|
|
|
|
|
|
by smoldesu
1580 days ago
|
|
|
The performance is fantastic for a Macbook. The past 10 years was like watching Apple trapped in the laptop stone age, slowly realizing that replacing the ACPI tables on a laptop chip wasn't enough to change it's performance profile. With M1, they finally got to do what they wanted, albeit at the expense of x86. For the majority of Mac users that won't matter though, since Apple was never a particularly great steward of the x86 arch in the first place (like when they dropped x86 32-bit support because it was "too slow", or whatever). Relative to the rest of the laptop space though? I think I'd simply call the M1 "competitive". It's not the first laptop we've seen with a powerful iGPU (AMD's Vega graphics were first to the party in that regard), and it's CPU performance is good but not great (it's effectively a quad-core system no matter how you end up using it). On the higher-end, it's almost a little embarrassing how hard Intel about-faced with Alder Lake and took Apple to the cleaners with a more bloated ISA, decidedly worse silicon and a complete lack of experience designing heterogeneous systems. So far, the only unique thing I've seen from the M1 is the battery life. I anticipate other manufacturers will catch up on that front as we transition to big.LITTLE and more dense silicon packages, so I'm not really that worried for the rest of the industry. I'm glad Apple has made a laptop that their fans can enjoy, but x86/32-bit support is non-negotiable for my workload, and they have yet to prove themselves with higher-end hardware. Time will tell, but I'm just happy that the performance wars aren't as much of a blowout anymore. |
|
|
I don't understand. About-faced and take to the cleaners? (Not a native speaker)