Apple made a BIG mistake

[Video Beagle]

3 minutes ago, Spindel said:

I urge people to take the plunge and try one of the M1s.

Shall I give you my address so you can send a late xmas present?

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

i still personally believe that the M1 chips can't be compared to anything else, because it's not even a choice, if you want a Mac, you WILL get the AS. If you want AS your HAVE to get a Mac.

The thing is that if you are OS agnostic then you will compare computers in terms of hardware, and when you do that it becomes very important to compare for example the M1 to Ryzen. So I don't think it is as simple as saying "if you want MacOS, get the M1, if you want Windows, get Ryzen".

I for example could do just fine with either MacOS or Windows on my work PC. I basically only use SSH, the Office suite and a browser, all of which work just fine on MacOS or Windows.

So OS does not dictate which laptop I get, hardware does. I am sure a lot of other people are in the same situation.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

I do like my HP machine I got but it runs hotter than I'd like and has ram limited to 2400. HP doesn't make the machines run their fastest

What? So just because one laptop you have runs hot you assume that all HP laptops thermally throttle? Or use slow RAM?

The laptop they tested has 3200MHz RAM. What else do you want? It is the highest that's officially supported by AMD. This is what I mean with you wanting them to cherry pick which things to test so that AMD looks their absolute best. Why? Isn't it enough that they tested two different AMD laptops? They have to make sure the models they pick are specifically picked out because they make AMD look their absolute best?

 

 

6 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

I didn't realize a single zen3 core needed 100W to reach max boost? its under 10W

No it isn't. Stop spreading that lie. At the very least you are mischaracterizing it and comparing apples to oranges.

If we are measuring the core itself, when downclocked, and the rest of the core complexity is already fired up, lighting up an additional core on the 5950X only adds around 10 watts of power. But that is a completely meaningless number when talking about single core performance. 

In order for Zen3 to outperform the Firestorm cores in the M1, it has to run at something like 4.9GHz. The only time that happens is when you only have one or two cores active. How much power does a 5950X chip use when you have a single core active? It uses around 49 watts.

5950X:

1 core at 5GHz - 49 watts

2 cores at 4.8GHz - 59 watts

3 cores at 4.75GHz - 92 watts

4 cores at 4.725GHz - 110 watts

 

Stop saying that Zen 3 cores only use 10 watts when you are talking about a very specific scenario like "if you already have 11 cores active, and reduce the frequency of all cores by 100Mhz then activating the 12th core only increases power consumption by 10 watts". That's not the same as a single zen3 core using "less than 10 watts".

Stop trying to mislead people. Just stop it.

 

And to make matters even worse, the numbers I posted above is just for the CPU (the 5950X). Meanwhile, the entire Mac Mini running the same test uses around 10 watts of AC power for the entire computer, including memory, storage, fans, etc.

 

So to summarize, when the 5950X is able to outperform the M1 by about 5%, it uses about 400% more power for the CPU alone, than the entire Mac Mini uses. If we start including things like the cooler necessary to cool the 5950X, the memory and motherboard in the Ryzen calculation as well as measured AC for that computer too (which would make the comparison more fair) then the results would be even more in favor of Apple.

 

 

You can't pick and choose like you are doing now. Sure, you can get a zen 3 core to use less than 10 watts of power, but in order to do that you need to downclock it so much it will no longer have performance parity with a Firestorm core. In order to get performance parity, the core need to be clocked at around 4.9GHz. A single zen 3 core at 4.9GHz uses significantly more power than 10 watts. Especially if you start including the power consumption of the rest of the components (like the rest of the chip that isn't the core, the motherboard, memory, etc) which is only fair to do since we are including those things when measuring the M1's power consumption.

 

 

6 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

3. My point is mostly the M1 isn't the fastest chip and is being compared to last gen parts. AMD could have given us APUs in the fall but they've waited till Q1 2021.

It isn't being compared to last gen parts. It is being compared to current gen parts.

AMD does not have any zen 3 mobile chips, let along any system integrators selling laptops with them. Zen 2 is the current gen AMD processors for laptops. Just because AMD MIGHT release new mobile processors in a couple of months does not mean the stuff they have today is "last gen" and shouldn't be looked at.

