Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What will a MacBook 2024 offer compared to the high-end maxed out laptops 2024?
- Thread starter Appletoni
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
seems to me you'd be much happier with a windoze based laptop 💻
Both could use it, the Air and iPad Pro because they have so little cooling now, and the MBP (especially the Max versions) because they are so powerful and tend to get tough workloads. The reason the Air works at all is because its typical workload is bursty enough that the processor has time to cool down ( Safari, Word, Mail, etc. want a relatively fast machine so they are responsive, but they're idling most of the time). The Pro is far more likely o be used for a tough job in Final Cut where the processor has to run all out for several minutes (or even hours).
Razer is another likely candidate because AAA games are one of the most sustained workloads around. Apple doesn't really care (nor should they, they are building computers for a different niche market), but Razer cares INTENSELY, and they are one of the few makers in the gaming market who DO care about design and durability, and DON'T care as much if it costs a little more. A lot of gaming laptop makers are content with very high temperatures (it'll be out of warranty when the GPU needs replacement due to heat) and/or content with 9 lb laptops that are 2 inches thick. Plenty of room for a ton of screaming fans... Razer isn't content with either outcome, and has been innovative with cooling (one reason why quite a few non-gamers use repurposed Razers, while you will rarely see a photographer or video pro with some 9 lb Clevo.
Razer is another likely candidate because AAA games are one of the most sustained workloads around. Apple doesn't really care (nor should they, they are building computers for a different niche market), but Razer cares INTENSELY, and they are one of the few makers in the gaming market who DO care about design and durability, and DON'T care as much if it costs a little more. A lot of gaming laptop makers are content with very high temperatures (it'll be out of warranty when the GPU needs replacement due to heat) and/or content with 9 lb laptops that are 2 inches thick. Plenty of room for a ton of screaming fans... Razer isn't content with either outcome, and has been innovative with cooling (one reason why quite a few non-gamers use repurposed Razers, while you will rarely see a photographer or video pro with some 9 lb Clevo.
iPad Pro and MacBook Air, MacBook PRO, MacBook MAX, MacBook ULTRA could use AirJets.
The MacBook Air when running stress tests with 3 AirJets has only 25 decibel!!!
Normal MacBooks are much louder.
Windows laptops has 60 to 85 decibel.
The backside of my MacBook 16-inch MAX is practically ready for AirJets.
It could probably use up to 6 or 8 or even 10 AirJets.
3 AirJets should change temperature at least from 100° C to 80° C when running stress tests.
This will give us a lot of advantages like: cooler device, quieter device, much longer durability and so on.
Apple could also increase the running speed, at least +20% faster without any changes, only AirJets. (M4 AIR, PRO, MAX, ULTRA)
Apple started to care about AAA games with M1 MAX.
The M3 MAX already has 125 fps. = Much much faster than M3 or M1 MAX or M1.
No they don't build computers for a niche anymore.
Games are already a multi $$$ market which is increasing a lot and Apple wants and needs his part of that money.
Exactly! If you care about AAA games (or one of several other things that far fewer people use - GIS is an example), you're pretty much stuck with Windows. For basic office applications, or for work in the arts (and many of the sciences), there's no reason to put up with the bugs and privacy issues of Windows (or Android). Windows has some level of Android integration that is intended to replicate the Apple ecosystem, but it's nowhere near as good.
In the arts (whether professionally or for personal projects), there are additional advantages. Windows has made significant strides in color management, but it still isn't where the Mac is (it just works, and has for well over a decade). I don't know how the audio drivers compare, but I'm guessing that there may be something similar - Windows is probably a lot better than it was, but not close to the Mac
In the arts (whether professionally or for personal projects), there are additional advantages. Windows has made significant strides in color management, but it still isn't where the Mac is (it just works, and has for well over a decade). I don't know how the audio drivers compare, but I'm guessing that there may be something similar - Windows is probably a lot better than it was, but not close to the Mac
Of course Apple will use it inside a MacBook PRO, MAX, ULTRA.
AirJets inside a MacBook Air makes a lot of sense too: much faster device, much better benchmarks, much cooler.
It changed the passive cooling to active cooling, but you can't hear it because it's to quiet with only 25 decibel.
AirJets will change the MacBook
M3 Air into M3 PRO
M3 PRO into M3 MAX
M3 MAX into M3 MAX PLUS
= The M3 Air with AirJets can now compete with the opponents with which the M3 PRO was competing before.
This will improve Apples position on the market a lot and put a lot of pressure on the others.
Buy M4 with AirJets!!
That's right but the hardware must still be fast enough in every case.
Not only in music, photo, video editing. Where Apple is already the number 1, so an improvement here will be 🥱.
Apple can let it as it is for many generation, probably until M8 before the opponents will start to catch up.
In gaming or integer math (which is very important for a lot of stuff) and a lot other parts, Apple is still much slower and that's the point where Apple needs a lot improvements.
Example: AMD is going to nearly double the gaming performance with Ryzen 8000.
= Apple will do hopefully the same with M4 or the difference between gaming performance will increase not in favor for Apple. And in a lot of other cases too.
Apple could increase his performance a lot by supporting/using at least some:
ARMv9.5 (M4) but ARMv9 or 9.2 would be possible with M3.
Multithreading (Hyperthreading Intel) (Simultaneous Multithreading AMD)
Rosetta 3
pext
vnni512
vnni256
avx512
avxvnni
avx2
sse41
ssse3
sse2
sse
mmx
And with "a lot" I mean an increase by a factor of x3 to x300, depends on what you are doing.
