he is not wrong...you cannot be focus and be some kind of rude even if you are the one whos wrongReally? Just one example of how wrong you are:
M3 doesnt have encoding, only decoding
he is not wrong...you cannot be focus and be some kind of rude even if you are the one whos wrongReally? Just one example of how wrong you are:
X Elite has 45 TOPS (likely INT4 goosed metric) of 'AI' processing. So yes has NPU. AV1 , HEVC , etc media. AV1 encoding ... which Apple doesn't have.
Really? Just one example of how wrong you are:
All three chips in the M3 family also have an advanced media engine, providing hardware acceleration to the most popular video codecs, including H.264, HEVC, ProRes, and ProRes RAW. And for the first time, the media engine supports AV1 decoding, enabling power-efficient playback of streaming services to further extend battery life.
There's some truth to this, but it's not clear how much. I've seen some handwaving about how conformance to ARM licensing requirements means you're wrong, but (for example) they obviously have custom instructions hidden behind their matrix libraries. Are those required to boot, or run? Not clear.It comes into play because macOS is compiled to take advantage of the custom instructions and modes Apple has added to Apple Silicon and will not boot or run on a standard ARM core or understand Qualcomm's custom instructions. This isn't the x64 world.
It is a gap.
But a gap that’s quickly drawing thinner and thinner. And it was done pretty fast.
It comes into play because macOS is compiled to take advantage of the custom instructions
and modes Apple has added to Apple Silicon and will not boot or run on a standard ARM core
or understand Qualcomm's custom instructions.
This isn't the x64 world.
You're basically repeating what I said, but with a bit more certainty than is warranted. The M4 may be out shortly after the Oryon, *if* Apple goes with a 1-year cadence.
The Oryon will be out before the M4 though unless QC screws up *really* hard.
Also, as I said, your claim (and mine) is valid from an engineering standpoint, but if QC decides to sell this chip at a price point low enough that Windows laptop vendors can sell Oryon laptops at a price competitive with a MacBook Air, then their comparison has some justification. It *still* won't be able to compete on battery life for heavy-duty users, but it might well compete just fine for light work (email, most browsing, typical office apps, etc.).
They should - that's not what I was saying.I think the comparison makes perfect sense. Apple markets the Air as "this is a great laptop, oh, and it runs macOS". They heavily compare against what they call "PC laptops". So why shouldn't QC do the same?
That's pretty silly. Three data points for the Mx = 2 periods, and they were well known to be affected by Covid, supply chain issues, and TSMC process delays. You can't really draw conclusions from that.Well, releases so far suggest that they're on the same ~15-month cadence as AxX. March '12, November '12, October '14, September '15, June '17, October '18, for an average of 14 months, and so far, November '20, June '22, October '23, for an average of 17 months.
They should - that's not what I was saying.
I was saying that this is an issue of price points. From an *engineering* perspective, the proper comparison is the M3 Max, not the M3, and the Max beats the pants off the Oryon (at least with QC's own numbers they've released so far).
But.
If QC prices the chip so that a quality Oryon laptop (good construction, light, big enough battery, good screen, etc.) can be sold for the same price an a MacBook Air, then comparing their chip with the base M3 processor is entirely fair, from an end-user's standpoint.
My $1200 or $1500 or whatever can buy an MBA, or for the exact same amount I can buy an Oryon laptop of equivalent quality? That's a strong argument. Of course, the big question is, will they do this? We don't know how big the chip is, or even what process it's on (it's "4nm" so my guess is TSMC N4P). That determines what it costs to make them.
Either way their window is pretty small. Intel E cores are growing like mushrooms, the M4 may well be 6P+6E,
AMD is maintaining their pace... I want them to get a decent foothold in the market, because good competition is good for us all, but I think they've got even odds, maybe less, to make a dent.
Oh, also:
That's pretty silly. Three data points for the Mx = 2 periods, and they were well known to be affected by Covid, supply chain issues, and TSMC process delays. You can't really draw conclusions from that.
We'll know by the end of 2024; before that, it's just speculation.
Apple have pushed some of the main industry standard software developers (like Adobe) to produce ARM software. Would I be correct in thinking that it would be relatively simple to port such software to ARM Windows with relative ease at the point of which there is hardware to run it?Only good things can come out of this (hopefully).
Might even affect gaming.
- If Qualcomm is worse, they'll try to catch up over time, widening support for ARM64 architecture along the way. Thus pushing software vendors.
- If they actually get better, Apple will be pushed to innovate even more and we'll get better devices (sooner).
- If they are about the same, then there's more choice hardware-wise. Some of you use or are sometimes forced to use non-macOS machines and this will make them better.
- They might even end their endeavour if they'll be unsuccessful, but that's just square one.
- (Unlikely) Or they might get sooo much better over long time that Apple will decide to switch and in that case that's OK.
