I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
Acer Swift 3 (AMD): Meet Ryzen 7 4700U
FOR
A nice processor that has an advantage with 3D application
AGAINST
Display is dark with poor contrast
Audio lacks bass
Webcam image is barely visible regardless of lighting
Build quality feels fragile
Slow SSD (in comparison to the MBP which blows it out of the water by a factor of 6x)
Lower resolution display
Poor color range
No Thunderbolt (integrated into the 10th GEN Intel chips)
Lackluster trackpad
Lackluster finger printer reader and no T-1 Chip security
No T-2 Chip with on the fly encryption and encoding which takes load off of the CPU
Only a single cooling fan which may cause CPU/GPU throttling under load
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
A nice processor that has an advantage with 3D application
AGAINST
Display is dark with poor contrast
Audio lacks bass
Webcam image is barely visible regardless of lighting
Build quality feels fragile
Slow SSD (in comparison to the MBP which blows it out of the water by a factor of 6x)
Lower resolution display
Poor color range
No Thunderbolt (integrated into the 10th GEN Intel chips)
Lackluster trackpad
Lackluster finger printer reader and no T-1 Chip security
No T-2 Chip with on the fly encryption and encoding which takes load off of the CPU
Only a single cooling fan which may cause CPU/GPU throttling under load
Older LPDDR4 RAM which is less power efficient
Etc, etc, etc,.
Just Fyi, on windows platform gpu's have a decoder/encoder engine (amd gpu got one as well), and AMD cpu have an arm cpu (psp) inside who's handling security features
A nice processor that has an advantage with 3D application
AGAINST
Display is dark with poor contrast
Audio lacks bass
Webcam image is barely visible regardless of lighting
Build quality feels fragile
Slow SSD (in comparison to the MBP which blows it out of the water by a factor of 6x)
Lower resolution display
Poor color range
No Thunderbolt (integrated into the 10th GEN Intel chips)
Lackluster trackpad
Lackluster finger printer reader and no T-1 Chip security
No T-2 Chip with on the fly encryption and encoding which takes load off of the CPU
Only a single cooling fan which may cause CPU/GPU throttling under load
Older LPDDR4 RAM which is less power efficient
Etc, etc, etc,.
Just Fyi, on windows platform gpu's have a decoder/encoder engine (amd gpu got one as well), and AMD cpu have an arm cpu (psp) inside who's handling security features
Still not as good as the T-2 secure enclave. Yeah, they have all the bullet points and spec but still not as good and everyone knows it.
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
Awesome! When Apple manages to create these ARM chips and finds some way to migrate the x86 ecosystem to it (Windows compatibility too) and still blow past the competition (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA), then I'll be the first one in line to buy one of these computers.
However, until that time, these are the only real chips that are currently on the market today and function with the vast majority of productivity software in existence. So my point still stands - the Ryzen chips would have been a better choice.
A nice processor that has an advantage with 3D application
AGAINST
Display is dark with poor contrast
Audio lacks bass
Webcam image is barely visible regardless of lighting
Build quality feels fragile
Slow SSD (in comparison to the MBP which blows it out of the water by a factor of 6x)
Lower resolution display
Poor color range
No Thunderbolt (integrated into the 10th GEN Intel chips)
Lackluster trackpad
Lackluster finger printer reader and no T-1 Chip security
No T-2 Chip with on the fly encryption and encoding which takes load off of the CPU
Only a single cooling fan which may cause CPU/GPU throttling under load
Older LPDDR4 RAM which is less power efficient
Etc, etc, etc,.
Just Fyi, on windows platform gpu's have a decoder/encoder engine (amd gpu got one as well), and AMD cpu have an arm cpu (psp) inside who's handling security features
Still not as good as the T-2 secure enclave. Yeah, they have all the bullet points and spec but still not as good and everyone knows it.
Well, yes, that's the advantage of Apple vertical integration. It would take a collective effort from microsoft/and all the oems to make something with the same level of security.
Sadly, most OEMs are often lazy when it comes to try hard (that's from a desktop dell xps, who's supposed to high end):
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
Awesome! When Apple manages to create these ARM chips and finds some way to migrate the x86 ecosystem to it (Windows compatibility too) and still blow past the competition (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA), then I'll be the first one in line to buy one of these computers.
However, until that time, these are the only real chips that are currently on the market today and function with the vast majority of productivity software in existence. So my point still stands - the Ryzen chips would have been a better choice.
The ARM chips in the iPads and iPhones already match mid-level INTEL mobile chips and surpass them in graphics, while other companies have already shown ARM can best anything INTEL or AMD can manufacture even at the server level. The future is very much closer than you think. FYI they already exist. And if you've been around since the PPC to INTEL transition everything is already in place for the software transition which for the most part will only require most developers to recompile their software for ARM. Apple has been here before but now they have the hardware and CPU/GPUs under their control. Forget about INTEL compatibility is a tiny minor of Mac users and that's what VMs are for. In any case, ARM will begin to undercut INTEL and AMD in the PC market just as it took over the smartphone and tablet market.
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
Awesome! When Apple manages to create these ARM chips and finds some way to migrate the x86 ecosystem to it (Windows compatibility too) and still blow past the competition (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA), then I'll be the first one in line to buy one of these computers.
