Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Also shame, if M1 has to be that speedy, I still can’t running Solidworks on it, hence my choice still with x86. After all my Solidworks license almost cost one unit of my tower workstation...so I am only buying a computer if can run Solidworks. In my position, software dictates the hardware I am choosing on.
Just wait a bit. Until the Solidworks (et.al.) developers all get Apple Silicon Macs so that they can compile their own code significantly faster, and thus be more productive. That will drive ports of their apps to Apple Silicon.

Time is money, not only for users of pro apps, but for the developers of pro apps. So just wait for their upgrade cycle, as that may dictate your upgrade cycle to Apple Silicon.
 
I was hoping that someone could answer this question. If the Air according to the initial benchmarks of late is to be believed , and assume the the 13"MBP is going to be faster, are you really going to have to jump up to the 16GB model, for most users? With the M1 are you going to need a dedicated Graphics, if apple's claims are correct...for most users? Is M1 graphics equivalent to the current 16inch AMD Radeon Pro 5300M for Graphics? no one seems to be talking about this?What can we compare the Graphics in the M1 too???
We don't know yet, but I found this benchmark interesting.

 
hmmmm...What if Apple starts building CPU/GPU chips for the industry like for other Android devices and Windows/Linux laptops? *stock market ceiling shatters*
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Coolkiwi
Still a bit unclear:

Where does Apple get it's 2.8-3x speed increase from when these suggest relatively modest (but still very nice) increases of only 20-30% in per-core speed?

Second: Is Geekbench a "native" arm app? Is it translated on first run? Does this make a difference to the way we should interpret the result or not?

I have a 13" MBPro i7 on order...specifically bought to get the last outgoing Intel machine for software compatibility reasons over the next few years, but these results do look promising!
 
Rubbish. My girlfriend has no idea and couldn’t careless about what ram is in her mac. When I try to talk about it with her she still couldnt care less.
I bet you‘re the life and soul of the party../s

Why do you try and talk about ram to her; are you advising her she hasn’t got enough or constantly reminding she has plenty?
 
Here I am!
When I see something this good I praise it! This is the Apple I want!
When I see new emojis and sticky butterfly keyboards and laptops with 1 port type...not so much...


i can't stand the sight of those memojis. they are so punchable.
 
Still a bit unclear:

Where does Apple get it's 2.8-3x speed increase from when these suggest relatively modest (but still very nice) increases of only 20-30% in per-core speed?

Second: Is Geekbench a "native" arm app? Is it translated on first run? Does this make a difference to the way we should interpret the result or not?

I have a 13" MBPro i7 on order...specifically bought to get the last outgoing Intel machine for software compatibility reasons over the next few years, but these results do look promising!
Because work being done is far more than just the core speed. This entire SoC can pass data to its components (including RAM) far faster than the equivalent Intel architecture (because things like RAM at not on the package). There’s your speed increase.
 
We don't know yet, but I found this benchmark interesting.

thanks for your response to my question! Since it looks as if 16GB is the most one can get, they must be pretty confident that the M1 will be able to handle the workload for users with no problem? This is the great unknown is the M1 13" 8GB model equal to the 2020 13" model at 16GB? is seems to be leaning in that direction, in terms of ability? It makes for a more gray area in terms of M1 Air vs MBP? what do think? Most users >90% do not use a MBP for heavy task usage? They play games, YouTube, school work, etc...?
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: NetMage
Because work being done is far more than just the core speed. This entire SoC can pass data to its components (including RAM) far faster than the equivalent Intel architecture (because things like RAM at not on the package). There’s your speed increase.
You misunderstand me: I mean the single core Geekbench is only 30% faster at best (still very good). (e.g. 1600 vs 1200). So where do these 2.8x-3x numbers that Apple is spouting come from?
 
You misunderstand me: I mean the single core Geekbench is only 30% faster at best (still very good). (e.g. 1600 vs 1200). So where do these 2.8x-3x numbers that Apple is spouting come from?
Oh, well it depends on the task. Various benchmarks are showing some really outrageous gains *for very specific things* while the machines themselves are proving to be incredibly capable from testimonials.

But my point still stands. You’re getting increases like this because the entire system runs together much more quickly.
 
You misunderstand me: I mean the single core Geekbench is only 30% faster at best (still very good). (e.g. 1600 vs 1200). So where do these 2.8x-3x numbers that Apple is spouting come from?
The cores in the more common 10 Watt TDP processors they are comparing against score lower than 1200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
How big has the SoC got to be inorder to cram 1.5TB RAM onto it?
LOL the size of the SoC isn’t what should concern you. It’s the yields their getting from their fab process. More ram = more transistors = more that can go wrong during fabrication.

Now you aren’t tossing out a few memory chips or a processor. Now you’re tossing out an entire system-on-a-chip. Even though the actual BOM may be fractions of a a penny on the dollar in the open market the losses are qualified as potential revenues lost.

Put simply, it doesn’t look good on the books and the board looks at those books quarterly.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NetMage
You misunderstand me: I mean the single core Geekbench is only 30% faster at best (still very good). (e.g. 1600 vs 1200). So where do these 2.8x-3x numbers that Apple is spouting come from?
I’m sure they are comparing multi-core speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage
Still a bit unclear:

Where does Apple get it's 2.8-3x speed increase from when these suggest relatively modest (but still very nice) increases of only 20-30% in per-core speed?
At the bottom of the Macbook Air page:
Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction MacBook Air systems with Apple M1 chip and 8-core GPU, as well as production 1.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based MacBook Air systems, all configured with 16GB RAM and 2TB SSD. Tested with prerelease Final Cut Pro 10.5 using a 55-second clip with 4K Apple ProRes RAW media, at 4096x2160 resolution and 59.94 frames per second, transcoded to Apple ProRes 422. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Air.
 