All this while supporting arm company. Competiton is a good thing as many have already said.
Apple have pushed some of the main industry standard software developers (like Adobe) to produce ARM software. Would I be correct in thinking that it would be relatively simple to port such software to ARM Windows with relative ease at the point of which there is hardware to run it?
Thank you. I did ask from a complete 'noob' standpoint, and appreciate your breakdown.Depends on the layer.
Low-level architecture-specific algorithmic code? Sure, having ported that to ARM64 helps them also do that on Windows. However, this is unlikely to be the bulk of Adobe's code. More and more of it will run on the GPU instead. Some might also run (implicitly) on the Neural Engine, by targeting Metal.
UI code? The bulk of the work there is OS-specific. Porting from macOS to Windows doesn't make sense. And porting from Windows x64 to Windows ARM64 probably isn't much work at all, since such code these days is unlikely to be very architecture-specific. It's mostly just a recompile.
So, TL;DR: yeah, having macOS ARM64 apps helps with Windows ARM64 some, but probably not that much.
There should be a balance between manufacture cost / power efficiency / performance.Intel plays simlar games, comparing the MT performance of its 16-core 7165H to that of the 8-core M3, instead of the 12-core M3 Pro or 16-core M3 Max:
View attachment 2326533
Intel's 16-core 7165H vs M3 is fair if they have similar cost and power efficency.
You conflated desktop and console gaming, which I made a distinction between. Sony and Nintendo are exclusively involved in console gaming. Microsoft is involved in both, sure, but more people game on the Xbox than game on gaming PCs, I’d reckon, and Tencent is involved in whatever will make them money (Tencent’s involvement runs the gamut from freemium mobile titles to freemium PC titles, I don’t think they actually have any non-freemium properties, though). And I pointed out that the console market is largely vertical.Desktop / console gaming maybe is niche for Apple. But for Tencent, Sony, Nintendo and MS is not niche at all. And consoles are vertical to a some degree. Still, and Xbox or PS5 are not completely designed in the same line as an Apple device, where Apple control the whole process.
I saw your comments about consoles, so I thought it was part of the conversation.You conflated desktop and console gaming, which I made a distinction between. Sony and Nintendo are exclusively involved in console gaming. Microsoft is involved in both, sure, but more people game on the Xbox than game on gaming PCs, I’d reckon, and Tencent is involved in whatever will make them money (Tencent’s involvement runs the gamut from freemium mobile titles to freemium PC titles, I don’t think they actually have any non-freemium properties, though). And I pointed out that the console market is largely vertical.
Push comes to shove, though, gaming is a niche hobby (and I say that as someone who used to be a quite serious gamer). It’s a niche that doesn’t make a lot of sense for Apple to seriously pursue for various reasons. More people play smartphone games, alas, than play even the most popular of consoles/handhelds.
Posts like this could benefit from attached evidence... Data from somewhere, or a link to data somewhere that supports a given definition of "trounce". I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would be nice to not have to take it on faith.
Well your not in the vast majority for windowsHere we go again. MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS! It all seems so childish. Sounds like they’re marketing to 15 year old boys. And Apple is no better with their claims of superiority. I don’t buy Apple products because of benchmarks, I buy Apple products because of macOS, iOS, iPadOS and I’m certain I’m in the vast majority.
The X Elite has 12 cores, all of which can operate as big or little. Their low multicore score exposes a problem. They can’t ramp up all 12 cores to maximum performance. If they could their multicore score should be substantially higher. It could be a thermal issue but I think it’s the memory bandwidth. They can’t feed all cores fast enough to let them run wide open.
The intel special-E cores won't happen as long as Apple's not doing chiplets, at least. That's the reason Intel did it that way- so they can entirely power off the CPU chiplet.Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure 6 p-cores on consumer CPUs buys Apple much. I think 4P+6E is more likely, for now. Maybe even 4P+8E for the M5. It costs almost nothing in terms of money, space, or energy, and it frees up some room on the p-cores. Or they do Intel's "what if we had two tiers of e-cores?" thing, even.
The intel special-E cores won't happen as long as Apple's not doing chiplets, at least. That's the reason Intel did it that way- so they can entirely power off the CPU chiplet.
More of any core type is modestly helpful, but this is mostly marketing: If Intel and AMD are all selling 12-20 core laptops in the premium segment, that's a bit of pressure on Apple. Not a lot, maybe, but some. And they seem to have gone with 6-way clusters anyway on the M3 Max, so perhaps that indicates future direction?
This is what killed mobile PC gaming for me. Best options for mobile gaming is likely a Steam Deck or a Switch really. Hated carrying that 17" behemoth that screams at you with fans, just to play something simple.Good luck with that 80w. I love my M1 fanless Macbook Air. I recently bought a Windows i9 gaming laptop just to play Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 and the fans run on that thing like a jet engine nonstop. So loud and annoying.