Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah, let's compare the low end entry model of a new machine to high end laptops. Better get that done now, because the m2 and m3 are going to smoke everything in their lineup this fall.

Do we even know an m2 or m3 exist? Are they just more cores? If so they won’t see all that much of a benefit because the M1 is already multiple cores and a lot of software doesn’t benefit from additional cores over single-core CPUs already (so adding more really has massively-diminishing returns).
 
Do we even know an m2 or m3 exist? Are they just more cores? If so they won’t see all that much of a benefit because the M1 is already multiple cores and a lot of software doesn’t benefit from additional cores over single-core CPUs already (so adding more really has massively-diminishing returns).

The M1 only has four performance cores.

Try to find a Ryzen 5900X (12 cores) or 5950X (16 cores). These are being sold by scalpers for $500 above MSRP. Intel and AMD have been going higher core counts for several years. AMD will be doing 12-16 cores for mobile with Zen 4 and going from 16 to 32 cores for their top mainstream desktop CPU. And 64 to 96 cores for their high-end Threadripper chip.

Apple has typically increased IPC by 20-40% every year if we look at their A-series chips. The M-series chips are derivatives of the A-series chips so I'd expect to see similar IPC gains.

Apple, Intel and AMD should have similar single-core IPC this year with Zen 3, M1 and Rocket Lake. But M1 can accomplish that at 3.2 Ghz. The others do that at much higher frequencies and power consumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
From what I have read XQuartz works on the M1. Xorg got an update March 2020 and people have reported being able to compile and have it run on M1 Macs via brew (it doesn't always work but it is possible)
The latest beta supports the M1. You can download the installer here:

XQuartz Releases

It came out at the beginning of February. It hasn't changed much over the years but it still seems to work the same as it always did.

The version on Brew hasn't been updated and is still the 2.7.11 version from 2016 and is x86 only.
 
Do we even know an m2 or m3 exist? Are they just more cores? If so they won’t see all that much of a benefit because the M1 is already multiple cores and a lot of software doesn’t benefit from additional cores over single-core CPUs already (so adding more really has massively-diminishing returns).

The apps that do take advantage of more cores will use them... don't worry.

But it's not just about the number of cores. Future M-series processors could be built on a smaller process node and have better performance while using less wattage and creating less heat.

I don't think Apple built the M1 and then decided "welp... we're done..."

:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
Do we even know an m2 or m3 exist? Are they just more cores? If so they won’t see all that much of a benefit because the M1 is already multiple cores and a lot of software doesn’t benefit from additional cores over single-core CPUs already (so adding more really has massively-diminishing returns).
The next chip will have more I/o lanes, bigger system cache, separate gpu die, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
They could start binning chips as well. They may find that they can get 25% higher clocks from some chips.
25 percent would be a bit much. But 10 percent wouldn’t surprise me. They may be willing to turn up the clock by raising voltage, though, since these will be for machines with better cooling solutions.
 
To be fair, Apple once used "MAC vs PC guy" Ads globally, that really mocked PCs... but still, this ads from Intel really look like a desperate move. I was skeptical at the M1 presentation, but reviews and benchmarks soon showed this stuff is seriously powerfull.

Just like the “Mac vs PC” ads?

I feel the difference is that Apple is the underdog in that situation with just 5% of the market in 2006 when those ads launched. They didn't focus on benchmarks or as much what the PC was limiting all of the time but in a comedic way presenting a struggle the PC was having or an experience the PC was going through juxtaposed against a simple Mac solution. The point of the advertisement is to get the consumer to identify with the PC experience (e.g. having to find drivers for the new camera) and how it could be better with a Mac, to inform them that equivalent capabilities are also available on the Mac (e.g. Microsoft Office is available on the Mac) or that there were features that the Mac shipped with that aren't available on the PC (e.g. iLife).

In this situation it seems really weird because Intel are attacking the Mac for things the Mac can't do regardless of the architecture it's on be it's their own Intel chips or the newer M1 chips. It's not entirely clear who the target of this really is because it isn't consumers. People who were interested in buying a Mac often aren't buying it as a dedicated gaming machine for example. Linus Tech Tips pointed out in the WAN Show that the USB-A part of the video was stupid because he ran into it himself with a PC laptop that only had USB-C. The benchmarking they did was inconsistent where they picked benchmarks where it benefited them swapping between different computers on different benchmarks and not actually completing the claim (e.g. claim is battery life using Apple TV app which they compare to a Mac using Safari).