The zen 3 APUs you keep referring to only exist in your head right now.

Also, the rumors is that 5000 series AMD laptop chips will be released in late 2021. So we might be close to a year away from them being released.

 

You are complaining that LinusTechTips compared the Macbook that is available today, to processors that AMD released ~6 months ago and is the latest thing AMD sells. You would rather they compared it to an imaginary chip from AMD that we might not even be able to buy for another year.

Do you see how absurd you are being right now when I spell it out for you?

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What? So just because one laptop you have runs hot you assume that all HP laptops thermally throttle? Or use slow RAM?

The laptop they tested has 3200MHz RAM. What else do you want? It is the highest that's officially supported by AMD. This is what I mean with you wanting them to cherry pick which things to test so that AMD looks their absolute best. Why? Isn't it enough that they tested two different AMD laptops? They have to make sure the models they pick are specifically picked out because they make AMD look their absolute best?

 

 

No it isn't. Stop spreading that lie. At the very least you are mischaracterizing it and comparing apples to oranges.

If we are measuring the core itself, when downclocked, and the rest of the core complexity is already fired up, lighting up an additional core on the 5950X only adds around 10 watts of power. But that is a completely meaningless number when talking about single core performance. 

In order for Zen3 to outperform the Firestorm cores in the M1, it has to run at something like 4.9GHz. The only time that happens is when you only have one or two cores active. How much power does a 5950X chip use when you have a single core active? It uses around 49 watts.

 

You can't pick and choose like you are doing now. Sure, you can get a zen 3 core to use less than 10 watts of power, but in order to do that you need to downclock it so much it will no longer have performance parity with a Firestorm core. In order to get performance parity, the core need to be clocked at around 4.9GHz. A single zen 3 core at 4.9GHz uses significantly more power than 10 watts. Especially if you start including the power consumption of the rest of the components (like the rest of the chip that isn't the core, the motherboard, memory, etc) which is only fair to do since we are including those things when measuring the M1's power consumption.

 

 

It isn't being compared to last gen parts. It is being compared to current gen parts.

AMD does not have any zen 3 mobile chips, let along any system integrators selling laptops with them. Zen 2 is the current gen AMD processors for laptops. Just because AMD MIGHT release new mobile processors in a couple of months does not mean the stuff they have today is "last gen" and shouldn't be looked at.

The zen 3 APUs you keep referring to only exist in your head right now.

Also, the rumors is that 5000 series AMD laptop chips will be released in late 2021. So we might be close to a year away from them being released.

 

You are complaining that LinusTechTips compared the Macbook that is available today, to processors that AMD released ~6 months ago and is the latest thing AMD sells. You would rather they compared it to an imaginary chip from AMD that we might not even be able to buy for another year.

Do you see how absurd you are being right now when I spell it out for you?

I've ran at least a dozen HP laptops over the years.
first thing from toms hardware https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hp-omen-15-amd-ryzen-2020
"Runs hot"
Both examples were poor choices. I know they are re using stuff they got a few months back from HP but I would have preferred the G14.

 

looking at 4800U numbers the change from a 15W to 25W config increased the single core score 1-2% in R20, it did have a meaningful impact on the multicore with 15-20%
yes it takes a lot of power to hit 4.9ghz on zen3 desktop but at 4.2-4.5 its much less like 10-20W.

they aren't even in the same league why are you trying to compare them? it would be slightly more fair VS a 3800x

you don't need 4.9ghz. I've laid out the math I did in other threads. with a ~20% IPC boost and a .2-3ghz boost so around 4.4-4.5ghz clockspeed you will match it in single core.
They don't only exist in my head, they are in labs. I'm not expecting LTT to compare them but I'd like a mention that next Gen parts from AMD and Intel are going to be 20%+ faster than the currently shown chips.
I'm not being absurd. I've got 2 issues. 1 LTT picked some bad laptops to show of AMD. 2 0 mention that next gen parts are due out in Q1-Q2 from both AMD and Intel

[Stahlmann]

57 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I basically only use SSH, the Office suite and a browser, all of which work just fine on MacOS or Windows.

