If there was enough interest need to run old Mac apps, similar open emulators may exist for 32-bit Mac apps. That they don’t exist says how much effort folks are willing to put in getting WINE working over getting a Mac emulator working.
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's M1 Rival to Be Available in PCs by Late 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's all a question of tradeoffs. How hot does it run, how thick and heavy is it, how enjoyable is that in daily use, how long is the burst at which it can offer high performance?
Yes, in heavy-duty work, I'll mostly use it plugged in. It doesn't mean I would particularly something very heavy. The GE76 is 3kg compared to the 16-inch MBP's 2.2. The CPU runs at 135/110W, and the GPU at another 175W. The Apple SoC, in contrast, stays below 100W total (including the RAM). Could Apple do a laptop at 250W that's faster than the M1 Max? Yeah, probably. But whereas that niche is mildly interesting on the Intel side (mainly for games), this isn't a mainstream product.
What does all that buy you? On Geekbench, honestly not that much. 6% in single-threaded, and 9% in multithreaded, compared to an M1 Max.
But competition is good, and Alder Lake is a big step forward. We'll see how Intel progresses.
I think you might be elevating “running MacOS” to a primary user requirement when it’s actually one of many means to an end. The only users for which “runs macOS” is a requirement are macOS developers, and if Apple platforms lose popularity there will be fewer devs.
For most of us, we have another purpose for which we use a computer (work, web, games, communication, streaming, whatever) and we want the best combination of features to achieve that purpose. OS is one big contributor to that decision, but so is performance (along with size, weight, battery life, noise levels, display quality, design aesthetics, etc). I’m probably willing to give up some performance to stay with macOS, but if sticking with macOS meant sacrificing too much on those other metrics, I’d probably choose to leave.
Apple doesn’t lack competition. There’s proof of that in the fact that they’re gaining market share recently.
It’s not so much Intel, but Nvdia that annihilates the M series. And since a lot of creative apps make heavy use of the GPU, the MSI is great for creative types. Apple has the best trackpads in the business but the rest of MSI’s hardware is on par with MBP.
Judging by the comments here, many Mac users seem to think M series chips are untouchable in performance, not realizing PC laptops have a significant performance advantage right now.
Given the context is a discussion of market share, it matters exactly what many care about, not me or you or him specifically. The evidence is incredibly clear that most customers care very little about privacy and "spyware".
While many of the RTX cards can outperform the M chips in certain metrics, I don't think it's fair to say they "annihilate" the M series. In most cases where they win, the RTX is pulling a lot more power. Apple will likely never put out a laptop that uses this much power. Apple's view of laptops is that the use cases for the laptop should generally work ok on battery which is not the case for an RTX while it is "annihilating".
Desktop is another story though. Apple may put out much larger desktops. It looks like there is a 4x version of the M coming soon which will be 2x the performance of the m1u--and this is just the first generation of apple silicon desktop. I expect the performance of this next chip to further encroach on RTX 3080/3090 territory.
Many Mac users think the M chips are untouchable, because within their thermal/power class, they are.
I think the big question mark is Nuvia that hasn’t had their moment yet where they show what they’ve done. They may hit their goals on time, or may be delayed, or never get to the point where their work is shown as viable.
Wine has the Linux/BSD community behind it, and if it didn't, I doubt it would exist. Mac support is almost coincidental. I saw all the Wine support for Steam games dry up once Proton was released (for Linux only). Was asking about how to fix some issue with Age of Empires II on a Wine forum, and they asked, why aren't you using Proton.
Also, emulating slightly older Mac environments is probably way harder than emulating Windows. Apple can do it more easily than random hackers can. Wine even had some indirect help from Microsoft cause of Mono.
Last edited:
My opinion has always been that the M1 chip (and its pro variants) is still unmatched in terms of the experience that it offers - which is great sustained performance even when the laptop is not plugged to an external power source. Coupled with long battery life to boot.
I still feel that these are the features which continue to matter more to laptop users.
The MSI range of laptops still largely entail the same number of trade offs just so intel can boast about (narrowly) beating Apple in performance. They are bigger, thicker and heavier, offer less battery life, produce a ton of heat and likely doesn’t operate as reliably when away from a power source.
I just don’t understand how anyone can claim with a straight face that this represents a significant improvement over the M1 MBPs. I raised the same point in a previous thread about intel vs M1 chips, where some poster sent me on a wild goose chase with a bunch of random YouTube videos about the MSI GE76 claiming to having better performance, while conveniently leaving out the caveats. Never did get a response to that post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Which laptop is it, and which GPU? I feel like laptop benchmarks have been a joke all along because there's no good way to control for thermal throttling, but it makes all the difference IRL. There have always been laptops with more powerful GPUs than what the M1 Max provides, but will they still run faster after the computer gets hot? Cause the M1 CPU is definitely going to be faster.
Last edited:
Hmm, would still expect the 3080ti mobile to be faster even after throttling. That's a big card, and it's too far ahead in some benchmarks. Still would never want it.
