay, how many times are you | driving multiple monitors (most of which support power | delivery these days) on battery, then it'll be "Apple | just understands this better". | shepherdjerred wrote: | You're effectively saying that you want Apple to design a | chip without any compromises in features, cost, | performance, or efficiency. | | Apple sure could design a chip that drives more monitors, | but maybe they decided that making the chip x% more | performance/efficient, or having y feature was more | important. | | Or, maybe this really truly is trivial and they decided | to segment their chips by not including this feature. | There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. | tcmart14 wrote: | Perhaps because until recently, battery life has sucked? | I used to plug in my laptops all the time. Now with the | M1, it only gets plugged in to charge, then I don't plug | it in until I charge it again. I have been enjoying | sitting on my couch when I want to, to get work done | rather than at my desk. | wubrr wrote: | You can sit on the couch and have your laptop plugged in. | I also don't keep my lenovo plugged in all the time and | don't notice any battery issues. Realistically you're not | sitting on a couch, working for 6 hours straight either. | deergomoo wrote: | It's not just battery life, it's heat and noise too. Yeah | I know not a lot of people actually use laptops on laps | (though I do), but you typically can't hide it under a | desk like you can with a desktop. | | My job provided me with a Dell laptop with an i7 and it | can keep my coffee warm just idling. Sometimes, when it's | decided it doesn't want to sleep, I can hear the fans | from the next room. While the screen is off, not being | touched. | | I could go on at length about just how shitty the Dell is | compared to my MacBook Air (despite costing more and | performing worse!), but Apple Silicon Macs are just so | much _nicer_ when it comes to the practicalities of using | a portal computer. | postalrat wrote: | So this conversion goes from Apple shouldn't need more | display controllers since most people Air users don't use | more displays to most people don't use their laptop on | battery but power usage should be a major concern. | | It's almost like we should focus on what Apple does best | and ignore what Apple does worse. | scarface_74 wrote: | True. But when I was going to customer sites, it was | really nice to plug in my MacBook Pro the night before | and not have to think about battery life. It's also nice | not to have the fans going constantly and being able to | work with it on my lap without the fear of never being | able to have little Scarface's. | claytongulick wrote: | Have you ever actually tried driving decent large | monitors from those crappy intel chips? | | I have. | | Engineering tradeoffs indeed. | | For all its flaws, Apple focuses on making sure there is | a good experience overall. In general, they'd rather have | a more limited hardware ecosystem that works better than | a broad ecosystem that's flaky. | | There are tradeoffs to both approaches. I go back and | forth between windows and mac, and have for decades. | | I was a surfacebook/win10/WSL guy for a few years, and | liked it a lot. Win 11? Not so much. | | Currently the M series chips blows any PC laptop away for | the combination of portability/performance/battery. | | The Snapdragon X might change that in the next couple | years, and I'll take a look at switching back then, and | see what win 12 offers. If MS decides to take a step back | from being an ad-serving platform and goes back to | focusing on productivity, I may switch back. | | For now though, I'm planning on accepting the gut punch | to my wallet and picking up a 14" M3 Max in a few weeks. | wubrr wrote: | > Have you ever actually tried driving decent large | monitors from those crappy intel chips? | | Yes, I regularly drive my monitors with 1 intel laptop | and/or 1 amd laptop (modern ones, linux). Not a single | issue ever. I plug in my work m2 pro mac to these same | monitors - constant issues. | | > For all its flaws, Apple focuses on making sure there | is a good experience overall. | | MacOS has had dozens of well-know, well-documented bugs | for years that haven't been addressed, many of them | mentioned in this thread. I don't see any focus from | Apple on these whatsoever - their main focus seems to be | advertising and visual design. | d3w4s9 wrote: | I have done dual external monitor setup for years on | Intel and AMD laptops without any issues. | | The standard setup at my company is a ThinkPad connected | to dual 27" monitor. My company has thousand of | employees. (Mac setup is also available for those who | requests.) Many many companies offer a similar setup for | employees. | | Maybe you need a reality check first. | cylinder714 wrote: | If you're referring to the 13-inch model, that's been | discontinued. | sneak wrote: | No, the 14. The Air is 13, and the "normal" MBP is now 16. | The 14 MBP is not onerously large if you are one of the | people who want an Air-sized computer with lots of IO. | | It would be annoying if you had to get a 16" laptop to be | able to hook up to multiple external displays. I love my | 16" MBP but my Air is the one that goes everywhere in my | handbag. | mananaysiempre wrote: | The plain M3 version of the MBP doesn't support more than | one external display either[1]. | | [1] https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ (scroll down | to "Display Support") | kylec wrote: | You need to spend a minimum of $2000 though, the new $1600 | MacBook Pro also only supports one external display. | sroussey wrote: | Yeah, the new MacBook Pro with a non Pro or Max chip is | essentially an Air with a couple extra ports. I don't think | they should have released it. | upget_tiding wrote: | It's better than the 13" MacBook Pro with touchbar that | it replaced. | user_7832 wrote: | While some engineering compromises I can understand, most | appear to simply be anti-consumer/cash-grabs. Need more than | 8gb ram? Hope you've got sufficient money. Want a high refresh | rate screen present in cheap android phones? Sorry not for our | base models. | datpiff wrote: | > Want a high refresh rate screen present in cheap android | phones? | | What is this for? Games? I avoided this to save money the | last time I bought a phone. I honestly can't think of use | case where a phone display needs to update higher than 60 Hz | user_7832 wrote: | High refresh rates aren't just for games, they make the | entire interface smoother. Things like frame rate or | latency are quality of life things that you don't _need_ , | but once you upgrade, the difference becomes clear. Sort of | like going from a slowly accelerating station wagon to a | Porsche/sports car even when (capped by the speed limit) if | you've experienced that. Hopefully someone else has a | better analogy. | masklinn wrote: | More importantly VFR is not useful for just high refresh | rates. I would argue that for most people on a phone it's | the least useful part of the thing. | | Instead VFR allows saving battery by slowing down the | refresh rates, down to as low as 1FPS for static or high | latency content. That's part of why always on display is | only available on the 15 Pro: at 60Hz it's a battery | killer. | | > Sort of like going from a slowly accelerating station | wagon to a Porsche/sports car even when (capped by the | speed limit) if you've experienced that. | | So... functionally useless. | user_7832 wrote: | > So... functionally useless. | | (Disclaimer, I haven't driven a sports car but I have | driven cars between "nice" and "struggles to reach the | speed limit") | | While it might appear to be very similar, having a sports | car that you're capable of driving well/defensively can | literally be a life saver. There was this video from a | few years back on reddit of this guy in a 911. Vehicle in | front suddenly stops/crashes, he needs to rapidly change | lanes at highway speeds. The little 911 unsurprisingly | handled it excellently. A slow/heavy car would've very | likely spun out and crashed. | | Having more power if you don't need it doesn't hurt (if | you're trained well). Less can hurt. | masklinn wrote: | > While it might appear to be very similar, having a | sports car can literally be a life saver. | | Or it can be a life ender by planting you into the side | of the road, something mustangs and BMWs are well known | for, amongst others. | | > that you're capable of driving well/defensively | | If you need to be a skilled pilot to face the situation, | it's less the car and more the pilot which does the life | saving. And even skilled pilots who know their cars well | can fuck it up. Rowan Atkinson famously spun his F1 into | a tree, after 14 years of ownership, having been racing | for 2 if not 3 decades. | | > There was this video from a few years back on reddit of | this guy in a 911. Vehicle in front suddenly | stops/crashes, he needs to rapidly change lanes at | highway speeds. | | Something which ends up in a collision as often as not. | | > The little 911 unsurprisingly handled it excellently. A | slow/heavy car would've very likely spun out and crashed. | | Or not. Or maybe with a less capable machine they'd have | driven more prudently and would have kept more space. | | > Having more power if you don't need it doesn't hurt (if | you're trained well). | | So having more power can literally hurt. And routinely | does. | lukas099 wrote: | So basically while more sportiness can make you safer in | theory, in practice you have a human in the mix who is | all but guaranteed to drive less safely. I agree. | turtlebits wrote: | IME, the difference is negligible. I went from a iPhone | 12 to a Galaxy S21 Ultra and yes, there is a difference, | but it's not something I notice, even when occasionally | using my wife's iPhone 