To be fair, for people who just use such apps, it really doesn't matter if they have the latest Ryzen (or Intel for that matter) or M1 CPUs inside, either of these will do all these tasks without even breaking a sweat.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The thing is that if you are OS agnostic then you will compare computers in terms of hardware, and when you do that it becomes very important to compare for example the M1 to Ryzen. So I don't think it is as simple as saying "if you want MacOS, get the M1, if you want Windows, get Ryzen".

I for example could do just fine with either MacOS or Windows on my work PC. I basically only use SSH, the Office suite and a browser, all of which work just fine on MacOS or Windows.

So OS does not dictate which laptop I get, hardware does. I am sure a lot of other people are in the same situation.

I agree with this in theory,

But in practice i think the amount of people that are like you would be an even smaller minority (which is sad) than people who are locked to a certain OS because of software compatibility.

 

To the largest majority of consumers there is only 2 things that matter

1. Is it familiar?
2. is it more powerful than my last one?

most people that have only ever used a windows PC would not switch to MacOS because of the ARM chips, because it's a change and change is scary. And vice versa, the average Macbook buyer probably doesn't even understand the difference between the last model with an intel CPU and the new one with the M1, let alone have any idea what a ryzen is and therefore would not even consider a windows based laptop.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

I've ran at least a dozen HP laptops over the years.
first thing from toms hardware https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hp-omen-15-amd-ryzen-2020
"Runs hot"
Both examples were poor choices. I know they are re using stuff they got a few months back from HP but I would have preferred the G14.

"Running hot" does not mean it throttles, which is the important part when measuring performance.

Also, isn't the fact that an actively cooled AMD laptop being described as "running" hot a kind of big sign that it uses way more power than the passively cooled Macbook? The amount of heat generated by a laptop is directly tied to power consumption. The hotter a PC is, the more power it is using.

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

looking at 4800U numbers the change from a 15W to 25W config increased the single core score 1-2% in R20, it did have a meaningful impact on the multicore with 15-20%

Source?

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

yes it takes a lot of power to hit 4.9ghz on zen3 desktop but at 4.2-4.5 its much less like 10-20W.

Citation Needed

 

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

they aren't even in the same league why are you trying to compare them? it would be slightly more fair VS a 3800x

What do you mean? 

For single core performance, the 5950X and the M1 are in the same leagues. Not multicore performance though, but you were the one that specifically brought up how zen3 matches Firestorm at single core performance. Yes it does, but only at really high frequencies where the power consumption is way higher than for Firestorm.

 

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

you don't need 4.9ghz. I've laid out the math I did in other threads. with a ~20% IPC boost and a .2-3ghz boost so around 4.4-4.5ghz clockspeed you will match it in single core.

Can you please link it?

 

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

They don't only exist in my head, they are in labs. I'm not expecting LTT to compare them but I'd like a mention that next Gen parts from AMD and Intel are going to be 20%+ faster than the currently shown chips.
I'm not being absurd. I've got 2 issues. 1 LTT picked some bad laptops to show of AMD. 2 0 mention that next gen parts are due out in Q1-Q2 from both AMD and Intel

I'm gonna ask for a source on AMD releasing zen3 based laptop APUs in Q1 next year, or even Q2 for that matter. The rumors I've seen say "late 2021", and those rumors are based on the previous releases. Like I said, the 4800U is about 6 months old. So we are probably 7+ months away from zen 3 laptops.

 

You're making assumptions about performance and assumptions about when products will be available.

Why do you think it is "unfair" to compare AMD's latest and greatest laptop chips against Apple's latest and greatest? Do you not see how desperate it sounds when you whine about them not downplaying how good the M1 is by talking about how good an unreleased product from AMD might be like a year from now (when we start seeing it available in a wide range of laptops)?

[bruhsfx2]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

No it isn't. Stop spreading that lie. At the very least you are mischaracterizing it and comparing apples to oranges.

If we are measuring the core itself, when downclocked, and the rest of the core complexity is already fired up, lighting up an additional core on the 5950X only adds around 10 watts of power. But that is a completely meaningless number when talking about single core performance. 

