I’m not even sure if codes are helpful that much. My M1 MBP does fine with what I use it for (Illustrator, iMovie, etc..)
Eh, I’ll take the cheapest MBA over any PC from Costco at the same price. It’ll blow it away in terms of performance too.
12 GB would be a "binned" chip. That means one of the four RAM banks is defective. RAM is typically designed so its size is a power of two.
So you have a task you do on your computer and the Apple M2 ultra is slowing you down?
By the time m3 is out intel and amd will also have faster chips.
Going to 64 GB RAM on an M2 Max costs +$400. Given how well Apple's UMA RAM performs and having spent ~+$400 for 2 MB of third party RAM in the past, the $400 seems fair to me. Folks should read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture before whining about RAM costs.
At some point I expect Apple to use the M3 efficiency to give us a bit thinner/lighter MBP. Not for me, since I bought the M2 Max and personally do not care much about thinner/lighter, but it will be a sales booster.
1) Apple is not lagging in performance for the 90+% of personal computers sold. Apple being the fourth largest seller and the most profitable (and with the best boxes IMO). Yes Apple lags in performance at the small volume hot high wattage end of PC sales.
If you destroy your pro market, applications and third party support will drop. This will cause a domino effect to eventually impact the low end “popular” devices. They are trashing the Mac name but again not focusing on the pro market.
Yep. And PC RAM isn’t always better. I paid the early adopter fee for DDR5 and spend over $1,000 on the RAM alone.
I want to. But in most ways Apple still can’t compete with the i9 4090 setup. I don’t think Apple would need 1000 watts like my PC does. My M2 Ultra Mac Studio barely goes above 100 watts.
I was being a little bit sarcastic, of course it is plenty of cpu power. For me that works with music and audio production there is basically 0 benefit of a gazillion of gpu power. Although the power of a m2 pro and max is more that enough for what I do, and the demand for more powerful GPU’s is bigger, it would be cool to see.
On laptops makes sense because the battery will last longer, but on desktops, getting a better performance per watt is pretty much useless, specially if you are looking for ROI.
The CPU is not the problem anymore, the real problem now is memory and storage, if you get the obsolete 8/256, that computer won't last you 5 years, not because of CPU.
To a large extent, yes. But I think Apple has been playing softball in the desktop market so far (understandable I suppose, they're less than three years into their transition). Their industry leading focus on power efficiency will serve them well when they decide to scale things out further, since they will be able to easily attain much higher performance in a 150-200W power envelope of a typical full desktop thermal solution.