12. | | The bigger difference I notice is in loading times for | apps. | user_7832 wrote: | I'm not sure how the Galaxy handles it but if it's | similar to the stock android situation, you're likely | often only seeing a 60hz screen rate. You can go to | developer settings (or perhaps screen settings) and force | 90hz or 120hz on. If your eyesight is otherwise good | (especially if your younger than 50) you should be able | to notice the difference quickly. | culturestate wrote: | _> yes, there is a difference, but it 's not something I | notice_ | | Anecdotally, I use the last gen pre-120hz iPad Pro as my | daily driver and I notice the difference _immediately_ | when I switch from my phone to the iPad. It's not | annoying enough to force me to upgrade immediately, but | it'll absolutely be a requirement for me going forward. | jwells89 wrote: | For me the difference is visible, but the added | smoothness is more of a cherry on top than anything. I | switch between 60hz, 120hz, and 240hz panels every day | and the 60hz panels don't bother me a bit. On desktop and | laptop displays I'd take integer-scaling-friendly pixel | density over high refresh rates any day. | | Variable refresh rates should be standard across the | board however, not restricted to high refresh panels. | There's no more reason for a static screen to be | redrawing at 60hz than there is for it to be redrawing at | 120hz or 240hz. | ska wrote: | To stick with your car analogy though, with screens it's | more like the performance vs. gas mileage trade off. Your | sports car will get you the same place at the same time | (capped by speed limit) with more fun (if you like that | sort of thing) but cost you at the fuel pump. This is | fine if you don't care about $/gallon, but sucks if there | is gas rationing. | | This analogy is also flawed, of course. | willsmith72 wrote: | sounds like something I'd rather never want to get used | to then. More expensive, uses more power so kills battery | life faster and worse for the environment. Where's the | win? | user_7832 wrote: | > uses more power so kills battery life faster and worse | for the environment. Where's the win? | | Depends on the device, but often the difference is a very | minimal few point percent, perhaps 3-5%. I would think it | can easily be compensated for by | undervolting/powerlimiting on laptops. | | The win is lesser eye strain/headaches for a lot of | people. No harm in turning it off if you don't need it, | but many do benefit. | tuetuopay wrote: | > uses more power so kills battery life faster | | not necessarily. on promotion iPhones (fancy name for | variable refresh rates), the panel is not stuck at 120Hz | all the time. it varies from 1Hz when the screen is | static up to 120Hz when it's getting animated, down to | whatever framerate your content is at (e.g. movies and | videos). it actually is a battery saver whenever the | phone's screen is static (common on most apps with text) | or with <60Hz content (youtube, movies, etc). | varispeed wrote: | I can certainly see a difference between 60Hz and say | 120Hz. The latter is way easier on the eye. | lvncelot wrote: | I've recently splurged on a new phone (old one was >4 years | old and started to run a little slow) and a high refresh | screen just adds to the general "snappiness" of everything. | I'm also using a high refresh-rate monitor for work and | it's always a little weird to go back to a 60hz screen. | | This is obviously not a critical feature, mind you, but it | does add to the experience of using a device, even if it's | just productivity-related tasks. | varispeed wrote: | Even the lowest tier models probably beat any PC laptop when | it comes to usability and comfort though. | wubrr wrote: | Strong disagree. | | UI is very buggy and inconsistent. | | CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less | standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with | many of the same commands existing but behaving just | differently enough to be annoying. | | Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's | standard on windows/linux and most other operating systems. | | Not sure what people mean when they say completely vague | and ambiguous things like 'usability' and 'comfort' - are | you referring to the fact that it has rounded buttons and | corners and pretty ads? | | It basically falls in between a standard windows and highly | modified ubuntu setup, but does far worse at both. The UI, | apps, etc is far more buggy and unintuitive than windows, | and the os is far less 'unix' and far less customizable | than ubuntu. | stouset wrote: | > Unix tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less | standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with | many of the same commands existing but behaving just | differently enough to be annoying. | | I'm pretty sure this is simply you expecting GNU and | actually getting FreeBSD-based tooling. It's not wrong, | it's just different than what you expected. | wubrr wrote: | Not at all. As a single example - macos comes with an | extremely outdated version of GNU bash (3.2) from 2007. | And yes, this has consequences in that many modern bash | scripts depend on bash 4+ (current latest GNU bash is | 5.2+). | foldr wrote: | Zsh has been the default shell on MacOS for ages now. If | you need a more modern bash then you can easily install | it using brew or other common package managers. This is a | total non-issue. | wubrr wrote: | Of course shipping a very outdated tool with your OS is | an issue. And the fact that you need to use 3rd-party | package managers to update/replace it is also an issue. | | But if you want to contend that anything that is | solveable via customization/3rd party packages is a | 'total non-issue', then I fail to see how you could argue | that Linux isn't superior to MacOS in every single way. | karolist wrote: | It's not an issue even if you say it is. Takes 1 minute | to setup brew on a fresh Mac, third party or not who | cares when it's open source, apt is also open-source and | in the same sense a third party someone develops, you | just get that with the base Debian like systems, if we | start counting the minute wasted to setup brew then you | waste more time to install Debian in the first place, | Macs come pre-installed. | wubrr wrote: | It literally is an issue, and the fact that you're | pointing out a potential solution should make that | obvious to you. Many software companies (including | FAANGs) have basically given up trying to support | building/running most of their software on mac for these | exact reasons, and they have really tried - dedicating | hundreds of experienced engineers to the problem. | karolist wrote: | I call BS on the FAANG statement. I work at FAANG and 80% | SWEs use MBPs, actually if we go by literal meaning of | FAANG company list, they do not even focus on desktop | software and are mostly web companies and the tooling is | all backend where SWE machines do not do any heavy | lifting. | wubrr wrote: | You work at FAANG and you can run your entire stack on | MacOS? Which FAANG? | | Or you mean, you work at FAANG and you can run your web | application which is 0.01% of the stack on your mac? | | > they do not even focus on desktop software and are | mostly web companies and the tooling is all backend where | SWE machines do not do any heavy lifting. | | The web frontend/ui is a relatively small portion of the | development that goes on at typical FAANG. And the reason | the macs 'do not do any heavy lifting' is because they | literally can't - most of the complex backend systems, | low low level/high performance code, etc can't be run on | macos. | scarface_74 wrote: | This is total bullshit. Amazon and Microsoft both support | the Mac thoroughly. From what I saw when I was there, | most developers at Amazon use Macs. | wubrr wrote: | You're completely wrong. I worked at Amazon (AWS) for | years, yes developers generally use macs, but they | generally cannot run their entire stacks on mac. Most of | the actual software people work on is run on remote linux | (AL2) ec2 instances after syncing the code from mac. | | Running the entire AWS stack on macos is literally | impossible at this point because major pieces aren't even | built for macos (and can't be without major rewrites). | wredue wrote: | Does brew still require mangling OS permissions? | foldr wrote: | No. This is answered on the Homebrew installation page: | https://docs.brew.sh/Installation | wredue wrote: | That page appears to very much describe that it does, in | fact, still fuck your systems permissions... | | I'll never install homebrew as long as the dev continues | this amateur hour bullshit. | toast0 wrote: | Using tools from the base OS is really holding it wrong. | Just like ftp.exe/Internet Explorer/Edge and Safari | should only be used to download a usable browser, the | Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download | the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. | | Otherwise, you have no way to control versioning anyway. | When the OS version is tied to the version of so many | other tools, it's a nightmare. Apple is trying to push | you in the right direction by basically not updating the | CLI tools ever, even when upstream didn't change the | license to something unacceptable for them to distribute | as in the case of bash. | wubrr wrote: | > Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to | download the tools and versions of tools that you | actually want. | | Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or | manual installations from 3rd party sources to install | common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? | | > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many | other tools, it's a nightmare. | | It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs | specific libraries/tools then they can