Darkseth

Came here to recommend Parallels, but seems I was beaten to the punch

Which ones do you use? How often do you use?
Is it like once per week? Do you use multiple Applications daily?
 
If you don't need that often, a Mac could work. Forget Dual Boot, inconvenient af, even if it was possible. Windows 11 ARM VM with parallels or Vmware for example, and you can run most Windows Applications, despite them running inside a VM on Windows for ARM which emulates x86 Applications to ARM.
 
I did this for a bunch of Busines Intelligence Applications with Parallels (i used Standard settrings with 4 Cores and 6gb Ram, no issues. Felt like native Windows).
It's rare, when any application doesn't want to install or Run, mostly some very niche special things.
But even bad programmed small tools, like a Rom-patcher for GBA Roms worked perfectly fine, Emulators ran.
 
With Parallels, they also have a "coherence mode", that means the Applications inside the Windows-VM can run in their own extra-Window.
That means, you can start Windows-Application-1 inside it's own Window within MacOS, and it looks like a MacOS Application. It isn't "stuck" inside the Windows VM-Window.
 
It needs some testing if your Applications do run inside the VM, but that's a great option.
 
If you use more Windows Applicationst han MacOS itself, then a Windows Laptop does make more sense probably - unless you do benefit otherwise from a Macbook (iPhone User maybe).
 
 
Good Windows Laptops.. I recommend JustJosh on youtube, he has among the best Laptop Reviews out there.
Solid choices are Elitebook 845 (14") and 865 series with Ryzen Zen4 for example, Thinkpad Z16 maybe, or XPS lineup.
 
Really depends on the Applications you want to run, how your workflow looks like, what specs are important etc.

Went with M3 pro space black!!

i'd say M2 Pro and M3 Pro will last a similar amount of time.
I would take the M3 Pro:
- new sexy Color
- 18gb Ram over 16. Not much, but very welcome!!
- Not really much faster Multicore-CPU Power, but not really less (faster Single Core!!). but faster GPU with faster Raytracing
 
 
But keep in Mind, Apple reduced the memory interface. 150 gb/s on the M3 Pro vs. 200 gb/s on the M2 Pro.
 
I wonder how much difference it may make, but i personally would chose 18gb Ram over 16.

M1 Air throttled like 15-20% max when doing Cinebench Runs nonstop.
 
League is perfectly fine even on M1 Air, as every Youtube Video showed. Cap FPS at 60, and problem solved. The Chip won't run at 100% Load.
 
Edit: 
There it is. 30 min Cinebench R23 run on M2 Air decreases Multicore points from 7700 to 6700. That's like 15%. 
 
Literaly every single Windows Laptop even with Fans don't throttle less, when comparing short Burst Performance vs. long time Sustained Load (PL1, PL2, thermals, etc).
No big issue there.
If that throttling means an fps-decrease from 150 to 120, so be it.
 
Or directly any LoL Video on youtube: 
 
 
fps barely drops down to 2-digit numbers on a small Aram Match.
Whole M2 Package consumes barely 9 Watt of Power with uncapped fps and maxed out settings.
M2 can hit 20w under full Benchmark Load.

Nope, RDNA 1 isn't good, and should not be considered anymore tbh.
Sadly German, but maybe there's english subtitles? 
Let me break it down: This Video is about the GTX Titan from 2013, how it keeps up today.
And how it aged really well.
In the End (Minute 32) he talks about the negative example, what didn't age well: RDNA 1.
 
It comes without Ray tracing capabilities and is missing alot of Features like Variable Rate Shading. RDNA1 diesn't fulfill the DX12 Ultimate Featureset.
 
Well, at 150 bucks today (Dollar or Euro doesn't matteR) is really low, and used Market is a different story. If it's Pascal, Touring or RDNA1, it most likely depends on how much pure fps-Power per Money you c an get.
But it's not a good buy if you want anything futureproof for anything - it's more like "i want to game, i don't have alot of money, what's the least worst choice".
 
