What about noise, heat and weight? It’s not really a laptop, it’s more of a mobile workstation, basically a desktop with a battery, so they can call it laptop. Reminds me of how Apple use to advertise the portability of the original Mac, which could be carried in a pack. Why bother with the battery at all?
The Laws of Physics states the microprocessor can only go as small as Four (4) Nano Meters - Everything else is advertising gimmick. All processors will be the same in a couple years. How about cutting (reducing) Code on the Operating System and applications. The microprocessor as we know it, has come to it's end. My VHS player is faster than your VHS player said NO ONE.
Currently, Apple is the only one that can do anything to the hardware, operating system, and their in house applications, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Samsung cannot and that is why they’re scrambling in the background, in one to two generations, Apple’s in house GPU will be even closer/optimized, for even better performance, but no one will know how close until the next generation laptops and the new Mac Pro in (June 2023?) come out.
I really love Intel for coming up with that. The lack of competition made Apple very lazy and their chips melted from vastly superior to still better in most cases overtaken in some. Best seen at Apple watches were processing power more or less flatlined since AW4.
What competition? in smart watches, the competition is flatlined even more than Apple where are they?
A comparison between an ultra high end macbook pro (which will never replace a gaming laptop) and an ultra high end gaming laptop (which will never replace a mac, or really be used for anything other than gaming). Such foolishness. But that's EXACTLY the comparison Apple went for when they first introduced the Apple silicon macbook pro. So here we are.
The future is vertical OS and SOC/GPU systems are the future going forward old is now new again, no in house OS and no in house hardware combined as one under one roof means you are in the rearview mirror tech wise. The race is on.
Considering 95% of people use a laptop while it is plugged in, what is the big deal? Most people only use it on battery to go attend a meeting and then go back to their desk and plug it back in.
Where’s your source for this ridiculous claim? The whole point of a laptop is to be used as a portable computer running on battery. For the last 20 years now one of the biggest selling points for laptops is how many hours of usage you get. Reviewers constantly perform battery rundown tests (which are horribly time consuming) because this is a very important capability for users.
What I find funny is how Apple keeps causing everyone to move the goalposts. Android users loved benchmarks when they were faster than the iPhone and hated them when the iPhone pulled ahead (even manufacturing those stupid App races as a way to somehow claim they’re just as fast).
Now that Apple Silicon is the clear performance/efficiency leader suddenly people are claiming most users are plugged in.
Apple saw this coming. At the end of their M1 MacBook keynote they had this video:
“Plug it in. Where are you going. Just plug it in.”
The whole point of a laptop is definitely not to be used as a portable computer running on a battery.
Needs have changed a lot in 20 years. And so have batteries. 20 years ago you wouldn't get far on battery use. It's why some Apple laptops had the second utility bay that could accommodate a second battery.
The point of a laptop is to be portable and run off a battery whenneeded. That need is very occasional in work/domestic situations today.
Lots of people use their laptops plugged in at work and then plugged in at home.
A MBP will give you more battery time but an Intel laptop of this kind will do the job well enough if you aren't pushing it to the limit (which you would only do with it plugged in anyway).
Absolutely silly to even label it a "laptop" when all the things that makes it so fast can't be done without it begin plugged in. This is a desktop PC, nothing more.
First rule of fight club, er, Formula One: The car and driver must together weigh at least 740 kg.
Apple imposes constraints upon itself to ensure it’s doing right by Mother Earth. If you want to burn 140 watts and heat your office with a machine whose excess heat and fan could clear the snow from your driveway, yes, you too can outperform Apple Silicon.
If you don’t understand what I mean: Apple can easily build a silicon that’s faster than x86 Flagships and running at lower power. So much so it can fit into a laptop.
Instead we’re stuck at a four-year old performance level because whatever reason for Apple.
If you don’t understand what I mean: Apple can easily build a silicon that’s faster than x86 Flagships and running at lower power. So much so it can fit into a laptop.
Instead we’re stuck at a four-year old performance level because whatever reason for Apple.
The “duh” in your name makes sense, based on the sheer stupidity of this comment.
A whole lot of silliness going on here. Who cares what you call anything? The only thing that matters is what it does for the people who use them. There used to be a market for suitcase style computers like the early Compaq, Osborne, and KayPro luggable computers that were sold as “portables.” Anything with a handle was considered portable even if it weighed 25 pounds. I once had to use a “portable” plc programming workstation that was based on the IBM PC AT standard. It was so heavy the manufacturer had to reclassify the handle as a screen positioning prop because it was unsafe to use the handle as a handle. People who recognized the value of these computers for the use cases that they filled bought ‘them in droves.
For some strange reason, humans are hard wired to view everything in life as a zero sum game. This is silly, narrow minded, and missing the point for anything that’s not a competition or game.
Apple is not going to lose significant customers to the PC makers by virtue of PC makers having a faster processor than Apple for specific applications that are already dominated by PC based machines running a PC operating system.