be installed in a | separate location. If there are new major versions of | user-level tools (like bash) those should come by | default, not some 15 year old version of the same tool, | with the same license. Multiple linux distros have solved | these problems in different ways 10+ years ago. | | > Apple is trying to push you in the right direction by | basically not updating the CLI tools ever | | No, they are just neglecting the CLI ecosystem, the | package management, and the many many outstanding bugs | that have existed and been ignored for years. | spacedcowboy wrote: | Because the newer tools changed the licensing terms, and | the corporate lawyers won't let anything under GPL3 | anywhere near anything if they can help it. | | GPL2 was viral, but the terms were easier to stomach. | Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause | in the license requiring you provide a way to run | modified version of the software which would require | Apple to let users self sign executables. | | This is a simple result of the GPL going where Apple will | not, so OSX is stuck with whatever is MIT, BSD, Apache, | or GPL2 licensed. | | I like the GPL, I license my open source stuff under it, | but it doesn't work for all cases. Apple is fine with not | using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts | with other company principles. | | Simple as. | rfoo wrote: | > Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a | clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run | modified version of the software which would require | Apple to let users self sign executables. | | Wow, I don't know this before. Good job FSF! This, | should, be, a, basic, right. | spacedcowboy wrote: | You can of course sign your own binaries. You can't alter | them sign a system binary. I'm good with that. | wubrr wrote: | > Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a | clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run | modified version of the software which would require | Apple to let users self sign executables. | | Does that really add up though? You can install and run | 3rd party software on macos without any signing needed. | toast0 wrote: | > Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, | or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install | common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? | | Because you want to control the version of 3rd party | software. | | > It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs | specific libraries/tools then they can be installed in a | separate location | | The OS installs tools in /usr/bin and you should install | tools in a separate location. Apple provides a commercial | UNIX, not a Linux distribution. /usr/local or /opt are | traditional locations for you to place the 3rd party | software you want to use on your commercial UNIX. | | If you want the OS to ship with updated tools, of course | it's tied to the OS version. Then if you want bash 70, | you'll need to run macOs Fresno or later, or install bash | 70 in /usr/local. You should just install your version | anyway, and then you won't have to worry about OS | versions (unless bash 70 requires kernel apis unavailable | before macOs Fresno, in which case you're stuck; but most | software isn't intimately tied to kernel versions) | jamespo wrote: | We're not talking about keeping up to date with the | latest revision of python / java here, it's a shell | that's woefully out of date. Apple is not RHEL | backporting fixes so binaries continue to run for 10 | years - in fact they seem quite cavalier about backwards | compatibility. | toast0 wrote: | Upstream changed the license. Apple doesn't distribute | GPLv3 software. Apple's not going to distribute a newer | version. That's how license changes work. The old version | continues to work as well as it always did; scripts | written for the new version don't work, but why would you | write a bash4 script for macOs? | | Not that they were going to update bash regularly anyway. | So if you needed a new version in the base, you'd need a | new version of the OS. And then you're back to the same | problem you have now. Apple doesn't distribute the | version of the 3rd party tool you want for the OS you're | on. | wubrr wrote: | > The old version continues to work as well as it always | did; scripts written for the new version don't work, | | Right, so scripts written for bash4+ don't work - which | is most of modern bash scripts.. | | > but why would you write a bash4 script for macOs? | | The problem is that you have to write special scripts | (among other things) just for macos. This is very real | problem because most modern software companies run their | stuff on linux, while the dev laptops/workstations are | often macos. | foldr wrote: | Bash is only there for backwards compatibility with old | scripts. The default MacOS shell is an up-to-date zsh. | BigJ1211 wrote: | Maybe I'm and oddball, but I download third party package | managers (or wrappers) on literally every OS I use. | | Scoop, Chocolatey on Windows. Brew on MacOS. Amethyst on | Arch. | | Linux package managers eviscerate whatever is available | on MacOS and Windows by a long shot. | | Frankly if there's one thing I want my OSes (excluding | Linux) to keep their greasy paws off of, it would be my | CLI and build environments. | | I want to install and manage what I need, not be force | fed whatever sludge comes out of Microsoft's or Apple's | tainted teats. Manage and update the OS, don't touch | anything else. | wubrr wrote: | Linux and MacOS package management is very different, | because linux distros generally have first-class | supported package management that comes with the OS. | | > I want to install and manage what I need | | Good luck installing what you need if someone hasn't made | a port explicitly for macos. | skuhn wrote: | Unfortunately this will never be fixed. It's not a | technical problem. They refuse to ship software licensed | under GPL v3, and bash 3.2 is the final GPL v2 version. | | I hate it. | tcmart14 wrote: | Didn't they stop 'shipping' bash by default awhile ago? | Now the default shell is zsh? | skuhn wrote: | bash is still shipped on macos 14, the default shell is | zsh since 10.15 in 2019. | Someone wrote: | I wonder why they haven't fixed it yet by removing bash | and the other GPL-licensed tools. Even if they currently | need one to boot the system, they have the resources to | change that. | iAMkenough wrote: | I refuse to drop Samba and go back to AFP | jlokier wrote: | _> Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, | or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install | common tools that aren 't a decade+ outdated?_ | | There actually is a reason. It's not lack of maintenance. | | It's because Bash 3.2 is the last version licensed as | GPLv2. Bash 4.0 and later changed license to GPLv3. | | Apple decided it's not safe for them to ship _any_ | software with GPLv3 with macOS, because of stronger legal | conditions in GPLv3. This is also the reason they stopped | updating Samba. | | They changed the default shell to Zsh long ago. The old | Bash is kept around, so that users who want to stick with | Bash can still use it as their shell, and so that | existing scripts for macOS (for example in installers) | continue to work. If nobody cared about Bash, I expect | they would have dropped it from macOS when switching to | Zsh, rather than keeping the old version. | | So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most | recent version they can ship. | | As for other tools like "cp", "ls", "rm", "touch", etc. I | agree they are annoying on macOS, when you are used to | the versatile GNU/Linux command line options. I sometimes | type options after filename arguments due to habit on | Linux. macOS commands very annoyingly treats those | options as filenames instead. And I miss options like | "touch --date". | | However, this is not due to old tools. Those differences | are just how up current (up to date) BSD commands work. | They are just a different unix lineage than Linux. | | The GNU tools were intentionally written to be more user- | friendly than traditional UNIX(tm) tools, which is why | the command line options are generally nicer. GNU/Linux | systems come with GNU tools of course. macOS never did | because it is derived from BSD and comes with BSD tools | (with Apple enhancements, like "cp -c"). | | You get the same on most other unix environments that are | not GNU/Linux. People install the GNU tools on top, if | they want the GNU command line experience instead of the | default. Sometimes with the "g" prefix (like "gls", | "gtouch" etc.). | | These days, even if Apple decided it's worth the | technical fallout of switching from BSD command line | tools to GNU, they wouldn't do it for the same legal | reason as what keeps Bash at 3.2: The current GNU tools | are licensed as GPLv3. | Nullabillity wrote: | > So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most | recent version they can ship. | | Apple could _choose_ to be GPLv3 compliant tomorrow, if | they wanted to. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | They also seem to be about the only ones who seem to | think this is a problem. Even Microsoft has the GPLv3 | bash in WSL. | wubrr wrote: | > However, this is not due to old tools. Those | differences are just how up current (up to date) BSD | commands work. They are just a different unix lineage | than Linux. | | What up-to-date BSD are you referring to? The commands on | different forks of BSD like FreeBSD vs OpenBSD are not | the same. And quickly looking at the man pages of latest | FreeBSD vs MacOS versions of ls, for example - they are | not the same. | | > These days, even if Apple decided it's worth the | technical fallout of switching from BSD command line | tools to GNU, they wouldn't do it for the same legal | reason as what keeps Bash at 3.2: The current GNU tools | are licensed as GPLv3. | | What actually prevents them from including GPLv3 | software? | shepherdjerred wrote: | > CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less | standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with | many of the same commands existing but behaving just | differently enough to be annoying. | | macOS is UNIX certified and POSIX compliant. You're | probably expecting GNU commands, but macOS is based off | of FreeBSD (and is not related Linux). | wubrr wrote: | First of all unix/freebsd/linux are all closely related. | Second, macos does not come with current freebsd set of | CLI tools, and in fact comes with several very outdated | GNU CLI tools. | shepherdjerred wrote: | Yes, macOS does include some GNU programs, and both the | FreeBSD and GNU programs that it includes are rather | outdated. | zaphar wrote: | CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less | standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty | hard, with many of the same commands existing but | behaving just differently enough to be annoying. | | They wasn't following unix/Linux standards they are | following unix/bsd standards. Standards that predate | Linux and for some of us are very familiar indeed. | wubrr wrote: | What standards are those exactly? | | Everyone knows that macos (and windows) took a lot from | unix/bsd. But that does not mean they are actively | following any kind of reasonable modern standard. And | saying they might be following some 30 year old supposed | bsd standard is pretty hilarious for an OS that portends | to be cutting-edge, intuitive and well-integrated. | masswerk wrote: | Hum, BSD is still very much around. | _gabe_ wrote: | I think the buggy apps and UI isn't emphasized enough on | Macs. I honestly can't remember the last time I was on | Windows and performing an action failed to give me any | visual indicator whatsoever that something happened, but | that's common on my M2. I'll click something, have no | feedback, and then a few seconds later the thing happens. | | Just a couple concrete examples, if you open an app in a | workspace, then switch screens to a different workspace, | then click the app in the dock, nothing happens. I would | expect to be taken to the screen and have the app made | visible, but instead, nothing. I kept thinking that the | app must be frozen or something until I switched screens | and found it. | | Another example, I was carrying my laptop to and from | work. I put it in my backpack with padding that protects | the laptop. I didn't jostle it around, I literally just | carried it to and from work. I get home and the screen is | in some sort of weird flickering bugged out state. I had | to forcefully restart it just to get it working again. | | With all that said, the trackpads and gestures on Macs | are amazing. The displays are also very visually | appealing. The performance is good. | wtallis wrote: | > I honestly can't remember the last time I was on | Windows and performing an action failed to give me any | visual indicator whatsoever that something happened | | I find that more often than not I can't make it through | the Windows setup without worse janky stuff happening. | Pretty often when toggling off all the bullshit privacy | settings that shouldn't be opt-out to begin with, I'll | get a visual indication of the switch _starting_ to move | after my click, then turning around and going back to the | default--so my click was definitely received, but | rejected somehow. That seems worse to me than a correct | response delayed. | | > if you open an app in a workspace, then switch screens | to a different workspace, then click the app in the dock, | nothing happens. I would expect to be taken to the screen | and have the app made visible, but instead, nothing. | | There is a visual indication in that the contents of the | menu bar change to reflect the newly active app; unlike | on Windows a Mac app can be active without having an | active or foreground window. There's a system setting to | control whether to switch spaces in this scenario, but I | don't recall whether the behavior you describe is the | default or something you accidentally configured to annoy | you. | BigJ1211 wrote: | By default it jumps to the workspace that application is | opened up on. | nvarsj wrote: | I was always kind of puzzled that big tech companies seem | to exclusively use Macs for software dev. Then when I | joined one, I discovered that everyone uses remote Linux | VMs for actual development. Which makes a lot more sense | - Macbook as a glorified thin client with great battery | life suits it pretty well. Although, I still sorely miss | Linux/Windows window management. | BigJ1211 wrote: | As someone who uses Windows, Arch with Hyperland and | MacOS almost daily. I am immensely curious about what you | find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? In my experience | that's been the least buggy and inconsistent of the | three. | | My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and | Linux/Mac ones. For the most used ones it's CMD + | whatever the standard key is for that shortcut, instead | of Control. Overal I prefer that the Super key is more | useful than what has been the default for many years with | Windows. | | I also use the CLI for virtually everything on Mac and | Linux, MacOS isn't all that different and feels more like | another Linux flavour than it's own beast. | | The only UI gripes I can think off immediately is no | window snapping and closing the window doesn't mean | you've exited the application. The first requires a | third-party tool (I recommend Rectangle), the latter is a | change in behaviour. | | Frankly I'm not really all that interested in defending | MacOS, but I hope you realise that saying "very buggy and | inconsistent" without naming anything specific isn't any | less vague and ambiguous than "usability and comfort". | | Your reaction comes off as "I'm used to this, therefore | the other thing is bad and unintuitive." I'm sure this | isn't your intention, so specifics would be illuminating. | deergomoo wrote: | > Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's | standard on windows/linux | | Mac OS predates both. | | Also, this is personal preference, but I find engaging | Command with my thumb _far_ more comfortable than Control | with my pinky. | Der_Einzige wrote: | Ah yes, the 8gb ram models in almost 2024 with crippled | SSDs are beating equivalent PC laptops for their price... | NOT! | | 8gb wasn't even enough in 2015! | | Apple competes and demolishes anything from PC in battery | and build quality. Certainly not in usability and | subjectively comfort. | | Also, low tier PCs support multiple monitors. Try getting | that on the macbook Air. | musha68k wrote: | Agreed, especially the increasing greediness with regards to | RAM and corresponding upselling is unfortunately real at this | point. I just upgraded to the iPhone 15 Pro Max because of | the 8GB RAM and I will probably need to do so for my two Macs | as well. 16GB/32GB RAM I "fear" not going to cut it in 2024 | for my kind of snappy productivity work anymore. Especially | due to unified memory architecture. | | QED seemingly works out well for Apple though.. :P | | I'm still hoping for some ex Apple folks to create some new | version of NeXT computers. I would switch immediately to | someone's alternative offering trying to actually play at | Apple's level of quality. | astrange wrote: | > I just upgraded to the iPhone 15 Pro Max because of the | 8GB RAM | | This is a bad reason to upgrade. If you were supposed to | know about it, it'd be in the specs. | | It's not there to improve performance or be more forward | compatible, it's because the camera upgrades need it. | musha68k wrote: | OOM kills are basically the sole reason for me to upgrade | iPhones. Nothing more annoying than force-reloaded/lost | state in/between apps while on-the-go and under tight | time constraints. Also somewhat true: new lenses are | amazing but "computational photography" defaults | sometimes less compelling than my old iPhone X's more | "honest" output. I'm going to play around with RAW some | more if I get the time for it though. | marmaduke wrote: | Just curious, I had a 2020 SE daily and never had a OOM, | how do you do it? | musha68k wrote: | How does software do this usually? :) I guess it's a | combination of heavy multitasking / using it for work + | private plus - again - constant-drum of increasingly | bloaty websites and applications following whatever the | current ceiling is. "Simple" apps like podcatchers come | to mind, don't know how often Overcast bailed on me with | maybe 100 podcasts subscribed / updating? But again there | are many more cases and sometimes not only third party. | user_7832 wrote: | I still use a 2020SE and experience apps reloading all | the time. I cannot keep more than 2 apps reliably in | memory at any point. This includes Safari, youtube, | reddit (honestly a poorly made app), spotify etc - fairly | "common" ones. | euazOn wrote: | It sucks but at least DisplayLink works well enough. Driving 4 | monitors this way with my M1 Mac Air with no issues. | Ographer wrote: | Can you name or link any specific hardware or software you're | using? Last time I looked into how to run 2 monitors on my M1 | Air I gave up after seeing $400 docks that seemed to have | performance issues for some people. | bloopernova wrote: | I have this for my m1 pro: | | https://a.co/d/gD5q8G3 | | It uses the 6950 DisplayLink chip, which can do 4K@60Hz. | | It's 90 dollars and drives 2 screens. | | Software is less good. I had to enable Rosetta2 to get the | pkg to install. Then you have to boot to recovery mode to | allow signed 3rd party drivers. And you get a creepy notice | that someone is watching your screen, which is how