I think in 30 years we won’t have RAM. That’s a bandaid for a problem that storage isn’t fast enough. On a basic level, I think in 30 years we will just have a GPU, which will by then stand for General Processing Unit and handle every type of processing instead of having a bunch of separate components (SoCs are already kinda getting there in a way), and unified storage which will be incredibly fast. Just choose how much storage you need, like 128PB, 256PB, 512PB, 1EB, etc. And it will all be accessed wirelessly via an ultra lightweight client, aka the contact lenses on your eyes or embedded directly into your brain and possibly connect to your cerebral cortex with AI augmentation. The world will be segregated by the augmented and what will essentially be the mentally handicapped. And people think blue and green text bubbles are a significant social divide today…LMAO.
There have been some Geekbench leaks for Intel's new Meteor Lake CPUs (well aware of the problems with Geekbench, but it IS very cross-platform (everything from phones to big workstations) and fair across platforms, which few other things are). They're extraordinarily power-efficient - but so are the M-series chips - this is about catching up to Apple, not doing better. What they are NOT is exceptionally fast.
The results are coming in around 11,000-12,000 in multi-core, supposedly from the top-end Core Ultra 9 (what we would have called an i9 until this generation) 185H. It's actually slightly slower than thie current Raptor Lake Refresh, although more efficient.
The M3 Max is breaking 21,000 with regularity. The absolute performance may not be meaningful, but Geekbench does tend to put things in the right order, and to get the magnitude of the performance differences between similar-generation chips pretty close. The best AMD laptop chips are running around 14,000-15,000 (same range as the M2 Max).
It looks like the M3 Max is safely around 150% of the CPU power of any other laptop, probably for a year or so (neither Intel nor AMD is projected to have anything that really changes the status quo until around when the M4 Max is due to show up). Even a "barely a laptop" with a desktop chip in it isn't catching the M3 Max.
GPU power is a different story - no reasonable-power GPU is catching the M3 Max, but some very high-power laptop GPUs can when plugged in. It seems like the full-power M3 Max GPU is between a mobile GeForce 4070 and 4080 (close to the 4080 on non-game benchmarks, often closer to the 4070 in gaming). Any time it drops BELOW the 4070 almost certainly involves Rosetta, OpenCL or both, neither of which are really fair benchmarks. There is still the 4090, where even the mobile version beats the M3 Max if plugged in. The really convincing 4090s are capable of drawing 175W for the GPU alone and around 300W for the whole laptop, though - the M3 Max is doing about 70% of that GPU performance and 150 or 200% of the CPU while drawing between 70 and 100W running flat-out on power-virus tests and usually staying below 50W.
The M3 Max can actually draw its full power needs from the battery. Really high-end AAA gaming on battery is probably still impractical, not because it won't work, but because it'll drain the battery in under two hours. Where that really matters is in "bursty" photo and video (and other) workloads. If I'm editing large images in DxO, I might draw 100W for a minute or two running noise reduction, but then drop down to 15W for 10-15 minutes. That still gives me a six-hour editing session, which is highly meaningful. The 4090 can't do that, because it will never get to full power on battery.
The results are coming in around 11,000-12,000 in multi-core, supposedly from the top-end Core Ultra 9 (what we would have called an i9 until this generation) 185H. It's actually slightly slower than thie current Raptor Lake Refresh, although more efficient.
The M3 Max is breaking 21,000 with regularity. The absolute performance may not be meaningful, but Geekbench does tend to put things in the right order, and to get the magnitude of the performance differences between similar-generation chips pretty close. The best AMD laptop chips are running around 14,000-15,000 (same range as the M2 Max).
It looks like the M3 Max is safely around 150% of the CPU power of any other laptop, probably for a year or so (neither Intel nor AMD is projected to have anything that really changes the status quo until around when the M4 Max is due to show up). Even a "barely a laptop" with a desktop chip in it isn't catching the M3 Max.
GPU power is a different story - no reasonable-power GPU is catching the M3 Max, but some very high-power laptop GPUs can when plugged in. It seems like the full-power M3 Max GPU is between a mobile GeForce 4070 and 4080 (close to the 4080 on non-game benchmarks, often closer to the 4070 in gaming). Any time it drops BELOW the 4070 almost certainly involves Rosetta, OpenCL or both, neither of which are really fair benchmarks. There is still the 4090, where even the mobile version beats the M3 Max if plugged in. The really convincing 4090s are capable of drawing 175W for the GPU alone and around 300W for the whole laptop, though - the M3 Max is doing about 70% of that GPU performance and 150 or 200% of the CPU while drawing between 70 and 100W running flat-out on power-virus tests and usually staying below 50W.
The M3 Max can actually draw its full power needs from the battery. Really high-end AAA gaming on battery is probably still impractical, not because it won't work, but because it'll drain the battery in under two hours. Where that really matters is in "bursty" photo and video (and other) workloads. If I'm editing large images in DxO, I might draw 100W for a minute or two running noise reduction, but then drop down to 15W for 10-15 minutes. That still gives me a six-hour editing session, which is highly meaningful. The 4090 can't do that, because it will never get to full power on battery.
20-inch MacBook ULTRA. (20.3 to be precise.)
As I mentioned it a long time ago very often here.
12:24
20.03.2024
Kuo, Wednesday March 6, 2024
www.macrumors.com
Don't forget that I know this a long long time before him.
As I mentioned it a long time ago very often here.
12:24
20.03.2024
Kuo, Wednesday March 6, 2024
Kuo: Apple Planning 20-Inch MacBook With Foldable Screen
Apple is planning to release a 20-inch MacBook with a foldable screen in around three years, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. ...
www.macrumors.com
Don't forget that I know this a long long time before him.