 
However, there's another point Reviewers never talked about: RDNA 1 had horrible instabilityy problems for a LOT of Users. Many Tech Forums were full of that problem. I knew someone who tried like 3 or 4 different models (RX 5700 and 5700 XT), but all were unstable for most Games. Nvidia was withotu issues.
I also chose RDNA 1 back in 2019 for my GF's PC, she had horrible black screen and freezes all the time. As soon i had the idea to put my GTX 1080 inside, no more issues.
I personally wouldn't risk RDNA 1 anymore today, there are enough options available.
 
Seeing that Benchmark screenshot above, i would chose RX 6600 > RX 5700 XT anytime, unless the price difference is very noticable.
5% more or less is not something anybody will notice - especially if you use VRR (Freesync/Adaptive Sync).
But it consumes like 80-100w less power and has a better Featureset.

M1 Air throttled like 15-20% max when doing Cinebench Runs nonstop.
 
League is perfectly fine even on M1 Air, as every Youtube Video showed. Cap FPS at 60, and problem solved. The Chip won't run at 100% Load.
 
Edit: 
There it is. 30 min Cinebench R23 run on M2 Air decreases Multicore points from 7700 to 6700. That's like 15%. 
 
Literaly every single Windows Laptop even with Fans don't throttle less, when comparing short Burst Performance vs. long time Sustained Load (PL1, PL2, thermals, etc).
No big issue there.
If that throttling means an fps-decrease from 150 to 120, so be it.
 
Or directly any LoL Video on youtube: 
 
 
fps barely drops down to 2-digit numbers on a small Aram Match.
Whole M2 Package consumes barely 9 Watt of Power with uncapped fps and maxed out settings.
M2 can hit 20w under full Benchmark Load.

There's a thumb rule (i made, lol) for Intel Chips:
Same Core Count & same TDP Class = Same Chip.
 
This one will not "have 100 Mhz more", it is allowed to boost 100 Mhz higher, as long Power Limit and Thermal Limit allow it. If the Device is hot, it probably won't boost as much.
And that 5,6 Ghz vs. 5,5 Ghz is probably only a very short Burst when you start an application for example.
 
You won't ever feel this difference, not even in 10 years. Even if you use heavy Applications.
Maybe you can measure an ever so slight difference in Benchmarks, when you actually get Numbers to compare. But without numbers you will never notice anything.
 
 
TL;DR: Not even worth 50 Dollar tbh.
But you do get 64gb RAM too, maybe other differences. But tbh, i'd save the money. Maybe even go down further in specs.

The automatic suggestion for thin, portable, powerful, and long battery life would be one of the M-series MacBooks (Pro).
But you'll have to do your own homework if MacOS (or CrossOver / Parallels) is fully compatible with everything you intend to do.
 
My close friend is one of the most-senior Software Developers at this job (military contracts) and he does most of his work on a MacBook Pro 8GB 256GB he bought back in 2014. He only recently upgraded to an M2 Max MacBook Pro.
 
I have a MacBook Pro M1 Pro 16" and the battery lasts 8hrs-18hrs.
Easily 8-10hrs for productive work days and about 18hrs if I'm just on Reddit or watching VLC all day.
 
edit:
I would not bother with the MacBook Air series unless you seriously need the laptop to be as light as possible.
a refurbished M1 Pro / M2 Pro MacBook Pro 14" is the sweet spot for performance, usability, battery life, and luxury

I don't understand it either. 95% of people who complain about bottlenecks don't understand how it works in the first place as there is a bit of nuance to it. 
 
If its an actual problem, we'll tell them but this.. this doesn't even register. 

Please don't spread misinformation like this especially with useless % numbers from hack "bottleneck calculator" websites. We try to help people understand that's garbage around here, not promote it. 

You’ll never get Mac performance out of a windows machine on battery though no matter how much you change 

If you want to stay at AM4, go straight up to the 5800 3DX, it's the best AM4 CPU for Gaming. Check, if your Motherboard needs a Bios Update first in order to support it.
Maybe you can find some used for a good price from people upgrading to AM5 or Intel.
That 58003DX can increase max fps by over 50% on CPU-intense games, that large Cache is really helpful if you stick to a lower resolution, but want super high fps.
 
If you want a complete new Platform with DDR5, then maybe ask in 1 year again with your Budget over at the Upgrade section, since idk what's a good deal then 😛 AM5 wo't be a bad choice i guess .
 