the | display driver works. | | Performance is pretty good, just a bit laggy on mouse | movement. | heyoni wrote: | Is that because the screen generation is software based? | I noticed that when using display link and couldn't bare | the input lag or worse the compression from moving a | window too rapidly. Switched to a monitor with | thunderbolt output and my coworkers thought I was being a | diva. | Ographer wrote: | My understand is that yes, the external displays are both | rendered by the CPU and so there are lower frame rates | and frames dropped which is a concern of mine since I am | pushing this computer to its limits with some | applications I run. I've heard that for casual use it | isn't too noticeable. | | Unfortunately I don't think the M1 Air supports TB daisy | chaining unless you're ok with mirrored displays. I still | can't decide if I want to ask my job for a new computer, | a new dock, or new displays lol. | freeAgent wrote: | Yeah, it's definitely not as good as native, but it's not | bad. One other significant restriction for DisplayLink is | that it's unable to display DRMed video content. | firecall wrote: | Sadly it doesn't work well enough with 4K displays for me. | | At least, not the last time I tried. | wubrr wrote: | I mean, the support for even one monitor is by far worse than | windows or linux IMO. | | - Monitor randomly resets/readjusts for no apparent reason. | Like multiple times every hour. | | - Windows disappear, become inaccessible after moving between | monitors, even though it still open and active according to | doc/task list. | | - Why can't I move a window to a monitor/workspace that has a | maximized window? Like, you can do it by un-maximizing the | window in question, moving the other window over and then re- | maximizing the window again. But why is this nonsense needed? | What problem could this restriction possibly be solving? | | - Lots of other monitor/workspace related problems (quick | google will show dozens related problems without any obvious | solutions or explanations for the completely nonsensical | behaviour). | | I really don't understand how people can say macos has good and | consist overall UI? I mean, yeah - it's consistently buggy and | un-intuitive: | | - Doc constantly breaks/becomes inaccessible. This is a known | problem for at least 5+ years - the solution is to manually | kill and restart the process??? | | - Text cursor/caret randomly disappears when editing text, so | you can't see where the cursor is, and you can't fix this | unless you restart the app (happens to pretty much all apps). | | - Was working with unicode characters recently, now whenever I | press command+s to save something, it gives me a visual unicode | character selector popup, with no apparent way to stop/cancel | this behaviour from the popup itself. | | - Bad defaults in terms of keypress repeat times and rate. No | apparent way to change this from settings - need to run | commands and re-login to test new behaviour. | | Just an overall crap OS and UI imo. | jwells89 wrote: | I've been using macOS in a multimonitor setup for years | without much issue. A good bit of it boils down to macOS | expecting monitors to be well-behaved, e.g. each having | unique EDIDs (many don't, instead sharing one across all | units of a particular model) and initializing in a timely | fashion. | | > Why can't I move a window to a monitor/workspace that has a | maximized window? | | Because it's fullscreened, not maximized. macOS doesn't | really have window maximization in the traditional sense out | of the box, you need a utility like Magnet or Moom for that. | | That fullscreen mode was introduced in 10.7 Lion and a lot of | long time mac users have found it silly from day one. | Personally I never use it. | | > Text cursor/caret randomly disappears when editing text, so | you can't see where the cursor is, and you can't fix this | unless you restart the app (happens to pretty much all apps). | | I've seen this, but only in Chromium browsers and Electron | apps. Seems like it might be a Blink bug. | | Regarding other OSes, multimonitor on Linux is mostly fine | (so long as you're using Wayland; X11 is another matter | especially if you're doing something slightly uncommon like | using two GPUs, in which case xorg.conf mucking will likely | be necessary). | | By far the most frustration I've had with multimonitor is in | Windows, which is generally weak there. IIRC it only recently | gained the ability to set per-display wallpaper; before you | had to glue wallpapers together into a single image that | spanned across them, which is silly. | Terretta wrote: | > _That fullscreen mode was introduced in 10.7 Lion and a | lot of long time mac users have found it silly from day | one. Personally I never use it._ | | Agreed, however it's arguably for a different mental model. | If people think of it as "focus mode" or "workspace mode" | it makes more sense. Four finger swipe to slide between the | workspaces or focuses. | | More importantly, you don't need MOOM. | | - - - | | To maximize a window to the dimension of the screen without | entering full screen mode, either: | | 1) hold shift option [?] and click the green maximize | button on the top left of the window | | - or - | | 2) hold the Option key and double click a corner of a | window to maximize without full screen focus, and doing | that again will size it back to where it was | jwells89 wrote: | > To maximize a window to the dimension of the screen | without entering full screen mode, either: | | This is a handy trick to know, but has caveats. Option- | green-functionality is actually defined by apps, not the | OS, and so in some cases it will for example act as a | "fit window to content" button. | | Option-double-clicking a corner appears to be consistent | across windows however. | mhio wrote: | Double click anywhere on the title bar works for me. | claytongulick wrote: | Interesting - it's one of the killer features of macos for | me. | | I use it to compartmentalize stuff I'm working on, and 4 | finger swipe between them. | | I have a couple instances of VSCode, some app/debugging | browser windows, some chrome profile windows etc... all | running full screen and I spend my day brush swiping | between them. | | It may be different for me because I work on a 14" macbook | pro, mostly at coffee shops or unusual work locations, so I | don't have a large monitor setup. I don't think I'd use it | much if I had more of a traditional desk/multimonitor | config. | jwells89 wrote: | I could definitely see it being more useful on a small | screen, especially something like the 12" Macbook. | | Generally I'm working at my desk with at least 2x 27" | displays. If I'm out somewhere it's instead 16" MBP + | 12.9" iPad with Sidecar. | wubrr wrote: | But you can have workspaces/maximized windows without | having the restriction of preventing moving windows to | another monitor/workspace that has a maximized window. | | I use workspaces on my linux laptops all the time - this | 'feature' has existed for ~20 years, and is not hard to | implement. The difference being that macos seems to force | the restriction of having only 1 window per workspace and | not being able to drag a window from one workspace to | another. If that's the behaviour you want (one window per | workspace), you can easily operate in this way without | having the forced restriction. | wtallis wrote: | You _can_ have multiple monitors and multiple workspaces | with multiple windows that can be freely moved between | monitors and spaces. The only restriction is that when | you make a window full screen (not the same as | maximizing), it becomes its own new single-occupancy | space. You seem to think that making a window fullscreen | is the only way to make a new space, but it 's just a | special case of a larger system that already has the | functionality you're asking for. | wubrr wrote: | > A good bit of boils down to macOS expecting monitors to | be well-behaved, e.g. each having unique EDIDs (many don't, | instead sharing one across all units of a particular model) | and initializing in a timely fashion. | | I don't really buy this explanation. I'm talking about | using a single external monitor here, a monitor which I | regularly also use with linux (intel/amd) laptops without a | single issue. | | > Because it's fullscreened, not maximized. macOS doesn't | really have window maximization in the traditional sense | out of the box, you need a utility like Magnet or Moom for | that. | | That's not really a good reason though. It still doesn't | explain why the restriction exists. Why can't a non- | maximized/fullscreen window be displayed on top of a | fullscreen/maximized window? What problem does that solve? | | > That fullscreen mode was introduced in 10.7 Lion and a | lot of long time mac users have found it silly from day | one. Personally I never use it. | | It's default though. | jwells89 wrote: | > I don't really buy this explanation. I'm talking about | using a single external monitor here, a monitor which I | regularly also use with linux (intel/amd) laptops without | a single issue. | | Might be model-specific then. It's not something I've | seen with displays from Asus, Alienware, and Apple. I | briefly owned a Dell monitor that would periodically | flicker but it got returned. | | > That's not really a good reason though. It still | doesn't explain why the restriction exists. Why can't a | non-maximized/fullscreen window be displayed on top of a | fullscreen/maximized window? What problem does that | solve? | | Probably because it'd be easy for windows to get "lost" | if the fullscreen window were focused and non- | fullscreened windows fell behind it, with there being no | obvious indicator that those windows exist. | arcatech wrote: | Do you honestly believe all of those things happen to | everyone? You think everyone