As others have noted, it makes sense to highlight what your competitor does when they're much larger and better known. It doesn't make sense to highlight another company when you are the dominant market player like Intel is and it certainly doesn't make sense when Apple aren't even directly competitors here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jent and jdb8167
The next chip will have more I/o lanes, bigger system cache, separate gpu die, etc.

25 percent would be a bit much. But 10 percent wouldn’t surprise me. They may be willing to turn up the clock by raising voltage, though, since these will be for machines with better cooling solutions.
Truthfully I’m just excited (and even more truthfully a little impatient) to see what comes next for these chips. x86 has competition from another architecture in the consumer space for the first time in an incredibly long time and even within x86 Intel is no longer dominant for the first time in a long time. Within ARM, we have obviously have Apple, but also Qualcomm has just bought Nuvia, ARM is pushing its own chips towards higher performance designs, and Nvidia might buy ARM (pending a seemingly doubtful regulatory review so “might” is the operative word). Heck I’ve been reading people saying that even the Tremont/Gracemont Atom cores from Intel are actually a really interesting design! And a possible different path forwards for x86 if Intel pursues it.

I know this isn’t an original thought and it has been articulated many times by many people since the release of the M1 and the success of Zen3 but: CPU development was so boring for so long, this really feels almost like the old days again. Maybe even better. I’ve probably read more technology forums about CPUs than I have in years because it is suddenly interesting again.
 
Last edited:
The statement was that no one needs to buy $90,000 worth of gear to use a $10,000 camera, not that no one could do so. No one is going to buy Zeiss Supremes to use with an Ursa. They just are not in the same league.

Nope, that is not how film/tv production works. Studios and production companies almost never purchase gear. They rent everything because of how films are financed, they do not want to deal with disposing of assets post-production.

Yup, 10 weeks of rental usually pays for a piece of gear, and yet even 16 week feature shoots rent everything. Almost every feature is made by an SPE - a company that exists only to produce the one project. Again, this has a lot to do with how films are financed.

Sorry, you are just incorrect. While 20th Century Fox had Grip and Electric departments on the lot that could rent gear to productions (and to be clear it was always rented to them), they had no camera department. All that gear was either rented from rental houses (or for some smaller productions from the crew operators themselves - e.g. Stedicam operators rent their rigs to the production as a separate cost from their time). The choice of camera and lenses is made by the DP in consultation with the producers and director. While the Key Grip and the Gaffer might offer (or require) a kit rental to the production, that is not the norm for the camera department.

As it was described as a two day short film project, it seems pretty clear that it was short project. Again, your original statement was that one would require $100,000 in gear to shoot 8K footage and as I pointed out that is simply false. My statement was not that it was impossible to spend over $100,000, just that it was not required.


Over thirty years in film, television and visual effects production tells me that.

Your problem is that you do not understand that these projects are all done by groups of independent contractors hired individually. That means that the cost of an editor’s gear is completely unrelated to the cost of the gear needed to shoot the project. Different people spending different money.

It is common for editors to own their gear as they usually decide their own tools and they are not constrained by others’ creative choices (e.g. the look a director or DP want will affect the choice of camera and lens). The same DP will shoot with different lenses and cameras depending on the circumstances, while most editors use only one NLE.
Well, we will continue to clash at this topic, no way to discuss this out, but I'm also not gonna argue that it's not like that there. From my standpoint and experience it's totally different, maybe because you're from (USA? Sounds like!) and I'm from Germany/Munich, dunno. USA probably has this philosophy, just like hire and fire.

The companies I worked for in the past, and also the one i currently work since +-14 years, they all owned/own their main equipment and also have their editing studios. Specially cameras and lenses, they are like our golden calf. Even when we fly to other countries, to take shots, we also take our equipment with us in metal boxes or containers by plane. We don't want to lose time and money by betting on rented bad handled, bad maintained and not carefully used equipment. Equipment we don't know how their "real" condition is, and how reliable they will be during the shots. We tend to buy our own equipment, is more reliable that way and positively drives the tax down. Near end of the year we are even officially prompted to buy new stuff from left over budgets, to lower the tax.

What we rent is scaffolds, well not directly rent, we contract other companies to build them up as needed, but even main scaffold extensions we have in our inventory. We rent the ARRI Theatre here in Munich, there we show our stuff, we don't have a Theatres. We work closely with ARRI, nice professional and experienced guys there, met them many times, we have plenty of ARRI equipments in out inventory.