If you get a new Monitor, 2560x1440, 3440x1440 or even 4k, then you'd have to upgrade your GPU first probably.

Exactly 😎
 
You shouldn't ask yourself "how do i reduce this bottleneck",
but "Are the fps i get enough at the desired Settings?"
If it's more than enough, all is good. If not, then let's see what we can do.
 
Different Games will have different needs for CPU and GPU. While Your GPU can be bottlenecked in 1 Game, it might not in another. Doesn't matter.
And if your Hardware can deliver your desired FPS without going full Ham, it means you consume less power, less heat, less noise.
 
Edit: I mean, your Main Goal is to have Fun gaming. Don't get too lost in some usage numbers and graphs.

Well, as i see your screenshot, you don't have problems NOW. You have over 100 fps?! How is that not enough.
1650x1050 is a Low resolution, even a midrange 4060 is fast enough to deliver many fps there. So much, that a 3600 (which isnt a "beast" tbh) can struggle with, because you're reaching very high fps ranges.
 
But you can't say "CPU x is not enough for GPU y". It Depends on Game and Settings.
If you play CPU-heavy Games like Anno, Cities skylines etc, and use low Resolution, naturally most GPUs won't have problems, but CPUs will struggle.
 
The Problem is NOT the CPU + GPU combination but your low Resolution.
 
If you change your Resolution in Hogwarts to 4k (3840x2160), i promise, your CPU will no longer Bottleneck, but your 4060 will struggle at 100% usage. Then your GPU is the bottleneck, it will look great, but low fps.
 
Exactly same hardware, but just a different resolution can switch the bottleneck from the CPU over to the GPU.
 
 
Yup, Hogwards needs alot of Power. 
 
See PCGH (Germany): https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hogwarts-Legacy-Spiel-73015/Specials/Hogwarts-Legacy-Tech-Test-Benchmarks-Raytracing-1413184/4/
They test with a RTX 4090, and the System with Ryzen 7 3700X gets 68 fps on average with drops below 40 (in their Test parcour).
 
 
If these 100 fps you get aren't enough, and you want more, it has NOTHING to do with your GPU. Even if you put a weaker GPU so there is "less bottleneck", you won't get more fps, because your CPU is the limit.
You have to upgrade your CPU, and yes, in CPU-heavy situations an upgrade to the 5800X3D can be huge.
 
If these 100 fps are more than enough for you to enjoy the game, then 
why. do. you. bother?
Be happy your GPU doesn't have to work fully. Or give your GPU more Work and increase your Graphic quality, so at least it looks better.
 
 
Also, your CPU does NOT need to have 100% usage to bottleneck. It's 6 Cores and 12 Threads, and many Tasks for Games run on 1 Core alone. If this one Core is too weak, it will bottleneck.
Your CPU could be at <20% and still bottleneck.
 
 
 
 
I explained already why, is there still something unclear?
 
 
 
Before we continue, what exactly is the problem you want to "solve"?
Do you want your GPU to sit at 100% for whatever reason?
Do you want more fps?
 
What exactly bothers you to the point you don't want to change it?
 
 
  
Bottleneck Calculators are the trashcan of Internet, they don't work, they are garbage, and they don't work. They aren't worth the Bits they waste on a server.
 
 
It seems you completely don't know what Bottleneck mean even after i try to explain it to you.
The Bottleneck is MASSIVE on every single Computer.
No Bottleneck = Unlimited fps.
100 fps is very very far away from unlimited, so the Bottleneck is massive.
The Bottleneck with i9 13900k + RTX 4090 is MASSIVE too.
 
 
As i already said, on hogwarts legacy, if you play on LOW Resolution, your GPU will be bored, and CPU will Bottleneck, becaus CPU can't deliver unlimited fps.
 
If you just change to 4k resolution, the CPU will no longer bottleneck, but the GPU will.
 
You can CHANGE the Bottleneck with a single Setting. Let alone all Graphic settings and even different Games. That's why a Bottleneck-Calculator is the biggest pile of Dogshit you can find online. It can NOT possible work if you even remotely understand how Bottleneck work and why they exist.
 