In order for Zen3 to outperform the Firestorm cores in the M1, it has to run at something like 4.9GHz. The only time that happens is when you only have one or two cores active. How much power does a 5950X chip use when you have a single core active? It uses around 49 watts.

5950X:

1 core at 5GHz - 49 watts

2 cores at 4.8GHz - 59 watts

3 cores at 4.75GHz - 92 watts

4 cores at 4.725GHz - 110 watts

 

Stop saying that Zen 3 cores only use 10 watts when you are talking about a very specific scenario like "if you already have 11 cores active, and reduce the frequency of all cores by 100Mhz then activating the 12th core only increases power consumption by 10 watts". That's not the same as a single zen3 core using "less than 10 watts".

Stop trying to mislead people. Just stop it.

Agreed with most of your opinions. Especially 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Sure, you can get a zen 3 core to use less than 10 watts of power, but in order to do that you need to downclock it so much it will no longer have performance parity with a Firestorm core. In order to get performance parity, the core need to be clocked at around 4.9GHz. A single zen 3 core at 4.9GHz uses significantly more power than 10 watts.

Even with better binning on Zen 3 mobile chips and low power uncore, AMD Zen 3 mobile CPUs are still not going to outperform in terms of single-core performance and power efficiency. IMO just stop arguing with them, everywhere M1 is mentioned there's a good chance someone would say 4800U or whatever future AMD Zen 3 mobile CPUs is better. If only measuring Zen 3 core then yes it is able to achieve sub-10W at over 4 GHz, but it wouldn't function without IO-die, cache and IF. 

 

However there's one thing I'd like to point out, although I don't have a Zen 3 CPU on hand, a friend of mine suggested M1 Firestorm @ 3.2 GHz is roughly equivalent to Zen 3 @ 4.5 GHz, not necessarily 4.9. But still, M1 Firestorm 3.2 ST 5W (as per my testing) is on par with Zen 3 4.5 ST 10W. IPC is still one generation ahead of competitions. 

[bruhsfx2]

20 hours ago, creemstah said:

Can someone explain to me how we are comparing performance of two platforms, using benchmarks, but irl the only software existing on both ios (or whatever they called their os) and windows - is Tomb Rider, and its significantly worse? 

I mean am I the only person who thinks that benchmarks only describe raw numbers? 

It`s like we only can compare two using adobe products, is there anything else that you can use in both OS?
But even if we use that, there will be "optimization is bad for adobe on mac/for ms word on mac/ for (whatever) on mac".

so whats the point of comparing? Does benchmarks mean anything if its impressively good but there is no software to really experince that numbers? no irl scenarios whatsoever  

Benchmarks should be viewed with how and what are tested in mind. It's great data for people to get informed of where and why a certain platform did well/not well. In this case, people are comparing M1 and other options available on the market, namely Intel and AMD CPUs. 

 

You indeed pointed out there could be optimisation level difference and it could be huge. Unfortunately for many apps that are cross-platform, this is true. Some workloads are just better on Windows, and macOS, and Linux because how the app was written, how OS perform specific APIs, etc. 

 

For example, World of Warcraft is native on macOS, and received relative optimisation on Metal. In my personal experience, there is no difference playing WoW between on Windows and on Hackintosh macOS (on my previous build 3700X + Vega 56). However, many desktop games (or games using engines that) are designed DirectX-first, only release their macOS "ports" instead of writing from the group-up, and this indeed introduces disparity. Cities Skylines is an example. Although it adopted Metal, but for the compute part it uses Mono, which significantly holds back its performance on macOS. 

 

Many apps today are written in Electron – basically an embedded Chromium – so the performance of UI and those logic written in JavaScript is equivalent to whatever Chrome is able to achieve on all platforms, and there are plenty of Web-based benchmarks out there. MotionMark tests web graphics, Speedometer tests mainstream JavaScript frameworks, etc. 

 

IMO, the benchmarks suggested that, if you are looking for an ultrabook that has great battery life and has competitive performance, and you're comfortable with macOS, then M1 laptops are good. 

[Andrei Chiffa]

M1 testing with World of Warcraft. 

 

Looking at the new tests of M1 Apple laptop reminded me of the native test you ran with World of Warcraft last time you tested it around.