I keep my standpoint, that highlighting the price "699,-" of a MacBook in context of 8k raw footage is a joke. This goes down between all the other costs.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Apple once used "MAC vs PC guy" Ads globally, that really mocked PCs... but still, this ads from Intel really look like a desperate move. I was skeptical at the M1 presentation, but reviews and benchmarks soon showed this stuff is seriously powerful.
that's totally true, Apple released dozens (close to hundred?) adds, some true, some barely true and many very embarrassing, but then Apple was the little boy trying to stand out, Intel doing this, is the like the older brother playing baby and it's even more embarrassing (though Apple in money value has become the grandfather XD )
 
This does though…


and this…

https://mars.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/24954_PIA23780-16.jpg


And these??.

Heh 😈, NASA is getting less relevant, they can’t even launch humans up anymore and depends of Russians and Chineses. Now Elon Musk came to the rescue, but we know Elon ain‘t a friend of 🍎.


 
Last edited:
I feel the difference is that Apple is the underdog in that situation with just 5% of the market in 2006 when those ads launched. They didn't focus on benchmarks or as much what the PC was limiting all of the time but in a comedic way presenting a struggle the PC was having or an experience the PC was going through juxtaposed against a simple Mac solution. The point of the advertisement is to get the consumer to identify with the PC experience (e.g. having to find drivers for the new camera) and how it could be better with a Mac, to inform them that equivalent capabilities are also available on the Mac (e.g. Microsoft Office is available on the Mac) or that there were features that the Mac shipped with that aren't available on the PC (e.g. iLife).

In this situation it seems really weird because Intel are attacking the Mac for things the Mac can't do regardless of the architecture it's on be it's their own Intel chips or the newer M1 chips. It's not entirely clear who the target of this really is because it isn't consumers. People who were interested in buying a Mac often aren't buying it as a dedicated gaming machine for example. Linus Tech Tips pointed out in the WAN Show that the USB-A part of the video was stupid because he ran into it himself with a PC laptop that only had USB-C. The benchmarking they did was inconsistent where they picked benchmarks where it benefited them swapping between different computers on different benchmarks and not actually completing the claim (e.g. claim is battery life using Apple TV app which they compare to a Mac using Safari).

As others have noted, it makes sense to highlight what your competitor does when they're much larger and better known. It doesn't make sense to highlight another company when you are the dominant market player like Intel is and it certainly doesn't make sense when Apple aren't even directly competitors here.
Nice response I wasn’t even got to bother making a counter argument haha but yes true words. Hard to believe back then apple was such a small player, very much an under dog that barely survived the 1990s and coming at the pc market hard.

I was explaining to my wife who isn’t into computers about how Apple was such in poor shape bill gates infused cash into the company. And apple was small and not a market leader only after the iPod took off, then the iPhone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pasamio
I was explaining to my wife who isn’t into computers about how Apple was such in poor shape bill gates infused cash into the company. And apple was small and not a market leader only after the iPod took off, then the iPhone.
Bill Gates even helped Apple in their promotional video for the Macintosh computer.
 
I was explaining to my wife who isn’t into computers about how Apple was such in poor shape bill gates infused cash into the company. And apple was small and not a market leader only after the iPod took off, then the iPhone.
Truth to be be told, the cash infusion from Microsoft was more a gesture than anything else. Apple still had cash, and shortly afterwards the iMac impacted
 
I've been reading allot of these posts and some folks are getting wrapped up on the wrong details. Intel would have chosen their words carefully. The entire goal of the ad is to claim victory by relying on obscure cherry picked facts. It doesn't matter if apple "can't compete" in these fringe claims. Because what apple has done is hit intel right in the gut. Apple's first Mac processor and it hit the market to overwhelming fanfare. The chip provides far more real world value then intel's recent generations of products. Beyond that the M1 is also technically more advanced than Intels offering.

Long story short the company was caught with it's pants down. And for the moment at least everyone got a good look at Intels all show and no go. Their first step will be to preserve their image with attack ads. It's an attempt to fire up their supporters and give the company breathing room to find a market solution.

Personally I think it's pathetic, if intel had been doing its job all this time it would have made apple's move into the chip manufacturing business less obvious. It troubles me because as much as I love apple and am beyond excited for this new family of chips to blow everyone out of the water I need these other companies to be strong and competitive.

Too many bean counters running things I suspect.
 
I've been reading allot of these posts and some folks are getting wrapped up on the wrong details. Intel would have chosen their words carefully. The entire goal of the ad is to claim victory by relying on obscure cherry picked facts. It doesn't matter if apple "can't compete" in these fringe claims. Because what apple has done is hit intel right in the gut. Apple's first Mac processor and it hit the market to overwhelming fanfare. The chip provides far more real world value then intel's recent generations of products. Beyond that the M1 is also technically more advanced than Intels offering.