who likes macOS is just ignoring | those kinds of severe issues? | | Obviously you have some kind of problem with your system. | hashhar wrote: | Well, most of what he is saying are actually easily | reproducible macOS quirks. | | - Windows disappear, become inaccessible after moving | between monitors, even though it still open and active | according to doc/task list. | | This indeed happens relatively often if you have multiple | monitors and switch between them for any reason. e.g. in my | case I have two machines and two monitors, sometimes I | switch the primary monitor to a specific machine and this | almost always fucks up macOS. Solution is to disconnect and | reconnect the monitor. | | - Why can't I move a window to a monitor/workspace that has | a maximized window? Like, you can do it by un-maximizing | the window in question, moving the other window over and | then re-maximizing the window again. But why is this | nonsense needed? What problem could this restriction | possibly be solving? | | A lot of people who use macOS agree that the fullscreen | window thing is needless and makes for quirky behaviour. | | - Dock constantly breaks/becomes inaccessible. This is a | known problem for at least 5+ years - the solution is to | manually kill and restart the process??? | | - Text cursor/caret randomly disappears when editing text, | so you can't see where the cursor is, and you can't fix | this unless you restart the app (happens to pretty much all | apps). | | Yep, happens quite frequently to multiple people I know and | in multiple apps. | | - Bad defaults in terms of keypress repeat times and rate. | No apparent way to change this from settings - need to run | commands and re-login to test new behaviour. | | Indeed this is very painful for people who are non- | developers and are used to be able to have higher repeat | rates. | Exoristos wrote: | I've both used Macs for decades and at one time worked in | enterprise Mac technical support, and I've never seen this | stuff happen. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | I've used multi-monitor dev setups and large screen setups | in mac laptops for, christ, 15 years. | | I've seen all of those things listed. | | It would be one thing if OSX/Linux/Windows UIs would just | stay at their basic usability from around 2010. They | haven't. They just get steadily worse. | | OSX has been the most stable of them, quirks and all, even | with a goddamn architecture change, but its closed | hardware, a forced upgrade cycle, and bad backwards | compatibility. | | Linux once would just rewrite window managers every 5 years | as soon as they got stable, now Linux is rewriting with | Wayland and Vulkan, and ... about 5 years in they'll | probably start rewriting those once they get a little | stable. | | Windows? Committed UI suicide with the tiles and two | desktops thing in Windows 8. Now there's ARM in the future | and a break with the only thing it has going for it: | backwards compatibility. | | But yes, everything the author complains about happens in | OSX with laptop + monitor / dual monitors, and even without | with disappearing mouse cursors. | d3w4s9 wrote: | I haven't used Mac for a while, but I definitely remember | the part about window freezing (and requires killing the | process) when connecting/disconnecting a external monitor. | It's very frustrating. | | (And I for one hasn't bought a Macbook since 2020 because I | am not going to spend at least $1,999 just to get dual | monitor support. A $500 asus laptop can do dual monitor | without any problem, and it turns out that machine is good | enough for my productivity needs. That money is better | spent elsewhere) | wkat4242 wrote: | It's not hard. The pro can do it. It's simply market | positioning to make you spend more. | alberth wrote: | Only 1-monitor support seems like a market segmentation | decision, not a lack of capability. | | (Much like how the iPhone Pro has faster USB-C data transfer | speeds vs base iPhone) | jbverschoor wrote: | Give me a "pro" which is thinner than and without a fan. | | or | | Give me an "air" with two external monitors and 64GB ram. | | The pros are clunky and heavy. I'm on an air, and will stay | there for a long time because if this | abakker wrote: | Aren't the pros and the airs very close to the same weight? | the 15" air is 3.3 lbs and the MacBook 14" with the m3 is | 3.4lbs. The heaviest 16" with the m3Max is 4.4. | nwienert wrote: | 15 air significantly heavier than 13 | joshstrange wrote: | I agree but the iPhone is a bad example. They used the | previous year chip in the non-pro phone (or a binned version | IIRC) which didn't have the USB3 speed support. I guess we | will see if next year's base iPhone has the faster data speed | support or not. | josu wrote: | Yeah, you can actually use these dongles to connect more | monitors. | | https://m1displays.com/ | jonah wrote: | The regular iPhone 15 has last-year's Pro chip, the A16, and | the 15 Pro has the new A17, so it's not simply a matter of | binning or disabling features. | delfinom wrote: | It's intentional. Apple is going down the path of SKUs to | segment their price points. | | It may also be they have chips that have bad display | controllers and they are using this as one way of offloading | those chips with the bad controllers lasered off. | hartator wrote: | I have the Air, it does support its own monitor + a 6k monitor. | quitit wrote: | The answer is pretty straight forward: it has no fan and | limited ram. | | It supports a 6K screen in addition to the built-in screen. | It's reasonable to say that if you need 3 screens to get your | job done, then that is not representative of the market for | apple's lowest-end laptop. | exabrial wrote: | Dude my old galaxy phone from yesterday could drive a 4k | display | sfmike wrote: | is efficient cores just lower clock or how could 3 6 efficient | and 6 performance be worse, is it possible it could be better as | its more efficient while also faster and just calling it | efficient cores? After all isn't that an arbitrary semantic term? | reliablereason wrote: | They take up a smaller size of the chip. | | Which could be seen as an indication that those cores have less | caching and less parts for prefetching and stuff like that. | | The efficiency core would do less things per cycle but also use | less power per cycle. The performance cores would do 3 | instructions in a cycle but the efficiency core might only do | half an instruction. | bloopernova wrote: | I want a better system load metric now that we've got | heterogenous cores in CPUs. The Pixel 8 Pro has 3 types, | efficiency, performance, and one single ultra performance core. | | If your efficiency cores are always close to max usage, but your | performance cores are idle, is your system being heavily or | barely used? | | I understand that system load isn't really a useful metric | between systems, but it's useful to compare on a single system I | think. I just want a better at-a-glance thing to communicate to | me if my computer is under or overloaded. | | (Additionally, do you have to specify that a particular app can | run on efficiency cores, or does the process scheduler do it all | without input from a human?) | tootyskooty wrote: | Sounds like power usage might fit the bill. | zamadatix wrote: | Raw power usage is very skewed. Getting that last 20% of | performance the chip is capable of might take as much power | as the first 80% did, and not each type of workload may have | the same skew depending on which components are being | stressed and how. Say you did have an adjusted map of | power<->utilization though, it still assumes "system | utilization" means "how much of the total possible capacity | of this system is being utilized". This is a valid take, if | you can get such a mapping, but it's not necessarily the only | valid take of what system load is. | cduzz wrote: | Isn't this just a subset of the existing capacity monitoring | problem where I want to know how loaded a multi-core system is | under the following scenario: | | Some critical path, single-threaded task is at 100% of capacity | of a core; the system has 10 cores -- is my system at 10% | utilization or 100% utilization? | ahoka wrote: | Easy, measure the TDP usage instead of CPU usage, which is | impossible to correctly measure at a given time anyway. | cduzz wrote: | Well, I certainly track capacity by power used by servers | under management, but a system that's pinned on one thread | is at 100% utilization, for very real definitions of | "capacity" but the power consumed will _also_ be some small | fraction of how much power would be drawn if you were | lighting up all the cores at 100% also. | the8472 wrote: | linux has pressure stall information[0] which tracks the time | where some processes couldn't be run because they were waiting | for contended resources (cpu/io/memory). An N-parallel compute- | bound job on an M-thread CPU will stay at nearly 0 CPU pressure | if N=M (assuming no background tasks) because they're not | stepping on each other's toes. At N>M pressure will start to | rise. | | [0] https://docs.kernel.org/accounting/psi.html | twoodfin wrote: | Note that for memory, as I understand the documentation, it's | less about "couldn't be run" than "couldn't have the real | memory allocation necessary to avoid paging". | | This is in contrast to another contended resource, memory | bandwidth, "waiting" for which manifests at the process level | as CPU cycles like any other code. It's possible to use | profiling tools to distinguish memory waits from other CPU | activity, but as far as I know nobody has built the | infrastructure to bubble that data up in some form so it | could be tracked systemically by the OS. | | I can guess why: The memory hierarchy is complicated, and | what you can derive about it from CPU performance counters is | indirect