 

In fact, WoW has pretty varied performance requirements - from running on a potato (aka an average computer from 2004 - back when it was released), all the way to taxing even a modern decent machine. 

 

If you want to run it as a test for a modern laptops, you need to move to a more recent zone (Ideally Shadowlands and ideally a current raid tier in a 25-person raid - you could easily get into one through Raid Finder by noting you are LTT and need to run a couple of tests) and cranking up the quality to the absolute maximum (in-game menu > System > Graphics > Graphics Quality slider to 10 > restart the game).

[GDRRiley]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

"Running hot" does not mean it throttles, which is the important part when measuring performance.

Also, isn't the fact that an actively cooled AMD laptop being described as "running" hot a kind of big sign that it uses way more power than the passively cooled Macbook? The amount of heat generated by a laptop is directly tied to power consumption. The hotter a PC is, the more power it is using.

 

Source?

 

Citation Needed

 

 

What do you mean? 

For single core performance, the 5950X and the M1 are in the same leagues. Not multicore performance though, but you were the one that specifically brought up how zen3 matches Firestorm at single core performance. Yes it does, but only at really high frequencies where the power consumption is way higher than for Firestorm.

 

 

Can you please link it?

 

 

I'm gonna ask for a source on AMD releasing zen3 based laptop APUs in Q1 next year, or even Q2 for that matter. The rumors I've seen say "late 2021", and those rumors are based on the previous releases. Like I said, the 4800U is about 6 months old. So we are probably 7+ months away from zen 3 laptops.

 

You're making assumptions about performance and assumptions about when products will be available.

Why do you think it is "unfair" to compare AMD's latest and greatest laptop chips against Apple's latest and greatest? Do you not see how desperate it sounds when you whine about them not downplaying how good the M1 is by talking about how good an unreleased product from AMD might be like a year from now (when we start seeing it available in a wide range of laptops)?

They chose a laptop with a dedicated GPU and using the H sku not the HS or a 25-28W U chip

https://www.techspot.com/review/2096-amd-ryzen-4800u/

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8
look at the 5600x numbers,each core only uses under 15W. its that final 4.7 to 5.1ghz that pulls so much more power

your comparing the 150W flagship to the 25W laptop chip. least you could do was compare it to something closer in both power and core count.
sorry that was a typo 5800x, all the the Zen3 chips beat it in cinebench R23 3600x ~1570 5800x ~1600 5900x ~1620 5950x ~1640

WTF no it isn't, it launched January 6th 2020 just like every other zen2 Laptop chip., its a year old. Covid put a massive wrench in getting laptops out quickly, so yes it took some time to get models out after announcing them and it is often the same with intel. some brands will take 4-6 months.

I'm not making assumptions, I'm taking what data is publicly available and making expected figures.
I don't have one I can publicly share. Just like Milan which is in the labs already in final retail form but noting is really publicly available.
its not the latest and grates, its the tail end of Zen2 APUs and intels 11th gen before tiger lake

[33838]

mr linus ur clickbait is lame

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

They chose a laptop with a dedicated GPU and using the H sku not the HS or a 25-28W U chip

Yes, and what is your point?

Are we talking about performance or battery life here? Because I have been talking about performance this entire time, and for that using the H SKU instead of the U SKU helps AMD.

If they had used the U SKU which you suggest, the AMD CPU would have lost hard in terms of performance (except multicore when more than 4 cores can be used).

 

 

9 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8
look at the 5600x numbers,each core only uses under 15W. its that final 4.7 to 5.1ghz that pulls so much more power

I am looking at that page and from what I can see the 5600X uses 28 watts of power when a single core is loaded. Again, you are trying to compare apples to oranges to make AMD look better than they are. Also, you have now backpedaled from "uses less than 10 watts" to "uses 15 watts". That's quite the big change, but it's nice to see that you have moved a bit towards the truth.

 

Let's look at the entire package power consumption instead of a single component on the chip. A 5600X with a single thread loaded uses more power than the entire M1, including RAM and storage, with 4 cores active.

 

Stop trying to mislead people by talking about core power consumption instead of package power consumption, which is what actually matters.

