This is great for competition. What devices can I buy with it installed? because when Apple announced the M1, they had a whole line of fully compatible devices ready at launch to purchase.
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.
Qualcomm Claims Snapdragon X Elite 21% Faster Than Apple's M3 Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The difference is that Apple is vertically integrated, which is what the comment I was replying to was talking about.
Apple designs the processor... the laptop it goes in... and the operating system it runs. Everything is designed with purpose... in-house.
But on Windows... it's always a bunch of separate companies.
That's the difference between Apple going ARM and Windows going ARM.
At 23W the Elite outperforms the M3 in Cinebench 2024 by 5% and at 80w it outperforms the M3 Pro by 15%.80W to compete with M3?
M3 is like 20W when under heavy load IIRC
80W is estimated TDP of M3 Max
M3 Max outperforms it by 25%.
The Pro and Max are just substantially different sized dies. They are off covering different systems. Qualcomm X Elite is just one die that is somewhat trying to cover aspects of both the plain Mn and Mn Pro (on the CPU front. NOT GPU front). So they constructed it to run at two wildly different thermal profiles. Most likely have a very limited budget and even more so have very limited about of time to get this to market. It would make zero rational sense to try to compose more than one die when have never shipped a single design commercially with this design. Apple did the AxxX series in iPad Pros for YEARS before they started with the M-series. The plain Mn is pragmatically just an extension of that foundational work. Qualcomm needs to ship something that works well and gets some market accpetance before branching off to create even more expensive dies that likely fewer Windows vendors want.
X Elite isn't trying to 'kill off' all dGPUs in all Windows laptops. It is just mainly targeting the laptops that didn't have one in the first place.
" ... Number of Concurrent Displays: 3. "
Snapdragon X Elite
Snapdragon X Elite is the most powerful, intelligent, and efficient processor in its class for Windows. Featuring: built for AI, multi-day battery-life and more.
Got M3 beat on that front right there. It isn't Thunderbolt 4 certified , but then neither is Apple's plain M3 either. ( that 2 output display likely means they could ... just have not bothered. Just sticking with USB4 so that bill-of-materials more mainstream and easier for OEMs to adopt. Apple just can't qualify because don't have the video. )
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. The iGPU is decent. It has camera processing. ( previous gen Qualcomm processors had MS Pluton security core. It is on that spec sheet page also. ).
X Elite is not 'missing' any major pieces of custom fixed function or specialized processing stuff. The only substantive 'miss' is a embedded SSD controller. Nobody in Windows land really has a strong desire for that. Neither Microsoft nor most end users are asking for that.
X Elite boots UEFI and uses Pluton for base level security. It is a 100% Windows oriented . The Plain Mn does none of that. Is not going to be a supported 'raw iron' Windows chip. So yeah ... it is Apples and Oranges to some extent.
But not really at the 'function units on die' level.
X Elite real competition is other processors that can run Windows. The M-series comparisons are more so to generate market 'buzz' and 'hype' than actual competition for SoC selection in a design win bake-off . Apple isn't ever going to buy Qualcomm and no Windows vendor is every going to buy M-series. They don't compete directly.
(which is primarily why the X Elite is placed somewhat between the Mn and Mn Pro. That is not the primary competition ... AMD/Intel are. Those are the SoCs they have to displace to get design wins. Not M-series. 80W works fine against Intel. )
I just upgraded my 2018 version Intel i7 Mac mini (64GB OWC memory, 2TB SSD and 10Gb ethernet) to the M2Pro Mac mini (12 core CPU & 19 core GPU, 32GB Ram, 2TB SSD and 10Gb ethernet) for nearly the same number of dollars with my military discount. Of course the purchasing power of the 2023 dollar is less than the 2020 dollar.
The sad fact is that the M2Pro chip is actually slightly faster in single core speed than the M3Pro chip and the M2Pro memory buss is 200 vs 150 for the M3Pro memory buss. I would not want to buy the M3Pro Mac mini when the M2Pro has better specs because the chips won't change until the M4 series are released.
The sad fact is that the M2Pro chip is actually slightly faster in single core speed than the M3Pro chip and the M2Pro memory buss is 200 vs 150 for the M3Pro memory buss. I would not want to buy the M3Pro Mac mini when the M2Pro has better specs because the chips won't change until the M4 series are released.
It isn't massively weaker. At 23W it outperforms the M3 in Geekbench with a 14,000 versus M3 at 12,000.
To be fair, when Apple switched to AS, developers had to re-write things else run Intel code in a Rosetta emulator on AS.
The same will happen with Windows apps -- developers will co-develop Intel and ARM versions. It's pretty much the same. As for "Intel on Dell" example, it's been that way for 3+ decades and that model has by far the majority of sales compared to Apple's "we do it all" model.
This might be interesting if Qualcomm also made an operating system and a device to go with it. But it’ll just end up in some Frankenstein crap.
So, not revealing the thermals is kinda like, well, only telling part of the truth…
But, while QC continues to cite Apple as “competition” it really is Intel and AMD they’re up against. And WinARM has its limitations.
I think competition is a good thing so hopefully we’ll see some solid offerings next year
But, while QC continues to cite Apple as “competition” it really is Intel and AMD they’re up against. And WinARM has its limitations.
I think competition is a good thing so hopefully we’ll see some solid offerings next year
Should be interesting to see real world tests and examples with the new Qualcomm chip vs M3 but is it even a true fair comparison? — I assume a lot of those Qualcomm chips will be used on Windows machines and their hardware varies across manufacturer. Mac OS is so well optimized with M series chips that this would be interesting to see.