Similarly, diehard PC/Windows buyers aren’t going to switch over to Apple in significant numbers based on the benefits that Apple provides with Apple Silicon running macOS.
The operating systems and the applications that are optimized for those operating systems have a hell of a lot more sway over buying behaviors than do benchmarks or narrow slices of very domain specific applications. No matter what platform I’ve ever used, the computer always spends a heck of a lot more time waiting on me than I spend waiting on the computer. But if you get paid to run benchmarks the situation may be reversed.
All that said, competition is beneficial for all, especially the consumer. Apple should not be allowed to rest on its well-deserved M-class laurels, and Apple's engineering prowess not only shines a light on the versatility of its ARM-based chips but pushes the PC industry away from complacency.
Amen to that! Unlike some of the comments above I believe everybody should be thankful for competition irrespective of your personal preferences. Even if you are never going to switch competition drives companies to work harder to close/widen the gap.
"Likewise, both machines get quite warm when pushed hard, but the MSI will practically heat the entire room during such tasks, while the M2 Max MBP doesn't.", Wrong, this is a baseless comment trying to rip on msi. It's cooling systems are MUCH more sophisticated that Apple's.
And literally the only app that Apple's M2 Max chip beats Intel's 13980HX is Blender. Intel wipes the floor with apple in every other comparison.
This is such a biased article that only paints Apple in all the best ways possible.
"Likewise, both machines get quite warm when pushed hard, but the MSI will practically heat the entire room during such tasks, while the M2 Max MBP doesn't.", Wrong, this is a baseless comment trying to rip on msi. It's cooling systems are MUCH more sophisticated that Apple's.
And literally the only app that Apple's M2 Max chip beats Intel's 13980HX is Blender. Intel wipes the floor with apple in every other comparison.
This is such a biased article that only paints Apple in all the best ways possible.
A whole lot of silliness going on here. Who cares what you call anything? The only thing that matters is what it does for the people who use them. There used to be a market for suitcase style computers like the early Compaq, Osborne, and KayPro luggable computers that were sold as “portables.” Anything with a handle was considered portable even if it weighed 25 pounds. I once had to use a “portable” plc programming workstation that was based on the IBM PC AT standard. It was so heavy the manufacturer had to reclassify the handle as a screen positioning prop because it was unsafe to use the handle as a handle. People who recognized the value of these computers for the use cases that they filled bought ‘them in droves.
For some strange reason, humans are hard wired to view everything in life as a zero sum game. This is silly, narrow minded, and missing the point for anything that’s not a competition or game.
Apple is not going to lose significant customers to the PC makers by virtue of PC makers having a faster processor than Apple for specific applications that are already dominated by PC based machines running a PC operating system.
Similarly, diehard PC/Windows buyers aren’t going to switch over to Apple in significant numbers based on the benefits that Apple provides with Apple Silicon running macOS.
The operating systems and the applications that are optimized for those operating systems have a hell of a lot more sway over buying behaviors than do benchmarks or narrow slices of very domain specific applications. No matter what platform I’ve ever used, the computer always spends a heck of a lot more time waiting on me than I spend waiting on the computer. But if you get paid to run benchmarks the situation may be reversed.
I disagree. The only thing old portables could do (like the Osborne, which I owned) was be portable. They didn’t offer any special performance advantages that required a full-size PC. They existed because the technology wasn’t there to make laptops.
I doubt anyone would ever use the power of a gaming laptop (outside of gaming) because they actually had a use-case for requiring that much performance.
The type of work most people do on laptops could be done on a Mac or PC just as easily. Most software is widely available on both platforms these days. Even when software isn’t available on one or the other it’s not because that software requires extreme performance. For example, I have dev tools for embedded microcontrollers that are only available on Windows.
I know quite a few people who switched to MacBooks over the M1 simply because of the performance and battery life combination. Intel/AMD can’t match that yet.
Comments
Needs have changed a lot in 20 years. And so have batteries. 20 years ago you wouldn't get far on battery use. It's why some Apple laptops had the second utility bay that could accommodate a second battery.
The point of a laptop is to be portable and run off a battery when needed. That need is very occasional in work/domestic situations today.
Lots of people use their laptops plugged in at work and then plugged in at home.
A MBP will give you more battery time but an Intel laptop of this kind will do the job well enough if you aren't pushing it to the limit (which you would only do with it plugged in anyway).
Let’s be honest, Apple is playing catch-up in performance.
Instead we’re stuck at a four-year old performance level because whatever reason for Apple.
And literally the only app that Apple's M2 Max chip beats Intel's 13980HX is Blender. Intel wipes the floor with apple in every other comparison.
This is such a biased article that only paints Apple in all the best ways possible.
I doubt anyone would ever use the power of a gaming laptop (outside of gaming) because they actually had a use-case for requiring that much performance.
The type of work most people do on laptops could be done on a Mac or PC just as easily. Most software is widely available on both platforms these days. Even when software isn’t available on one or the other it’s not because that software requires extreme performance. For example, I have dev tools for embedded microcontrollers that are only available on Windows.