 

 

13 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

your comparing the 150W flagship to the 25W laptop chip. least you could do was compare it to something closer in both power and core count.

I compare them because that's what you need in order to match the M1 in terms of single core performance (or well, slightly outperform it) and because that is the CPU you and others have brought up in other threads when talking about power consumption.

 

 

40 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

sorry that was a typo 5800x, all the the Zen3 chips beat it in cinebench R23 3600x ~1570 5800x ~1600 5900x ~1620 5950x ~1640

Yes but if we look at more programs we see that the M1 often beats even the 5950X in single threaded performance. You can't generalize performance based on a single test like that.

 

 

41 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

WTF no it isn't, it launched January 6th 2020 just like every other zen2 Laptop chip., its a year old. Covid put a massive wrench in getting laptops out quickly, so yes it took some time to get models out after announcing them and it is often the same with intel. some brands will take 4-6 months.

Oh sorry, didn't notice that AMD used US date formatting on their website, so I read it as June 1 instead of January 6.

My bad.

In any case, the rumors I have seen still say "late 2021", and the fact remains that you are talking about a product AMD haven't even announced yet. 

I find it preposterous that you say the 4800H is "last gen" because AMD will release a new generation of APUs next year, but we don't know when. Do you think reviewers should start talking that way in other reviews as well? So in the RX6800 review they should start talking about some 3070 Ti card and how it will be better so therefore the RX6800 is overhyped.

I am pretty sure that would annoy you a lot, and yet you get annoyed when reviewers aren't doing it when comparing AMD vs Apple.

 

Let me ask you this. When do you think we will have ultra low power Zen 3 laptops on the market in decent quantities that can be compared against the M1?

Because it seems like it's the product you keep saying Linus should have mentioned in order to downplay the M1.

My guess is that it will take maybe 6 months or so, and by that time we are already through half of the M1's expected lifecycle, so if that happens do you think it will be justified to say "stop overhyping the 5800U (or whatever it will be called) because next year we will get the M2 and it will be better so therefore the 5800U isn't good".

 

[WhitetailAni]

The ONLY reason I get (modern) Macs is for GarageBand.

There is almost nothing else I run, other than making bootable OS X optical discs.

And yes, I know I technically own 3, but 2 don't work and need logic board replacements.

Also, I feel this has degenerated from "let's talk about the video!" to "'5950X > M1' 'wait what? no M1 > 5950X' 'you are confused, 5950X > M1'".

[GDRRiley]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am looking at that page and from what I can see the 5600X uses 28 watts of power when a single core is loaded. Again, you are trying to compare apples to oranges to make AMD look better than they are. Also, you have now backpedaled from "uses less than 10 watts" to "uses 15 watts". That's quite the big change, but it's nice to see that you have moved a bit towards the truth.

 

Let's look at the entire package power consumption instead of a single component on the chip. A 5600X with a single thread loaded uses more power than the entire M1, including RAM and storage, with 4 cores active.

 

Stop trying to mislead people by talking about core power consumption instead of package power consumption, which is what actually matters.

 

 

I compare them because that's what you need in order to match the M1 in terms of single core performance (or well, slightly outperform it) and because that is the CPU you and others have brought up in other threads when talking about power consumption.

 

 

Yes but if we look at more programs we see that the M1 often beats even the 5950X in single threaded performance. You can't generalize performance based on a single test like that.

 

 

Oh sorry, didn't notice that AMD used US date formatting on their website, so I read it as June 1 instead of January 6.

My bad.

In any case, the rumors I have seen still say "late 2021", and the fact remains that you are talking about a product AMD haven't even announced yet. 

I find it preposterous that you say the 4800H is "last gen" because AMD will release a new generation of APUs next year, but we don't know when. Do you think reviewers should start talking that way in other reviews as well? So in the RX6800 review they should start talking about some 3070 Ti card and how it will be better so therefore the RX6800 is overhyped.

I am pretty sure that would annoy you a lot, and yet you get annoyed when reviewers aren't doing it when comparing AMD vs Apple.

 

Let me ask you this. When do you think we will have ultra low power Zen 3 laptops on the market in decent quantities that can be compared against the M1?

