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
Run Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro. Also being “prettier” and more user friendly is a significant QOL thing for a lot of people. So is the integration between all of their hardware.
I grew up using Windows and I still have a Windows PC for gaming, but that’s all I use it for.
edit- Also all of my Macs have outlived my Windows PCs
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.
True, but I bet they know what the competition is planning a lot better than we do. And yes, they are competition, if just for process nodes and fab space. Also, we have no clue how hard Apple pushes their designs. There could be more clockspeed available that they simply don’t have to push for. Lower clocks help improve yields, which means more profit. Apple doesn’t really differentiate M-chips all that much. Single core performance is pretty much the same across the entire generation. Instead, you basically just pick GPU/CPU core counts. Any disruption makes them have to think harder.
Big budget box office movies are not made with Final Cut.
Most shows are not made with Final Cut.
A good portion of the programs on Apple TV are not even made with apples editing software.
Yea it’s great it honestly is.
But everything it does can be done elsewhere.
it’s not like there are no alternatives. Because there are.
Only a small chuck of the media and film Industry use Mac’s for production.
If you’re talking about documentaries or YouTube channels sure.
Apple has good products for sure. But they don’t seem to be selling or taking much if any of windows market share away anymore. That’s pretty much leveled off.
Windows and Apple are both great. Competition drives innovation. Isn’t that what we want?
What?
Words have specific meanings for a reason. Twisting them to sort others needs or points to make is just what argunenta are for, yet it doesn't change the meaning of words period.
I bake the aek because without ME the oven doesn't even turn on. I can choose a microwave or a atone oven if I so choose to, but the oven cannot choose the preparer at all in any instance.
So I bake the cake!
TSMC Makes the SoC it supplies the hardware and professional know how to get it done. APPLE claims to design theie Soc's but ill bet ita a collaboration with TSMC because obky TSMC knows their limits and workarounds per client's design needs.
It's more than suspicious. It's laughable. The reporter's credulous willingness to parrot their claims is a big part of the problem, too. This is typical for the tech press but I'd hoped for better here (I gave up on AppleInsider a few years ago).
They previously announced that this is a chip with 12 performance cores and no efficiency cores. That means that the appropriate comparison for this chip is the M3 Max - at least from a technical perspective, and when comparing CPU performance. There are endless questions and zero answers about GPU and NPU performance. As far as CPU MP scores go, others here have already posted that the M3 Max slaughters the Oryon. It's not even close.
QC has made some big claims about efficiency, such as saying that they don't need E cores because their P cores can run at low enough power. That would be a big deal if true but their transparent misdirections and deceptions (comparing the Oryon to the M3 instead of the M3 Max) strongly suggest that nothing they say can be taken at face value.
Any suggestion that the M3 loses to this chip on performance or efficiency is pure foolishness at this point. It's almost certainly not the case, but we won't know until the chip ships (which may well be close to when the M4 ships - we still don't know if Apple is moving to a yearly cadence or not, but at this point I think it more likely than not).
There is one GIANT aspect of this competition that isn't clear though - and if QC is willing to bear the costs, it could really change this story. I said that the correct technical comparison is the M3 Max. But the market comparison is much more important unless you're an engineer. If they price this chip so players in the Windows laptop market can make laptops that compete with the MacBook Air on quality and price, then that will definitely have an impact. And I wouldn't bet against this right now. They've shown a willingness to put serious capital into this project for years; they may well be willing to take a few more years building a market with loss leaders. OTOH, they've flinched before as well, canceling previous CPU projects after large investments, so it could go either way.
12 cores at 3.8 GHz, with boost to 4.3 when going down to 2 or 1 cores. (I think this one is homogenous?)
Well, Qualcomm claims 15,300 at up to 80W. M3 Max scores 21,049 and draws about 40W while benched. So, 38% faster at half the power. That’s quite a gap.
I presume both numbers include the RAM. In Qualcomm’s defense, theirs includes a cellular modem.
Very much so when you’re comparing a 12p core CPU with a 4p+4e core CPU. Performance wise M3 Pro is actually a much more comparable CPU with 6p+6e and even that CPU has a TDP of 28w (highest recorded multi-core performance on GB is 15,250, which is just 50 points shy.
Personally, I think Qualcomm is making an extremely stupid play by trying to compare their CPU with Apple, because they do not compete with each other. They should be comparing their CPUs with AMD and Intel, who they will directly compete against.
Glad to see them moving forward on a chip that may help push Apple forward on a future chip design, if the marketing hype is accurate ( they're already using weasel words in the announcement, but hey it is marketing hype). Good for Qualcomm, good for PC gamers who want something faster, hopefully good for Apple and its customers.