Last edited:
Arm will license their technology to anybody willing to pay. Apple is in the best position to use ARM chips because they can design and develope their own OS to take maximum advantage of the ARM technology. The problem with other companies wanting to get onto the ARM SoC bandwagon is that they need an OS that will attract customers and the only OS out there at the moment that can do that is Microsoft Windows. The problem Microsoft will have is that each ARM maker will have it's own unique version of the chip which means Microsoft would have to design their OS to work on multiple different versions of ARM which will prevent Microsoft from being able to develope the OS to take advantage of ARM.
Apple's ARM chips use the same ISA but do not use ARM's design, so their "technology" is only relevant in terms of being compatible with a spec.
Whether Qualcomm's new chip with be ARM Cortex or a custom design is still unclear to me.
Yes it beats the MBP Max unplugged and plugged, IRL, and it gets hot at 95C, just like the Max because Apple doesn’t turn the fans on for some reason until it gets uncomfortably hot. Why is it so hard to believe that a PC laptop is a lot faster than the Max?
Even Apple said this MSI laptop smokes the M1 Max MacBook Pro, and it just got faster
MSI's GE76 Raider gets a 12th-gen 14-core Core i9, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and phase-change liquid metal cooling.
www.pcworld.com
Yes it beats the MBP Max unplugged and plugged, IRL, and it gets hot at 95C, just like the Max because Apple doesn’t turn the fans on for some reason until it gets uncomfortably hot. Why is it so hard to believe that a PC laptop is a lot faster than the Max?
Even Apple said this MSI laptop smokes the M1 Max MacBook Pro, and it just got faster
MSI's GE76 Raider gets a 12th-gen 14-core Core i9, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and phase-change liquid metal cooling.
Talk about a clickbait-y article.
Lot faster like 50%+?Yes it beats the MBP Max unplugged and plugged, IRL, and it gets hot at 95C, just like the Max because Apple doesn’t turn the fans on for some reason until it gets uncomfortably hot. Why is it so hard to believe that a PC laptop is a lot faster than the Max?
Even Apple said this MSI laptop smokes the M1 Max MacBook Pro, and it just got faster
MSI's GE76 Raider gets a 12th-gen 14-core Core i9, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and phase-change liquid metal cooling.
EDIT: Just found a comparison review.
“we repeatedly found that there was a difference in performance for the Intel-based notebook, depending on whether it was running off the battery or if an outlet was powering it. This is likely to conserve battery life at the expense of performance.”
I only saw a specific difference with OpenCL (plugged and unplugged). Everything else was not what I’d call “LOT” faster. Faster, absolutely, but not when unplugged.
When the numbers are THAT close AND you factor in a dim 1080P screen… well, I guess they have to cut corners somewhere.
Last edited:
It's questionable because laptop dedicated GPUs are known to be big generators of heat, even worse than Intel/AMD CPUs. The 3080ti mobile has a 115W TDP, vs like 45 for a CPU. Even with maxed out fans, there's simply too much heat being produced to run at full capacity for long. MBP Max may hit 95˚C, but that doesn't mean it's throttling. Like you said, it's being conservative with the fans.Yes it beats the MBP Max unplugged and plugged, IRL, and it gets hot at 95C, just like the Max because Apple doesn’t turn the fans on for some reason until it gets uncomfortably hot. Why is it so hard to believe that a PC laptop is a lot faster than the Max?
Even Apple said this MSI laptop smokes the M1 Max MacBook Pro, and it just got faster
MSI's GE76 Raider gets a 12th-gen 14-core Core i9, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and phase-change liquid metal cooling.
Despite that, I didn't say hard to believe, I said one comment below that I still can believe the GPU being faster than the Max's. But I'd be surprised if the CPU were faster.
Last edited:
And you’re right. The GPU test I saw was OpenCL and while it was indeed demonstrably faster, you only use OpenCL on a Mac if your goal is cross platform. If your goal is performance, you’d use Metal. I’d be interested to see how fast comparable tasks customized for Metal would be. If it’s anywhere close, then this is “pretty much a wash” at best, “not even close” when the PC is on battery, and regardless of all that, you still have a screen that’s nice for gaming… and that’s about it, at 1080p.
Of course, all of this is only relevant to someone that wants to say “PC HAS THE GOODER NUMBERS” or “MAC IS GOT THE GOODER NUMBERS!” If a user’s already made a choice for macOS, there’s nothing about this system that’s impressive as it doesn’t run macOS.
Oh, it's an OpenCL test? Yeah, that's useless then. I mean, it's fair to say that the Mac won't run X applications as well since they're OpenCL and Apple is annoying about that, but the article is about the hardware itself.
I just don't see the evidence for "Nvdia annihilates the M series" or "Even Apple said this MSI laptop smokes the M1 Max MacBook Pro". I do see evidence for: when you give the 3080 a lot of thermal headroom, it performs faster than the M1 Max. That is indeed also what Apple says. In OpenCL, it seems to be a lot faster, although exactly how much seems to vary wildly, probably due to thermal throttling. The CPU? Barely different, and it requires much more power to achieve that.
I mentioned in a previous post that I was referring to GPU based tasks which is utilized by many creative apps, MBP’s core audience
And, you’re absolutely right. The OpenCL test I saw was most certainly in the MSI’s favor. But, I don’t think we’ll find very many creatives that would swap a performance increase for a low resolution dim screen.