  
This is wrong.
CPU Does NOT need to be at 100% Load to start Bottlenecking because Games are not 100% perfectly parallelized.
1 Single Core at Full Load can be enough, and you sometimes don't even see that.
 
Try for yourself: Run Prime95 and set 1 single Thread. Then take a look into your Task Manager. On mine, Windows somehow shares this over all threads, all threads are at like 10-15% load, but this is a 100% HARD CPU-Bottleneck you see here
 
This is Prime95 testing 1 Core on my 13600K:

This is a HARD CPU-Bottleneck right there.

You read what I said backwards:  
 
You need to look at individual CPU Cores, because total usage is absolutely unhelpful.
 
You can be CPU Bottlenecked at 20% usage (like I am)
 
So, odds are, you're CPU Bottlenecked, and you won't get more frames regardless of resolution.
 
 
The test for a CPU Bottleneck:
If you run a game and get your 120 FPS
Lower the resolution, and if you still get 120 FPS, that's either a CPU limit, or an engine limit in the game.

Well, as i see your screenshot, you don't have problems NOW. You have over 100 fps?! How is that not enough.
1650x1050 is a Low resolution, even a midrange 4060 is fast enough to deliver many fps there. So much, that a 3600 (which isnt a "beast" tbh) can struggle with, because you're reaching very high fps ranges.
 
But you can't say "CPU x is not enough for GPU y". It Depends on Game and Settings.
If you play CPU-heavy Games like Anno, Cities skylines etc, and use low Resolution, naturally most GPUs won't have problems, but CPUs will struggle.
 
The Problem is NOT the CPU + GPU combination but your low Resolution.
 
If you change your Resolution in Hogwarts to 4k (3840x2160), i promise, your CPU will no longer Bottleneck, but your 4060 will struggle at 100% usage. Then your GPU is the bottleneck, it will look great, but low fps.
 
Exactly same hardware, but just a different resolution can switch the bottleneck from the CPU over to the GPU.
 
 
Yup, Hogwards needs alot of Power. 
 
See PCGH (Germany): https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hogwarts-Legacy-Spiel-73015/Specials/Hogwarts-Legacy-Tech-Test-Benchmarks-Raytracing-1413184/4/
They test with a RTX 4090, and the System with Ryzen 7 3700X gets 68 fps on average with drops below 40 (in their Test parcour).
 
 
If these 100 fps you get aren't enough, and you want more, it has NOTHING to do with your GPU. Even if you put a weaker GPU so there is "less bottleneck", you won't get more fps, because your CPU is the limit.
You have to upgrade your CPU, and yes, in CPU-heavy situations an upgrade to the 5800X3D can be huge.
 
If these 100 fps are more than enough for you to enjoy the game, then 
why. do. you. bother?
Be happy your GPU doesn't have to work fully. Or give your GPU more Work and increase your Graphic quality, so at least it looks better.
 
 
Also, your CPU does NOT need to have 100% usage to bottleneck. It's 6 Cores and 12 Threads, and many Tasks for Games run on 1 Core alone. If this one Core is too weak, it will bottleneck.
Your CPU could be at <20% and still bottleneck.
 
 
 
 
I explained already why, is there still something unclear?
 
 
 
Before we continue, what exactly is the problem you want to "solve"?
Do you want your GPU to sit at 100% for whatever reason?
Do you want more fps?
 
What exactly bothers you to the point you don't want to change it?
 
 
  
Bottleneck Calculators are the trashcan of Internet, they don't work, they are garbage, and they don't work. They aren't worth the Bits they waste on a server.
 
 
It seems you completely don't know what Bottleneck mean even after i try to explain it to you.
The Bottleneck is MASSIVE on every single Computer.
No Bottleneck = Unlimited fps.
100 fps is very very far away from unlimited, so the Bottleneck is massive.
The Bottleneck with i9 13900k + RTX 4090 is MASSIVE too.
 
 
As i already said, on hogwarts legacy, if you play on LOW Resolution, your GPU will be bored, and CPU will Bottleneck, becaus CPU can't deliver unlimited fps.
 
If you just change to 4k resolution, the CPU will no longer bottleneck, but the GPU will.
 