In the sense that most people would be using when talking about chip design, you would lose that bet. Everything that makes the M3 different from the Oryon comes from Apple, not TSMC.
That said, this stuff is complicated. TSMC must supply a vast amount of info to any customer wanting to use their process. In that sense, there is some collaboration. However, it goes in both directions - Apple was reportedly a significant player in the details of the N3 process.
To the closest approximation you can get with simple statements, though, your argument is bad.
There is always WSL2 maybe 3. Works amazing for Fedora or Kali Linux for me.
Of course there’s a collaboration, there has to be… that doesn’t mean TSMC has a hand in the actual design of the SoC. TSMC provides Apple with certain specifications and limits regarding whatever node process Apple chooses to use. And then Apple designs their silicon for that node.
And “make” does not have a specific meaning when you’re talking about something where there are multiple stages to traverse before the final ”product” is produced. Using your analogy of a cake there’s actually two stages; 1. writing the recipe, 2. following the recipe and making the cake. Those are two disparate stages that can be handled by two completely different people. A better analogy would’ve been an architect and a construction company. The architect designs the building (makes the blueprint) and the construction co. follows the blueprint and builds the structure.
If there’s any truth in what you’re trying to say, then TSMC and every other fab, would need a huge team of chip designers to help with every single chip design they’re tasked to fabricate, which is quite literally impossible. So no, they do not help with chip design, they specify limitations of their equipment and the client designs their chips within those specs.
Last edited:
It's more that we don't really know what it means for the end user until there is actually a laptop sporting said processor, running windows and an ARM version of key applications. Right now, everyone is just going by what one company says.
With M1 all the way to M3, the value proposition was pretty clear. You get longer battery life (I remember being floored when my M1 MBA clocked 9 hours on zoom with a full charge). The device remains cool to the touch (I had no issues using my laptop rested on my naked thighs). Performance was great (everything was fast and snappy). With the pro Macs, there was also the added benefit of sustained performance even when not plugged in to an external power source. And it works because you have 1 company (Apple) overseeing and coordinating all the big pieces and ensuring they work properly together. They are even willing to drop Intel and go all in on ARM to force the hands of developers everywhere (not that hard for Apple when Intel has been dropping the ball for years).
That Qualcomm even had to add a disclaimer at the end acknowledging that there are a ton of variables (which they don't control) affecting the final performance shows that they are aware that consumers likely won't see anywhere near 100% of the promised benefits, especially if the other stakeholders (eg: Microsoft, software developers) refuse to play ball.
In this case, it's probably better to just reserve final judgement until we actually see it in a final product. Remember, specs are just the means, user experience is the end.
Apple is compelled to improve in any case. Once Apple saturate their market with a model, they need a new model that's more compelling in order to get sales.
Looks like we are finally going to get good Windows machines. Competition is good. We all knew this was coming. No one can sit back and relax, there is always someone else nipping at your toes. If Apple had just let the Nuvia guys make the server chips at Apple like they wanted this would have never happened and they could have had the lead just a little longer. This competition is great, but Apple has cut its nose to spite its face now if we can only get Johny Srouji to shut up about not being a chip company and just embrace it already. They are a computer company and a chip company. Enough with the "we are not a chip company" nonsense.
I use Windows and macOS for work in a daily basis, and IMO, both are user friendly. Windows do some things better than macOS and viceversa. Apple may have a better integration with their hardware, while Windows has better integration with their enterprise ecosystem.
In gaming, there is no discussion, Windows is miles ahead of macOS.
I don't know what kind of Windows PC you had, but based in what I have seen in my customers, high end Windows devices work for many years without issues. Some of them have devices with +7 years working in their offices. At the same time, my previous two Apple devices only work for approximately 5 years. I hope my current MBA M2 works a little longer than that.
Have you used Windows 11? I only ask because I ended up with a work computer with Windows 11 recently, and I’ve gotta think that it breaks so many interactions that most long term Windows folks’ll probably hate it. I prefer Macs myself but am bilingual (well, trilingual when you add desktop Linux), and Windows 11 really infuriates the Windows user in me because of unnecessary changes. (I especially hate how the new contextual menus work. It’s just extra hoops to jump through that honestly slow me down.)
I gotta think that Windows 11 will drive a lot of people away, especially those who can get away with something like ChromeOS.
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:
Yes, I'm working with Windows 11. The only thing I had to adapt was to the new placement of Copy / Move / Rename / Share / Delete in the contextual menu. It took some time, but now I like to have them in the first line of the menu.
A lot of my workflows require clicking on the “show more items” button (because I need to use advanced options). Used to be that they were one click away and that I’d have to just acquire the menu item. Now I have to acquire the show more items item and then acquire the menu item. Doubles the length of time it takes to do the same task.