and limited. Still, even some basic estimation for | how many cache lines a process was responsible for driving | over the memory bus would be helpful for those building high- | performance systems and applications. | Hello71 wrote: | PSI is exported by the kernel to track context switches: | switch to idle process = io wait, switch to kswapd = mem | wait, switch to other runnable process = cpu wait. these | are already visible to the kernel, it just needs to | increment some counters and expose those to userspace. you | can get the perf counters with something like `perf stat | -ae cache-misses sleep 60`, it doesn't need to be in /proc. | | additionally, context switches are the same on everything | that can run Linux, whereas PMU counters are highly CPU- | specific (potentially even different in each CPU stepping), | so given the current state of affairs, a generic interface | would be very limited. | paulddraper wrote: | Huh? # of running processes is the usage of the system. | | --- | | If your system is running it on CPU, GPUs, high-efficiency, | low-efficiency, etc....that's the _performance level_ of your | system, not the _load_ on your system. | | This is nothing new. We've had power-saving CPU throttling for | ages. Carry on. | flashback2199 wrote: | I don't see apple silicon in macs having been the right decision | a decade from now because competing toe to toe with the entire | semis industry on architecture has never worked before except in | iphone where they had a huge first mover advantage. | larkost wrote: | I think the argument that this might not be great in the long | run is worth considering, but in the short run I think that | their results over the last few years are nothing short of | astonishing. Specifically their laptops, especially when not | plugged into a power source, have both stunning performance and | battery life at the same time. | | Yes there are competitor chips from AMD and the like that are | faster when plugged in, but at a power budget that mean they | are severely throttled when unplugged. This is what Apple cares | about, and at this point they are unmatched. Apple likes to | have fast desktop machines (and they do), but they don't care | about that nearly as much as they care about laptops-in-laptop- | mode. We are a couple of years into this, and Intel is making | noises about trying to match this, but has not yet, and Apple | seems to be pulling further ahead in specifically this area. | | And they have a huge overlap in this focus in the development | of the related processors for their iPhones/iPads/AppleTV | products, and the upcoming headset. A lot of the development | work gets largely reused in that other space, making Apples ROI | even better. | | So long as their is a big enough market that cares about that | (and from the look of sales, there is), Apple's strategy seems | to be a winning one. | flashback2199 wrote: | They are making themselves more different from the rest of | the market instead of "the same but better" which brought | people back to the mac in the first place. It used to be as a | normal person you bought the latest Mac and it came with the | latest i7 and you didn't even think about it and none of your | friends on PC could say anything bad about it because it was | the same chip they had. Now it's like woo M chip is so | different and fast look at my new Mac guys and then your | friends who have PC say actually it's not faster it's just | more power efficient and now the seed of wondering if Apple | is really better has been planted whether or not it's totally | true. I've already started seeing this happen on forums. The | average person buying a Mac doesn't want to have to think | about the nuances of specs and once they start digging into | specs they might find themselves buying a PC instead. But | we'll see, maybe the past won't repeat itself this time. | foldr wrote: | >It used to be as a normal person you bought the latest Mac | and it came with the latest i7 and you didn't even think | about it and none of your friends on PC could say anything | bad about it because it was the same chip they had. | | Only a tiny, tiny fraction of people who buy computers have | conversations like this with their friends. I am a software | engineer and could not care less which chips my friends | have in their laptops. | flashback2199 wrote: | Then why is their marketing right now all about the chip | not the product | astrange wrote: | Why are you arguing about PC performance with your friends? | Don't you have something better to do? | | The biggest advantage of ARM over x86 is security, | efficiency is second. Performance is nice to have but is | kind of coincidental (depending on workload) and I'd expect | everyone else to catch up. | aseo wrote: | I always understood the move to Apple Silicon was also for | supply chain concerns, and not just technical. I remember | reading that Apple would often express frustration at having to | align their products' schedules based on Intel's schedules, and | there would be a lack of support from Intel in their | collaboration -- I could see this is a a valid bottleneck for | Apple, and this isn't their first rodeo in processor | transitions. Of course, now, their bottleneck moves down the | supply chain and will be TSMC, but TSMC seems to be happy to | provide whatever Apple asks for, as seen with their large 3nm | orders. | flashback2199 wrote: | So why work only with Intel and not also with AMD. Never | understood that. They chose vendor lock in so of course the | vendor is going to sit on it same as Motorola did and later | IBM. Now they still have vendor lock in except the vendor is | internal. From a distance, it looks super dumb, betting that | you can do better with an internal project than playing off | the established duopoly. I'm sure I'm too out of the know to | understand. | mdasen wrote: | I certainly thought this back in 2012 when Apple started | designing their own mobile CPU cores. How could Apple compete | with ARM's designs which would have much greater economies of | scale or with Qualcomm who would be shipping way more units | than Apple? More than a decade later and it's proven to be a | durable competitive advantage. | | I would point out that Apple had no first mover advantage with | the iPhone. Apple was using standard ARM cores for the first 5 | years. It's not like ARM didn't have a multi-decade head start | on Apple designing ARM cores. | | There are certainly risks, but so far it looks like Apple is | making the right decision. Intel and AMD are mostly still | targeting a higher power/thermal level than Apple is looking | for. Apple likes being able to run things without relying on an | external GPU. Having the ability to design things themselves | means they're able to make what is most important to their | users. | | With Intel, Apple was always at the whims of what Intel wanted | to produce. It took forever to get the 1038NG7 28W part from | Intel which meant that Apple couldn't offer a 13" laptop with | the speed that a lot of users wanted. It also meant that they | were beholden to crappy Intel graphics - even as they paid up | for the Iris graphics. | | With their own CPUs, their destiny is in their hands. It's | worked extremely well for the iPhone and it's working well for | their Macs too. | | One of the things to remember: Apple already needs to design | these cores for their iPhones and iPads. Once you're doing | that, it makes a certain amount of sense to re-use those core | designs for the Macs. It isn't zero effort, but they aren't | starting from scratch. | | I'd also note that Apple tends to do less than a lot of | companies and the same applies to their processors. Intel, AMD, | and Qualcomm are trying to make parts for a huge range of | devices. Apple has a much narrower field of products. While | Qualcomm is trying to create processors for $100 cheap phones, | Apple just goes with a single CPU for its mobile devices | (sometimes using last year's CPU for some devices). With the | Mac, Apple has a little more variety, but it's still pretty | constrained. An M Ultra is basically just two M Maxes put | together. Most of the time, the design is basically the same | and Apple has just changed the core count or something like | that. | | Will Apple compete with Nvidia's GPUs? Probably not, but an M2 | Ultra is competing with an Nvidia RTX 3070 desktop GPU. Sure, | that's not the current generation or Nvidia's highest spec, but | it's still good - and OpenCL isn't great on Mac so it isn't | even a fair test. The new M3s have much upgraded graphics and | it'll be interesting to see how well they do. | | You can say it has never worked before, but I think that might | ignore a few things. First, one of the reasons that Intel came | to dominate things is because everyone who tried to vertically | integrate their processors tried to charge too much. Regardless | of what you think of Apple's pricing, they aren't charging more | for the privilege of their M processors than they were for | their Intel ones. I think it also ignores the fact that Apple | has so much money. Finally, in terms of cores shipped in the | segments that Apple is shipping them, they're huge. ARM isn't | shipping many X-series cores (their top performance cores). | They're mostly shipping lower spec'd cores. There aren't a ton | of flagship Android phones being sold. Intel is mostly shipping | lower-end laptop CPUs destined for machines in the $400-800 | range, server CPUs, etc. Apple has a lot of scale for the cores | it is designing. | | There is risk, but Apple took that risk a decade ago with their | iPhone CPUs and they've had a great advantage there. While | Intel and others are looking to revitalize their CPU game, it | seems like they're doing it at a higher thermal/power level | than Apple is looking for - and trying to benchmark themselves | against