Long story short the company was caught with it's pants down. And for the moment at least everyone got a good look at Intels all show and no go. Their first step will be to preserve their image with attack ads. It's an attempt to fire up their supporters and give the company breathing room to find a market solution.

Personally I think it's pathetic, if intel had been doing its job all this time it would have made apple's move into the chip manufacturing business less obvious. It troubles me because as much as I love apple and am beyond excited for this new family of chips to blow everyone out of the water I need these other companies to be strong and competitive.

Too many bean counters running things I suspect.

Intel's pants have been down for the past decade.
 
I've been reading allot of these posts and some folks are getting wrapped up on the wrong details. Intel would have chosen their words carefully. The entire goal of the ad is to claim victory by relying on obscure cherry picked facts. It doesn't matter if apple "can't compete" in these fringe claims. Because what apple has done is hit intel right in the gut. Apple's first Mac processor and it hit the market to overwhelming fanfare. The chip provides far more real world value then intel's recent generations of products. Beyond that the M1 is also technically more advanced than Intels offering.

Long story short the company was caught with it's pants down. And for the moment at least everyone got a good look at Intels all show and no go. Their first step will be to preserve their image with attack ads. It's an attempt to fire up their supporters and give the company breathing room to find a market solution.

Personally I think it's pathetic, if intel had been doing its job all this time it would have made apple's move into the chip manufacturing business less obvious. It troubles me because as much as I love apple and am beyond excited for this new family of chips to blow everyone out of the water I need these other companies to be strong and competitive.

Too many bean counters running things I suspect.
I don’t think Intel is shocked by anything. What happened with them is that the top brass just cared about profits year over year instead of pushing the envelope. It’s the typical, “respond when necessary” worry about potential competition later as the profits continue to pile in story.

Intel has strong brand loyalty so I believe they can reclaim that lost market share over AMD in the next 5-10 years, but their biggest lost opportunity was on the mobile/ARM side of things. If Microsoft ever gets their “ish” together on that end Intel has much bigger problems.
 


With the launch of the M1 Macs last November, Apple officially began its transition away from Intel's chips, and it's clear from Intel's latest advertising campaign that the company is feeling threatened by Apple's decision.

m1-chip-macbook-air-pro.jpg

In ads shared on Twitter, Intel has been highlighting the shortcomings of Apple's M1 Mac lineup. An ad this week, for example, points out the gaming capabilities of Intel chips. Intel mentions Rocket League, a game that is not available on Apple's platform.


An ad from last week highlighted by 9to5Mac points out the lack of a touchscreen on Apple's Macs. "Only a PC offers tablet mode, touch screen and stylus capabilities in a single device," reads Intel's tweet.


Intel's tweets link to a video from YouTuber Jon Rettinger demoing laptops equipped with Intel chips and comparing them to the M1 Macs.


Apple's M1 chips received a lot of attention at launch due to their impressive speed and power efficiency, which is not matched by Intel chips. Earlier this week, Intel launched a series of "carefully crafted" benchmarks designed to prove that Intel's 11th-generation processors are better than the M1 chips, but the benchmarks were designed to favor Intel machines and were described by Apple columnist Jason Snell as "M1-unfriendly."

Intel's anti-Apple advertising is likely just getting started, as Apple plans to be largely free of Intel chips within a two year period. Apple is transitioning its entire Mac lineup to Apple silicon chips, with the MacBook Pro and iMac set to be refreshed next.

Article Link: Intel's Anti-Mac Ad Campaign Highlights M1 Shortcomings
This attack by intel just does not make sense, as Apple isn’t going into the business of selling chips to other pc makers to compete with Intel. Intel simply lost the Apple account so they think attacking a former client is going to get their business back from Apple?
 
Intel doing this when Apple has a single low powered M1 chip out, it’s a cheap shot before the beefier M series hits.
Oh, I’m sure in the future it will be that “Macs don’t fold backwards” or “Macs aren’t called Thinkpads”. There will always be comparisons weak enough to mention ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nightfury326
How many times did I swiped my screen on the iMac or at work by using an iPad. :)
SOOOOoooo, gotta say here that a lot of the time, reaching up to tap a field for me is quicker than:
1. Moving the mouse to find where my cursor is
2. Moving it to where the field is
3. Clicking

In every case, in the time it takes me to orient myself with the indirect pointing method, I could have had the job done quicker by touch. I don’t need multitouch... I can do all that from a multitouch enabled trackpad. I just want that direct selection action :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.