Yes... Mac developers had to rewrite their software for Apple Silicon.
But you should note that the company (Apple) making the processor, the laptop, and the operating system is also the same company who is making the software environment and SDK.
Again... Apple is vertically integrated. They're involved with everything in their computers. If Apple wants to put some specialized piece of hardware in their computers... or have some software feature that ties directly to the hardware... they provide all the pieces to support it. Their software is designed in tandem with their hardware.
But you don't get that kind of integration when it's separate companies like Dell, Intel, Microsoft all trying to make one product.
And I'm not saying it's bad. My primary desktop computer is a Windows PC while my occasional-use laptop is an M1 Macbook Air. And you're right... Windows PCs sell in much greater volumes than Macs. Congrats.
But you keep asking "What's the difference?" and I think it has been spelled out fairly well. Apple is vertically integrated while everyone else is not.
That's why I jumped into this conversation earlier.
Well, particularly when it comes to ARM, they still have to keep their OEMs (for Android and the like) happy. Even if those OEMs can’t buy Apple Silicon for their own devices, poor comparisons against Apple Silicon still hurt the perceived value of their hardware. It’s the same reason why Intel mentions Apple in its discussions about new processors. But yes, Intel and AMD are the real competition to these chips (just as these chips and AMD’s Ryzen chips are the real competition to Intel’s chips), but they still have to keep their respective camps happy.
They implement a similar ISA, but M4 and Snapdragon are entirely different chip designs. Neither uses Cortex.
Call me when Qualcomm achieves a 10% benefit with the same power draw. Being 20% faster but drawing a lot more power isn't quite that hard.
Well, mostly what you need is
a. macOS booting from a Qualcomm-like device tree (unlikely to happen)
b. a shim for Qualcomm SoCs that offers an Apple-like device tree
Apple is unlikely to help with either of those, but the second one is at least plausible to me.
More importantly, M3 Max does so while drawing 40W, not 80.
But M3 rarely reaches 23W.
For most code, it's a recompile, not a rewrite. These days, very little code is architecture-specific.
Comparing to M-series because Apple has already created the path to follow. Apple has already made it clear to the market that Arm is capable of outperforming x86 for serious computing tasks-- there are a bunch of Arms in server rooms already but the public (and investors) aren't as aware of that. Apple has shown that it's not just hype and vapor, they put their money where their mouth is and left Intel for Arm and they're worth listening to because of their market cap.
The question among the muggles on Wall Street and customers to the extent they read press releases, is whether Arm is only suitable to the Apple ecosystem or if it can work for PCs too. Seems like a dumb question if you've got any tech savvy at all, but if all you know is a Bloomberg terminal... Qualcomm is following exactly the same trajectory Apple did: mobile Arm to desktop Arm, so the comparison makes sense.
And these Apple products perform reasonably well because of powerful processors.
In turn, processing power headroom allows Apple to bring more and more features, like better phone cameras, OCR in Notes and pdfs, video calls with nice blur around you and noise cancellation on microphones, extracting objects from photos, predictive text input, etc. Which is the reason why you buy the products.
Not wanting improvements on that is childish.
It’s actually not a fact. In fact it’s slower in single and multi core if you compare base to base. The gpus are comparable though. M2 pro is a great chip though especially in the mini.
Reading comments here one would think that Apple never cherry picks the specs that they highlight when announcing new things.
But they do.
Also, people seem to think that just because this new chip might be faster than M3 in some scenarios - that this now means that Apple somehow lost the edge in shipping laptops that are fanless and have awesome battery life.
They did not.
Remember that this chip has to be taken by (some other OEM) and integrated into (some other laptop) and then run (some other OS).
Apple is just fine. But the OEM that made the chip can still brag about their accomplishment. Both things can be true at the same time.
But they do.
Also, people seem to think that just because this new chip might be faster than M3 in some scenarios - that this now means that Apple somehow lost the edge in shipping laptops that are fanless and have awesome battery life.
They did not.
Remember that this chip has to be taken by (some other OEM) and integrated into (some other laptop) and then run (some other OS).
Apple is just fine. But the OEM that made the chip can still brag about their accomplishment. Both things can be true at the same time.
It's good to see more competition in PC space. I fully expect other companies like MediaTek, Samsung, Huawei etc. commit to releasing higher-end processors for laptops as well, which in turn at least will lead to more affordable computers; building stuff around Intel or AMD is too expensive, and options are too limited.
It's even better to see how utterly inferior Apple's latest laptop offerings look compared to competition; from the glory days of M1 which slaughtered everything to these piss-poor M3 machines with 8 gigs of RAM for 2K euros.
If Apple doesn't react, I fully expect MacBooks to fall back into status of useless overpriced machines made for videographers. And they kinda are, but nowadays Mx Macs still outcompete PCs at some price points if bought on sale or used; will they in 2025?
It's even better to see how utterly inferior Apple's latest laptop offerings look compared to competition; from the glory days of M1 which slaughtered everything to these piss-poor M3 machines with 8 gigs of RAM for 2K euros.
If Apple doesn't react, I fully expect MacBooks to fall back into status of useless overpriced machines made for videographers. And they kinda are, but nowadays Mx Macs still outcompete PCs at some price points if bought on sale or used; will they in 2025?