You can CHANGE the Bottleneck with a single Setting. Let alone all Graphic settings and even different Games. That's why a Bottleneck-Calculator is the biggest pile of Dogshit you can find online. It can NOT possible work if you even remotely understand how Bottleneck work and why they exist.
 
  
This is wrong.
CPU Does NOT need to be at 100% Load to start Bottlenecking because Games are not 100% perfectly parallelized.
1 Single Core at Full Load can be enough, and you sometimes don't even see that.
 
Try for yourself: Run Prime95 and set 1 single Thread. Then take a look into your Task Manager. On mine, Windows somehow shares this over all threads, all threads are at like 10-15% load, but this is a 100% HARD CPU-Bottleneck you see here
 
This is Prime95 testing 1 Core on my 13600K:

This is a HARD CPU-Bottleneck right there.

I just wanted to quote this because it's my experience with my M2 MBP 13. It's simply the best laptop that I've ever owned, and in the last couple of months I've tried lots of them (Thinkpad T490, XMG Fusion 15, Surface Laptop 4, MacBook Air M1, Zephyrus G14 2020), and now the MacBook Pro M2, and I just love it.

Wait untill Apple announces the M3 Macs, and get that one. Will be even faster and more efficient than current Macs, and maybe they might upgrade the 8gb Base Ram to 12 or so.
Probably even more batterylife on the Air.
 
My M1 Macbook Pro 13" did 20 hours on basic Office stuff, that's insane.
 
The current Macbook Airs are basicly perfect for you.
They are high quality, best trackpad, great Display and speakers, great Keyboard, they are very very fast and snappy in everyday workload and have a great batterylife.
Current m2 Air can do like 14-15 hours batterylife with doing basic tasks.
You might do 2 full Days without charging. When you're done, just close the lid, it consumes almost no energy. You never need to boot, it's always ready.
and despite it beeing so snappy, it doesn't have a fan, and stays silent and quite cool.
 
Windows does have some options, but nothing will come close to what a Macbook Air can do (speed & Batterylife & lack of fan noise and heat). And those that do, aren't cheaper.
 
Make your decision based on if you want to stick to MacOS, or rather use Windows.
If you want to switch, i would prefer Ryzen 6000 or 7000. 7000 with at le ast Zen3+ technology (7000 series can have Zen2, Zen3, Zen3+ and Zen4).
 
Just let me tell you, Apple Silicon Mac is a whole other Experience than Intel macs were.

@drmlnr1 Framework is fine, if you're all in for maximum repairability and modularity. But stay away from Intel 11th Gen, they are slow. That will be MUCH slower than your m1.
 
You might want to take a look into the new Ideapad 5 Pro 14APH G8 generation.
It comes with a sexy 2,8k Screen with 120 Hz, Zen4 (Ryzyen 7 7840HS) that can actually draw some Power, can be configured with 32gb Ram, and has a huge 75 Wh Battery for a 14" device.
Here in Germany, there's a student version for 899€ with 1TB/32gb Ram, Ryzen 7 7840HS. Soo there's chances, something similar is around 1000 bucks in other countries.
 
Maybe Thinkpad Z13 with lower 6-Core and 1200p Screen, that can last a while on battery, but not sure how quick it drops while videoediting.
 
It's legit to switch back to Windows, however do NOT expect to find a single Device with a similar batterylife whiel doing video editing on the go. Nothing is as efficient as Apple in this Area.

Wait untill Apple announces the M3 Macs, and get that one. Will be even faster and more efficient than current Macs, and maybe they might upgrade the 8gb Base Ram to 12 or so.
Probably even more batterylife on the Air.
 
My M1 Macbook Pro 13" did 20 hours on basic Office stuff, that's insane.
 
The current Macbook Airs are basicly perfect for you.
They are high quality, best trackpad, great Display and speakers, great Keyboard, they are very very fast and snappy in everyday workload and have a great batterylife.
Current m2 Air can do like 14-15 hours batterylife with doing basic tasks.
You might do 2 full Days without charging. When you're done, just close the lid, it consumes almost no energy. You never need to boot, it's always ready.
and despite it beeing so snappy, it doesn't have a fan, and stays silent and quite cool.
 
