These kinds of statements from competitors are quite recurrent. Usually challenges to sustain them are exposed after release.
Last edited:
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.
Microsoft Says Windows Laptops With Snapdragon X Elite Will Be Faster Than M3 MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not to people that require the performance.
I would say comparing energy consumption at any level is meaningless. We should have computers were the User can decide if they want to minimize energy consumption or not. I'll bet in most cases where a switch exits, most people will choose high performance. Sure, if all you do is email and TikTok then you don't need high performance. But some of us do actual work that requires higher performance.
If it’s the same price as an M3 then that should be the comparison.
Apple is trying to mimic Microsoft from the 90s. To Cook that is innovation.
Higher energy use for higher powered chips isn’t just an issue for battery powered computers. There are issues with heat generation, which then requires better cooling which typically requires more fans, which then require more physical space, which then causes additional noise. And in a much bigger picture view, that additional energy has to come from somewhere and that comes at a cost too.
Not sure energy consumption matters.
For example, computer A runs 100 watts and takes 2 seconds to complete a task, it has consumed 200 watts.
Then computer B runs the same task in 1 second but consumes 200 watts, it also only consumed 200 watts.
You are not saving the world or preserving energy with computer A, just delaying the time for the user to complete the task and costing more time and therefore more salary.
This absolute focus on low power is an Apple marketing strategy and market propaganda, unless you never need performance. Which is why Apple targets teenagers, 20-somethings, and other low performance users, and not professional users.
Everyone else who doesn't feel it's a competition? For Windows laptop users, it offers significantly better performance than previous non-ARM chips so it is a big deal. I would guess most Windows users could care less how it compares in all categories over an Apple Silicon chip as a MacBook is not a consideration to them.
Hello,
Out of pure curiosity, I just did a Geekbench 6 with my parallels virtual machine on Windows 11 dev build 16100.1, in single core I have 2438 on my Macbook pro M2 Max, I wonder what it would give in native. 😅
Out of pure curiosity, I just did a Geekbench 6 with my parallels virtual machine on Windows 11 dev build 16100.1, in single core I have 2438 on my Macbook pro M2 Max, I wonder what it would give in native. 😅
I'm not sure I understand your logic. Power is measures in watt-hours (Wh) or kilowatt-hours on your energy bill.
A battery in a laptop has it's total power measured in watt-hours. A task that takes 1 second to run will use half the power of the task that takes 2 seconds. You can run twice as many 1 second tasks on a battery charge than 2 second tasks, and if you had a specific number of 1 second tasks to run, it would use less energy and cost less than the same number of 2 second task.
And recently, Apple "innovated" by enabling in software the ability to suddenly run 2 external displays instead of 1.
One has to wonder what the M-series chips are REALLY capable of but are being hidden by software disablement.
False.
Apple already has a chip that exceeds this chip's performance at higher efficiency, i.e. there exists an Apple chip that requires less power to hit the same performance. Energy consumption is important here as Microsoft cherry-picked an Apple chip.
The energy comparison is only meaningless when a chip exceeds the capability of all Apple chips, i.e. an Apple chip requires infinite power to hit the same performance.
To compare chips, you need to fix some variables to be equal. Microsoft did nothing of the sorts and cherry-picked the M3 chip to be the benchmark.
It should be thought of as one of the following questions:
1) Given 1 second and some power limit, which chip can get more done?
2) Given a task and some power limit, which chip can complete the task faster?
3) Given a task and some fixed time to complete the task, which chip can do it at lower power?
It should be thought of as one of the following questions:
1) Given 1 second and some power limit, which chip can get more done?
2) Given a task and some power limit, which chip can complete the task faster?
3) Given a task and some fixed time to complete the task, which chip can do it at lower power?
It's called a PC. You can find plenty reports on how recent AMD and especially Intel chips lose surprisingly little performance even when severely power limited. And plenty of people are happy to configure their PCs that way for greater efficiency.
Let's think this through.
Why would Microsoft make such a statement?
Why would Qualcomm?
Not because it's true, because clearly it's manipulated in a way that makes the processor look better than it actually is.
Their claims are only true on a technicality.
So why even bother making such a statement?
Because such claims get picked up news and tech sites like MR, because division and arguments sell. They get eyeballs and engagement.
The article you read here was never meant to "inform" you.
Rather, it is essentially advertising for MS/Qualcomm's upcoming product to drum up awareness for "the new fancy snapdragon x processor".
The genius part is that M$ or Qualcomm didn't even need to pay MR to post this - MR happily posts it because it creates a ton of engagement and thus clicks and money for them.
So by all means, read and react, argue and agree, but just understand MR, M$, and Qualcomm are laughing all the way to the bank while we squabble here amongst ourselves.
Why would Microsoft make such a statement?
Why would Qualcomm?
Not because it's true, because clearly it's manipulated in a way that makes the processor look better than it actually is.
Their claims are only true on a technicality.
So why even bother making such a statement?
Because such claims get picked up news and tech sites like MR, because division and arguments sell. They get eyeballs and engagement.
The article you read here was never meant to "inform" you.
Rather, it is essentially advertising for MS/Qualcomm's upcoming product to drum up awareness for "the new fancy snapdragon x processor".
The genius part is that M$ or Qualcomm didn't even need to pay MR to post this - MR happily posts it because it creates a ton of engagement and thus clicks and money for them.
So by all means, read and react, argue and agree, but just understand MR, M$, and Qualcomm are laughing all the way to the bank while we squabble here amongst ourselves.
They messed up the units, but the point stands and "race to idle" is a thing. That's why serious CPU comparisons don't just mention performance, power, and perf per power, but also energy per task completed.
Marketing 101. I am guessing you have watched Apple events where new products are announced. The same dog and pony show. Every manufacturer is going to do what is necessary to make their product appear to be the best.
Windows for ARM is already there. Since Windows RT in 2012, but it had no x86 emulation. It was canceled in 2015, but in 2018 MS started to distribute Windows on ARM with a x86 emulation layer. The OS itself and most applications that come with it are native.
Interestingly, the memory requirements of Windows 11 have decreased significantly wrt previous versions. I run WOA (Windows-on-Arm) in a VM with 4GB of memory on my 8gb M1 MBA. And it is acqually quite snappy.
Race to idle is definitely a consideration here, if that’s the paradigm that everyone is using. It’s not as simple in an SoC vs a pure CPU.
Things have gotten a bit more complicated in recent years with chiplets/media encoders/NPU’s/etc. Even Intel and AMD are recognizing and releasing more than just our CPUs these days.
Just filling in a bit of extra nuance, not pushing back on your post.
Remove the bottom cover, add some strips of heat conducting pads, replace the cover. Instant perf boost (the bottom of the laptop will become warmer).
Then buy something else.