Because it seems like it's the product you keep saying Linus should have mentioned in order to downplay the M1.

My guess is that it will take maybe 6 months or so, and by that time we are already through half of the M1's expected lifecycle, so if that happens do you think it will be justified to say "stop overhyping the 5800U (or whatever it will be called) because next year we will get the M2 and it will be better so therefore the 5800U isn't good".

 

that is package power which includes the IO die which zen on mobile doesn't have.  its 12-13W under load.

mac mini under full load draws 31W
packages here doesn't matter if we are talking about next gen APUs, they don't have the power hungry IO die
all the CPUs I listed match or beat it

i'm not I've looked at others.
AMD late this year has lots of things ready they've saved for January to announce. Milain is in a weird state where places like STH bought them at retail and aren't under NDA.
I want that to be done for any and all reviews if their is a product close on the horizon. My opinion of everyone who rushed and bought a 30 card before we had heard what the RX60x00 cards brought was dumb. Now given we have asus leaking a 3080ti 20gb sure that would be a valid thing to talk about. That will kill the 3090 even more.

I'm not mentioning it to downplay the M1 just limit some of this insane hype and marking BS.
If they launch start of January then before end of Q1 I'd expect volume.

thats assuming that apple is going to do a yearly upgrade of their laptops. I'd wager given everything else they got to get out its going to be a 2 year cycle. low end products, high end products then refresh low end, ect

[The1Dickens]

17 hours ago, Commodus said:

I can't help but think it's a bit of insecurity. Folks 'need' to have at least one comparable x86 chip on top, because if it's not that means Macs are clearly faster and... well, they can't have something challenging their choice of computer, now can they?

Yeah, no. Not in the least. It isn't anti-Apple-ism. You're reading way too deep into it, and grasping at straws. x86 has been the de facto architecture for decades, so there is tons of benchmarks and data to show how it performs. A new thing comes out, it will inevitably be compared to the standard. In every market, ever. And so long as people continue to consider the purchase of a Windows or Apple laptop, they will continue to compare them against each other, no matter how different they end up being.

 

Forgive me for using absolutes, but nobody is basing their purchasing decision on how well x86 instructions are handled. More people would not buy Apple products for raw materials sourcing, before they considered instruction set viability.

[captain_to_fire]

On 12/28/2020 at 7:33 AM, AldiPrayogi said:

These Macbooks are kinda amazing tbh. I might consider them in the future, sucks that I have to learn a new whole OS to experience it thoug

Its not exactly hard to learn. Sure there’s a learning curve but it’s actually easy to figure out. 

 

@DrMacintosh did I forgot something? 

[bruhsfx2]

Would like to add that Geekerwan (A Chinese tech review channel) released their first part (total of 2) of M1 review in MUCH MORE detail (42min in length), compared to LTT's, which I believe Linus said the reason why their M1 Mac reviews are so late in the game is partly because they wanted it to be thorough. If you understand Chinese please head over to Geekerwan's channel VIDEO LINK. Otherwise wait for English subs or just look at the infographics/slides of the video. 

 

Key points extracted:

• M1 has much higher IPC compared to Zen 3 and Tiger Lake. 3.2GHz Firestorm = 4.5GHz Zen 3/Tiger Lake.
• Zen 3 is able to beat M1's power consumption at same frequency for single-core, but the performance plummeted. 
• 4800U at 35W cannot compete in single core (Zen2), multicore beats M1. 
• M1's total TDP is 25W. CPU typical full load (CBr23) 15~18W, Prime95-like load (Linpack iOS) 25W. GPU typical full load 8W, max 10W. While stressing both CPU and GPU, the power management favours GPU and reduces CPU's power to meet 15W. 
• M1 has multiple times of L1 cache compared to Zen 3 and Tiger Lake, which makes JavaScript performance shine. (Look up how fast native arm64 Chrome and Firefox run on Apple Silicon) 
• For typical ultrabook usage, like chatting, watching videos, doing word processing, browsing the web, etc. Intel Tiger Lake and Zen 2 Mobile all uses 2~5W, while M1 barely exceeds 1W. On idle, like reading lengthy articles, or sitting there doing nothing while you are away from the laptop, M1 whole package consumes double digit mWs while AMD/Intel consume at least 1W. 