Windows does have some options, but nothing will come close to what a Macbook Air can do (speed & Batterylife & lack of fan noise and heat). And those that do, aren't cheaper.
 
Make your decision based on if you want to stick to MacOS, or rather use Windows.
If you want to switch, i would prefer Ryzen 6000 or 7000. 7000 with at le ast Zen3+ technology (7000 series can have Zen2, Zen3, Zen3+ and Zen4).
 
Just let me tell you, Apple Silicon Mac is a whole other Experience than Intel macs were.

I did exactly that (ARM Windows 11) on my M1 Macbook Pro 13.3", because i had to use a few applications.
Windows 11 itself has an emulator built in, that translates 32bit and 64 bit applications to ARM.
I used SAP S/4 Hana, and a little finfance Game (of course, no support, but it ran just fine).
For Business Intelligence i used Microsoft Server Data Tools 2017 standalone, BI Modeler, Power BI, Microsoft Server Management Studio and DBeaver.
 
Everything ran flawlessly, i haven't even noticed ANY performance issues. Well, not like those Applications need any performance to begin with.
Even BI Modeller ran, while it didn't ran on my Windows Desktop (apparently there are issues if Winrar is installed).
 
I've had an issue lately tho: Newer version of SSDT, we switched to Visual Studio 2022, which i could install, however, i could not install the addon "data preparation and analysis", it just wasn't available (probably, ARM Version of VIsual Studio doesn't have that).
 
 
From my experience, at least 95% of all Applications will run well, while some special ones might cause issues.

My overall Windows experience within Parallels (all ARM) was better, faster and more stable than every business-notebook from Work i've ever had - because my Mac managed to stay silent even while working inside the VM.
 
Even a Nintendo DS Emulator ran just fine or that little Tool that modified the Rom.
I really never notived anything negative from the emulator, aside from that data preparation and analysis missing in Visual Studio 2022.
 
 
Also, according to Geekbench 5.3 (which ran natively as ARM version, there was an arm runtime in the installation path), the Performance inside the VM was similar to a native Tiger Lake Laptop (like 1135G7~).
Which is still more performance than most ARM-Windows Laptops have natively.

I did exactly that (ARM Windows 11) on my M1 Macbook Pro 13.3", because i had to use a few applications.
Windows 11 itself has an emulator built in, that translates 32bit and 64 bit applications to ARM.
I used SAP S/4 Hana, and a little finfance Game (of course, no support, but it ran just fine).
For Business Intelligence i used Microsoft Server Data Tools 2017 standalone, BI Modeler, Power BI, Microsoft Server Management Studio and DBeaver.
 
Everything ran flawlessly, i haven't even noticed ANY performance issues. Well, not like those Applications need any performance to begin with.
Even BI Modeller ran, while it didn't ran on my Windows Desktop (apparently there are issues if Winrar is installed).
 
I've had an issue lately tho: Newer version of SSDT, we switched to Visual Studio 2022, which i could install, however, i could not install the addon "data preparation and analysis", it just wasn't available (probably, ARM Version of VIsual Studio doesn't have that).
 
 
From my experience, at least 95% of all Applications will run well, while some special ones might cause issues.

My overall Windows experience within Parallels (all ARM) was better, faster and more stable than every business-notebook from Work i've ever had - because my Mac managed to stay silent even while working inside the VM.
 
Even a Nintendo DS Emulator ran just fine or that little Tool that modified the Rom.
I really never notived anything negative from the emulator, aside from that data preparation and analysis missing in Visual Studio 2022.
 
 
Also, according to Geekbench 5.3 (which ran natively as ARM version, there was an arm runtime in the installation path), the Performance inside the VM was similar to a native Tiger Lake Laptop (like 1135G7~).
Which is still more performance than most ARM-Windows Laptops have natively.

Heya. If all your Applications run on Apple Silicon, get a base Macbook Air M1 or M2.
 
If it has to be Windows, Lenovo Ideapad 5 Pro series is really great. Solid quality, great screen, good performance.

I'd go for the MacBook Pro, easily.
 
The base M1 Pro still has good battery life, and it's more powerful in some situations than the base M2. The extra RAM on the MacBook Air isn't enough to offset the Pro's other advantages.