Why the heck would I want Windows 10. Linux and macOS is WAAY better which the M1 can run.Betcha alder lake can run windows 10
while bigsur lake cant run Mojave.
oh and Mojave is only good for 32bit apps of which I use none.
Why the heck would I want Windows 10. Linux and macOS is WAAY better which the M1 can run.Betcha alder lake can run windows 10
while bigsur lake cant run Mojave.
Someone who only needs the battery to last 45 minutes and doesn't mind burning their finger tips every time they type?Who in their right mind would put a 115 watt part in a laptop?
Someone who needs the sound of the white noise generated by the fans, to overpower the voices in their head that tell them to do…bad things.Who in their right mind would put a 115 watt part in a laptop?
The point was how versatile the processors are.Why the heck would I want Windows 10. Linux and macOS is WAAY better which the M1 can run.
The M1 Max has extremely fast 3D performance. Nearly the same as an Nvidia 3080. It does that while still sipping power.why are so many people hating on intel here? if they pull off something good, great. if not, then boo. you guys in here talking about poor battery life performance like that's the only thing that matters. the last time i checked, m1 max has awful 3D performance. you also gotta consider that when you're using computers, you're not constantly pushing your computer to the limits. you gotta stop looking at worst case scenarios and start looking at real world scenarios.
Breaking news. New chip is faster than old chipWait till M2 beat it
Probably quicker than people realised apple cherry picked one data point for claims of 3090 power or whatever the claim was.How long will it be before we find out Intel cherry picked one data point?
72 hours?
Your M1 is rarely if ever throttled under load, too, whereas the Intel chips frequently would be.I so DON’T miss my constant fan blowing in my Macbook Pro 15 compared the quiet, cool, and faster M1 MacBook Pro.
The CPU side of the M1 Max hits 30 watts at the upper limit. Looks like Intel put the processors in the correct wattage range. It is just the perf-per-watt positioning that doesn’t really make any sense. Would be nice to see someone repeat this test with real numbers.So a 14 core processor running at 5 GHz and burning through 115 watts of power is faster than a processor running at 3 GHz burning 60 watts? I am shocked I am telling you.
You don’t get burns from a plastic body. That’s why all Windows laptops are plastic.So as long as you have a great cooling system and don't care about horrible battery life, it's a great processor. But for those of us working on a laptop that needs to run for more than an hour, and need to make sure we don't get second degree burns from it; it doesn't sound like it'll be that great of a processor. But I guess we'll have to wait for it to actually come out so we can see the real world results.
It will just be 2” thick and sound like a jet taking off.You don’t get burns from a plastic body. That’s why all Windows laptops are plastic.
depends on what you have. i know for sure that the 32 core is throttled on the 14"Your M1 is rarely if ever throttled under load, too, whereas the Intel chips frequently would be.
It’s not slow. It’s fast as hell.By which you mean Access? If you need to make regular use of Windows apps, you're not going to be using Boot Camp as it's a pain to restart operating systems when you have loads of windows open. People needing Windows only apps are either going to be running them in a virtual machine or are just going to have separate Windows computer. That will remain the way moving forward. Virtual machines running Windows Arm (e.g. Parallels) with Microsoft's x86 emulation may be slow but it's going to be more than enough for occasional uses. If you need more, you're going to be using a Windows computer anyway. Being stuck with slower, hotter, less performant bits of Intel hardware was not worth it for the occasional use of Boot Camp by what is likely less than a thousandth of their user base.
115 watts! LOL And don't forget the heavy heatsink and noisy, power-guzzling fans.
M1 Max 40 watts.
I don't think I've ever heard the fan on my 14" M1Pro. So I started up "iStats X" and sure enough the fan is on at about 1350 rpm and is totally silent to my ears.I so DON’T miss my constant fan blowing in my Macbook Pro 15 compared the quiet, cool, and faster M1 MacBook Pro.
Hey it could happen but why not let the Apple Fan boys have their fun?While I think it's unlikely, it would crack me up to no end if Intel ends up re-taking the power/performance lead over Apple at some point in the next few years. Just to enjoy seeing all the Apple fanboys scratching their heads![]()
Compared to my new M1 Pro MBP, more-or-less.Interesting. Considering that Intel powered Macbooks for a decade or so, I guess everything Macbook-related prior to 2020 was crap, huh?
I think Apple is more interested in selling iPhones than Macs, and iPhones would benefit if they work better with the dominant consumer computing platform. During the keynote Intel showed iMessages from an iPhone appearing on the Evo PC. I don't think that would be possible without Apple's cooperation.One thing I find interesting: this wasn't the only time at CES that Intel mentioned Apple: they want to make iPhones and Apple Watches more compatible with Intel EVO PCs and are working with "partners, including Apple, to make that happen" (from the article):
https://www.engadget.com/intel-evo-3rd-edition-foldable-pc-iphone-181039141.html
I find it hard to believe that Apple is on board with this initiative. I don't think Apple wants you buying EVO laptops.