[Video Beagle]

3 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

@DrMacintosh did I forgot something? 

I'm not DrMac, but really, the main difference is the Command Button vs the Control Button. Most regular key combos are the same between the two with that button switched (cmd-c vs ctrl-c for copy for example).

[And Im Javert]

Excited for the 2nd and 3rd launches of products. Maybe I'll sap my MBP 16 for an ARM version when they get around to launching one.

[DrMacintosh]

10 hours ago, like_ooh_ahh said:

@DrMacintosh did I forgot something? 

I think you got most of everything 

[skywake]

On 12/27/2020 at 6:50 PM, Video Beagle said:

I believe @skywake was refering to looking at the comments which I imagine have a number of people talking about the video for good or ill as if they've watched it, when it's clear they've only read the title. I think it would be valuable to do a test of a video with both a click bait and a not click bait title being the difference (same video content) to see which truly does better over the long term, though i think Linus has mentioned that such a test could be bad for them due to the alogrythm and/or not valuble info.

Definitely what I was commenting on which should've been pretty damn obvious. But hey, case and point I guess. Seems pretty fair that someone takes issue after skim reading my post about me pointing out that the title did a good job at showing that people take issue with a skim reading of a post. I've never really had much of an issue with the clickbaity LTT video titles/thumbnails because I'm subscribed and enjoy the content itself. That kind of stuff only impacts people who aren't subscribed.

 

On the second point, I don't think they really need to do that kind of A/B testing with a specific video. I'm sure LTT keeps track of all the video analytics as well as what the content was, what their title was, what kind of thumbnail they used, who wrote the scripts, who the hosts were etc etc. They have thousands of videos on their channel so they'd have more of an idea of what works and doesn't work for tech videos on the platform than probably anyone. But if you do want an A/B test, their Mac Mini video had a very positive and far less clickbaity title of "Apple Destroyed my Expectations" with 2.2mill views

This video has done 1.4mill views so far. Certainly far from the worst performing video in their last month or so but remains to be seen if it reaches 2.2mill

[Video Beagle]

5 hours ago, skywake said:

But if you do want an A/B test, their Mac Mini video had a very positive and far less clickbaity title of "Apple Destroyed my Expectations" with 2.2mill views

This video has done 1.4mill views so far. Certainly far from the worst performing video in their last month or so but remains to be seen if it reaches 2.2mill

Too many variables....the Mac Mini video came out a few weeks ago, launching on a non-holiday Sunday. This launched on the Saturday after Christmas, and has only been out a few days. but further from the launch date of the products. Macbooks have always had a more interest in the market than the minis and so on and so on.

 

I agree that Linus and co go over all the metrics available to them on videos performance etc. I wondered on the Mini why Sunday..and this why Saturday...those are days news gets dumped in tradtional media so it can be ignored and forgotten by monday...is youtube differnt? I'd think these would be high interest videos..does weekend days have better intiial views than weekday? Is it the idea of using these to goose typical weekend numbers?

 

Just random thoughts as I drift to sleep

 

 

[creemstah]

On 12/27/2020 at 8:59 PM, LAwLz said:

I don't really understand what you mean.

All the software LTT tested are cross-platform, which was far more than just Tomb Raider. They also used several real world applications. 

Can you elaborate what you mean, because it feels like you are missing words/sentences in your post.

 

what I was trying to say, is that arm is better on paper, but irl there is no such a scenario where you will be able to notice this. so whats the point of comparing to windows laptop in benchmark?

example. new mac book is n- times faster than asus. So what sample rate can I use now in FL studio? answer is I can`t.
 will It edit video in final cut faster then asus? no bcuz asus cant.

you see what I mean? there like only photoshop or after effects where you can compare those two. And Iam 90% sure that macbook will not be faster then any of those machines they compared it to? bcuz of compatibility issues and etc.

sorry for the late response 

[Avinash Shankar]

Well... Now I am only anticipating the iPhone reviews. It has been about 3 months but its been a rough year, sooo let's hope there is one.