Apple parts at a fraction of the power. Apple is | getting to design parts that do what they need and they've | proven that they can beat the industry for more than a decade. | I'd say it was the right decision to move to Apple Silicon for | Macs. | jader201 wrote: | It's ridiculous that the base and Pro only support 1 and 2 | external displays, respectively. | | Want 3 monitors? Have to pay for the Max. | | https://www.macrumors.com/2023/11/02/m3-chip-still-supports-... | shepherdjerred wrote: | From what I know, this isn't some artificial limitation that | Apple imposes. Adding support has a cost that most customers | don't need to pay. | | Regardless, most people aren't going to be plugging in three | monitors into their laptops, so most people aren't going to | care about this. | runjake wrote: | > Adding support has a cost that most customers don't need to | pay. | | It also adds heat, battery consumption, and space. For a chip | that will also be used in iPads. Still I wished the base M3 | chip supported at least two external displays. Or at least | let you use two by disabling the internal display (eg. | clamshell mode or whatever). > most people | aren't going to be plugging in three monitors into their | laptops, so most people aren't going to care about this. | | Last summer (2022), or thereabouts, I got a survey request | from Apple where they asked how much I cared about external | monitor support, followed by subsequent questions about the | number of external displays that was important to me. So, | Apple's looking at it. | ChrisLTD wrote: | It's entirely Apple's choice to use the M chips in iPads. | And if that means they need to compromise on laptop | performance or features, they should change course. | wtallis wrote: | Do you want Apple to drop some of their existing | products, or do you want them to make more chip designs | each generation with fewer economies of scale for each? | freeAgent wrote: | Apple still uses iPhone chips in the iPad and iPad Mini, | and at this point I'd say they're more than fast enough. | The iPad Air and Pro with M chips seem to me to be | unnecessarily powerful for a device that runs iPadOS and | therefore can only run apps from the App Store, etc. IMO, | people don't buy iPad Airs and Pros over the standard | iPad or Mini because they need the performance of the M | chip. It's the rest of what's in the package. | giancarlostoro wrote: | If I ever have to try to plug more than two monitors into a | laptop at that point I'm going to start asking myself why I'm | not just buying a tower instead. The whole point of laptops | is portability. | thrwy_918 wrote: | > The whole point of laptops is portability. | | Many people want portability, but also want to use external | displays at home or at the office . | baz00 wrote: | Intel support 4 displays on a bottom end i5-1235U. | | Even my crappy little Lenovo M600 with an N-series Celeron | supports 3 displays. Two 4k ones fine. I didn't have a third | to test it with. | | It's either an architectural fuck up or intentional | segmentation. | shepherdjerred wrote: | > It's either an architectural fuck up or intentional | segmentation. | | Do you think there is any chance that Apple would have had | to make some engineering compromise (cost, performance, | efficiency) for a feature that very few people would use? | mickeyfrac wrote: | Apple may be setting up for this to be a killer feature with | Apple Vision headsets. | | They are saying a single 4K feed, but if you could break that | into segments it would change the game. That would be 4 x 1080p | screens + the laptop. | | If you could slice the rectangles anyway you wanted and rotate | them individually then you have the perfect environment. Which | you would be able to change instantly, presumably, with Mission | Control. | | Personally I would pay lots of dollars for that. | TIPSIO wrote: | Speaking of... | | Can I sidecar to two or more iPads with this yet? | | -- | | "Use an iPad as a second display for a Mac" | | https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210380 | punkybr3wster wrote: | Why on earth would you want this when you can get much nicer | screens for fractions of the price? | | One I can understand as I used to travel with my iPad Pro and | used it as a second screen. But two? I've switched to a much | lighter and much nicer UHD HDR usb-c monitor that is amazing | for the price and the weight difference. | | You also don't get the random disconnections when sidecar | weirds out for no reason. | corbezzoli wrote: | Really you're complaining you can't plug in a 4th display into | your computer? The fraction of the population who does can | afford the Max, together with the 3 extra monitors. | | I'm not trying to justify Apple here, but this usage seems | quite niche and it's understandable to me to need a non-base | setup. It doesn't sound _ridiculous_ at all. As a matter of | fact, the vast majority of notebook users never even plug a | single monitor in. | unlikelytomato wrote: | I might argue that what you are describing is exactly why | it's a bit absurd. It would be surprising to me as a user to | discover such a limitation. If I didn't read about it here, I | would probably find out after the return window and then be | pissed that they took a stand on this particular artificial | market segmentation. | swader999 wrote: | My metrics are simple: Does the fan turn on? Can it go faster | than I think and type? M2 with lots of ram has been a dream. | wkat4242 wrote: | This guy is becoming too much of an apple apologist for me. I've | seen him defending pretty bad decisions like John Gruber (who | always was) so I've stopped following him like I have Gruber. | | Also, _because_ I 've disagreed so much with Apple's decisions in | the past years I've abandoned their ecosystem altogether so I'm | also much less invested in the topic. Though I still use a Mac | for work as a "least bad" option. | | Too bad because he did have good technical insights. | wkat4242 wrote: | Ps I know this is a kinda hot take but everything Apple has | rubbed me the wrong way the past 10 years and I'm less and less | aligned with Apple fans. I know this doesn't apply to everyone. | | In 2004 I moved to Mac because it was a powerful and | configurable Unix OS with the benefit of a consistent UI | (nothing on Linux was there then, it was a mess) and major | commercial apps like Office and Photoshop. | | The latter are still true but the platform is so locked-in that | most of its features are useless to me as a multi-OS person. | And the hardware is quite locked down as well which simply | doesn't work for me. A lot of the reasons for this are not | user-centric but commercial. | exabrial wrote: | I think I'll hold out to the M4 and make sure memory bandwidth | and latency is restored to it's previous value. | GeekyBear wrote: | Given that Intel and AMD tend to choke the memory bandwidth on | anything below their server chips, this seems short sighted. | | The M3 Pro's "reduced memory bandwidth" is still double the | memory bandwidth you see on Intel and AMD's HEDT chips. | | Step up to the M3 Max and you're looking at five times the | memory bandwidth of Intel and AMD's chips. | throwaway49594 wrote: | You're comparing strictly CPU memory bandwidth to CPU + GPU. | If you add CPU + GPU bandwidth for a PC you'll get similar | numbers. | buildbot wrote: | Your PC can't use the GPU memory bandwidth for the CPU | whatsoever. So why would you add the bandwidth? | fredgrott wrote: | For context, a desktop intel 13900 to 1400 combined with at least | a NVIDIA 4060 beats it...System76 Thelio Mira for example. | | Both in Single and Multicores and GPU memory bandwidth | Synaesthesia wrote: | Yes but only just and it used 5-10x more power. | pram wrote: | This is my favorite genre of Apple Silicon posts. Someone who | can't tell the difference between a laptop and a 30lb desktop. | fh9302 wrote: | They are basically equal while the Intel CPU uses significantly | more power. | | https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-13900... | https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3364975 | gtvwill wrote: | Devices get a fail for repairability. So yes there is more to | performance than cores. For instance the entire Mac lineup are | mostly unrepairable e-waste in the making with excessively | wasteful design choices behind them. | | The company has a about as much ethics as wet tea towel. A facade | of good intentions masking greed. I couldn't care less if their | laptops get an hour extra battery or are a few seconds faster. | The company is scum from an ethics and waste standpoint. | Surprises me so many can turn a blind eye to it for 3 months of | chart topping numbers. | musha68k wrote: | As a user of many Apple Silicon generations in different / mostly | top configurations by now I'm obviously a big fan. One thing that | I have "observed" though (with no data to back it up): it seems | to me as if under heavy load / resource over-provisioning the | Intel systems from before seemed to recover more gracefully? I | wonder if it's just me, the particular OS version I had been | using at the time or some other thing I'm missing? | | Again, no idea if this is actually the case / for other workflows | than mine. I would be curious to know if anyone else had made the | same observation potentially with actual "high load performance" | data to back it up? | lilyball wrote: | Right now I have an intel laptop for work and an apple silicon | laptop for personal use. The workloads I do on these machines | is different so comparisons are a bit hard to do, but I've seen | the intel laptop exhibit poor behavior under load that I've | never seen from the apple silicon machine. | scarface_74 wrote: | By "load" you could easily mean "running Microsoft Teams". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-03 23:00 UTC)