This is one thing I don’t get - like your friend, I have an ancient MacBook Air (mid-2012) which is working just fine. Sure, the battery is shot and I’ve had to buy another power supply because the cable is frayed, but it’s still going!

I assume your friend and I are the exception, otherwise how do apple make money!?!
I'm still using a MacBook Air 2013. Replaced the battery last year, but it's not as good as the original one. Also using a used MacBook Pro 2010 for Snow Leopard and PowerPC apps. Was given that recently. I think many Apple users hold onto their Macs very long. I reckon my MacBook Air will go through 10 years before I upgrade. So, yeah, while I am a loyal Apple user, Apple doesn't get that much money from me. Although, I do buy iPads. My phones are all used iPhones, though, like a 1st gen SE.
 
So, what's the likely catch? I'm willing to believe this processor is exceptionally powerful per watt, and give Apple credit where credit is clearly due, but there must be a tradeoff somewhere. Intel, AMD, even IBM or Qualcomm, know a lot about CPU design and have been fighting over the best engineers for decades.

It strikes me as unlikely that Apple has simply beaten all of them in all use cases, with less power, on their first desktop class CPU. It's not that I'm calling BS, just that engineering doesn't usually work that way; there's usually a tradeoff made somewhere.
Legacy.

Apple has always been willing to throw out the past in pursuit of the future. Most other companies can't or won't do that.

As an example you can still run DOS 3.0 code on a modern WinTel with little to no effort. That is VERY far from true on Mac, between the 68K>PPC>Intel>M1 processor changes there's also the Fortran>C and System9>OS X transitions that all broke things from the past. NuBus>PCI less so, ADB>USB... examples abound.
The abily of Apply to thumb it's nose at what was and turn to what's next is extraordinary and when you don't have to design for 40 years of support tail you can shed a LOT of dead weight and extract premium performance.
Combine that willingness to eschew the past with the ability to hire and retain amazingly talented people, then toss in Apple's rather unique style of functional organization and these are the amazing things that happen.
 
Well, looks like I’ll jumping in the ARM water after all. For $999 (or whatever it comes to with 16GB and 512GB SSD) that’s too much of a performance difference to ignore.

Also seeing a lot of news releases today of Apple Silicon-compatible software; even MS Office. That’ll pick up pace now too, I imagine.
 
The cores in the more common 10 Watt TDP processors they are comparing against score lower than 1200.
SMH Translate these scores into actual (meaning production / real life) work being done and then we can have a conversation about what this means today.

That said, this design isn’t innovative but it is tremendously opportune and significant enough to pave the way for a computing revolution.

Only Apple had the funds and foresight to work towards and accomplish such an outcome. It’s an evolution in system (or system-on-a-chip) design that has been and would have continued to be largely ignored for major workloads due to the overly complex chipset economy that has existed to this date.

The real meat of this potential (at least for consumers) will be better understood once the systems are in hand and applications running with Rosetta are evaluated. Beyond that we will be waiting for major application developers (like Adobe) to port remaining and enhance existing iOS applications to capitalize on the versatility / nuances of the platform.

I love critiquing work but always give credit where it’s due and I anticipate only good things to come from these and future chipsets.
 
Of course no one will know at the moment, but do you think that there will be AS equivalents of desktop and workstation class processors - so desktop for the iMacs and the monster Xeon eater for the Mac Pro or given that they can do wonders with the power draw that we will go back to seeing multi processors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coolkiwi
can someone explain the benefit of buying a MacBook pro, if MacBook air has the same chip which means same cpu/gpu etc.. and is much lighter and nice looking. Why would anyone pay more and buy a heavier MacBook pro? just for the extra battery life?
Thats what I am trying to figure out as well? One difference is that in order to be on Par with the 13inch in regards to performance, one has to purchase the 512GB Air as the 256GB Air has only 7 cores of GPU not 8? The Air has only 400nits of brightness compared to 500nits for the MBP? not sure how much of a difference that is though? Some are saying that the fan in the MBP may make a big difference in terms of speed as it can cool the processor? In the Air it is fanless so if it reaches a set temp it will have to clock down in order to continue? I would like to make a purchase today and I am stuck in this dilemma?
 
Do you have a source for this? I don't know any non-tech people that watched this 'mac keynote'. I'd love to know who in your circle of friends or family that are non-tech watched this and told you about it.
I watched it and I am definitely not a ‘Techie’! I don’t understand half the stuff in this forum that everyone is blabbering on about, but it can be quite amusing! So many people comparing Apples to Oranges etc etc. I’ve just ordered a Mac Mini, my MBP is 9 years old (still going strong, but dated obviously), so to me - this will be a huge leap forward! The most strenuous thing that I’ll ask it to do though is probably run Final Cut Pro X and that’s about it. I’m not developing anything, I don’t really Game and I don’t use it professionally. But, I’ve been enveloped within the Apple ecosystem ever since doing Graphic Design at University 20 years ago, so yes to the average Joe... this is good stuff! 😬
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
LOL the size of the SoC isn’t what should concern you. It’s the yields their getting from their fab process. More ram = more transistors = more that can go wrong during fabrication.

Now you aren’t tossing out a few memory chips or a processor. Now you’re tossing out an entire system-on-a-chip. Even though the actual BOM may be fractions of a a penny on the dollar in the open market the losses are qualified as potential revenues lost.

Put simply, it doesn’t look good on the books and the board looks at those books quarterly.
The ram isn’t all on a single chip. And the ram is not on the same silicon die as the SoC. It’s merely in the same package. You don’t throw out the SoC if the ram doesn’t yield.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.