However, until that time, these are the only real chips that are currently on the market today and function with the vast majority of productivity software in existence. So my point still stands - the Ryzen chips would have been a better choice.
The ARM chips in the iPads and iPhones already match mid-level INTEL mobile chips and surpass them in graphics, while other companies have already shown ARM can best anything INTEL or AMD can manufacture even at the server level. The future is very much closer than you think. FYI they already exist. And if you've been around since the PPC to INTEL transition everything is already in place for the software transition which for the most part will only require most developers to recompile their software for ARM. Apple has been here before but now they have the hardware and CPU/GPUs under their control. Forget about INTEL compatibility is a tiny minor of Mac users and that's what VMs are for. In any case, ARM will begin to undercut INTEL and AMD in the PC market just as it took over the smartphone and tablet market.
Be carefull about the whole arm on server thing. The ampere Altra with 80 core @3.3 Ghz is only slighty faster than an AMD's Epyc with 64 core @2.25Ghz. While it's great for servers, who can multithread like crazy, for consumers where single thread performance is still important, that kind of scaling is bad.
Outside of the Apple world, x86 going extinct won't happen unless there's a monumental gap in performance. Qualcomm doesn't have the R&D budget of Intel, no else seems interested to do ARM cpu for the desktop, and Jim Keller ( the guy behind every AMD sucess, and who made the apple A4/A5) recently joined Intel, so the old bear isn't dead yet.
I know it’s anecdotal, but when friends with kids heading to college ask me what computer to buy for their kids, when given a choice, the ones who’ve followed my advice of buying a MacBook versus Dell, Acer, HP, etc., have gotten their kids through their entire college career with the one MacBook. Those who chose the non-Apple computers, on average, needed to replace the computer at least once during the same period of time. Totally unscientific, but it seems to me that the MacBooks hold up better over time. Some universities also have mini Apple Stores on campus, which is a big plus.
By the way, my choice for a computer I’m lugging around campus would be the Air, hands down. I cannot imagine anything at an undergrad program level, even engineering, physics, chemistry, etc., that would overtax an Air.
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
Awesome! When Apple manages to create these ARM chips and finds some way to migrate the x86 ecosystem to it (Windows compatibility too) and still blow past the competition (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA), then I'll be the first one in line to buy one of these computers.
However, until that time, these are the only real chips that are currently on the market today and function with the vast majority of productivity software in existence. So my point still stands - the Ryzen chips would have been a better choice.
The ARM chips in the iPads and iPhones already match mid-level INTEL mobile chips and surpass them in graphics, while other companies have already shown ARM can best anything INTEL or AMD can manufacture even at the server level. The future is very much closer than you think. FYI they already exist. And if you've been around since the PPC to INTEL transition everything is already in place for the software transition which for the most part will only require most developers to recompile their software for ARM. Apple has been here before but now they have the hardware and CPU/GPUs under their control. Forget about INTEL compatibility is a tiny minor of Mac users and that's what VMs are for. In any case, ARM will begin to undercut INTEL and AMD in the PC market just as it took over the smartphone and tablet market.
Be carefull about the whole arm on server thing. The ampere Altra with 80 core @3.3 Ghz is only slighty faster than an AMD's Epyc with 64 core @2.25Ghz. While it's great for servers, who can multithread like crazy, for consumers where single thread performance is still important, that kind of scaling is bad.
Outside of the Apple world, x86 going extinct won't happen unless there's a monumental gap in performance. Qualcomm doesn't have the R&D budget of Intel, no else seems interested to do ARM cpu for the desktop, and Jim Keller ( the guy behind every AMD sucess, and who made the apple A4/A5) recently joined Intel, so the old bear isn't dead yet.
My point is that ARM hardware already exists on the consumer side and up into the server range. It's very likely that Apple already has prototypes of higher class chips for their pro hardware. ARM dominants mobile (smartphones and tablets) and that power is creeping up into the PC market. Apple has the money and the talent to surpass INTEL and AMD in CPUs and GPU performance but they of course will not be going into the server market.
I wish Apple would put discrete graphics into it’s smaller MBP, it is a Pro model after all!
Probably too many thermal and battery issues. Now, if they put an AMD Ryzen in there that might expand the Possibilities.
Razer did a pretty good job putting a GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in a 3 lbs 13" laptop, and lesser dGPUs like the MX250/MX350 could also work.
Ryzen 4000 U would have made a big difference.
Here's a budget $650 Acer laptop that beats out even the most powerful MBP 13". It's using Ryzen 7 4700U. It has 8 cores / 8 threads + Vega 7 graphics.
1065G7 is not the most powerful processor in the 13" MBP 2020. The most powerful is the i7 1068NG7 28W chip with the Intel Iris Plus. It may still not be as fast but it will be able to sustain a higher speeds with 28W vs the 15W in the Ryzen.
The MBP with the 28W i5 only scored ~1700 points. The i7 is not going to come anything close to the Ryzen 4700U in that test.
I'd also mention that the 27W Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores / 16 threads + Vega 8) scores almost 3600:
I never said the 28W i7 would be faster than the 15W 4700U Ryzen in a Cinebench test. I'm just talking about the processor in general under sustained load since I don't play games or use 3D application, so for me this kind of test isn't important.
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
You missed the context of my post to entropys comment. I'm not comparing the Acer laptop to the MBP as an alternative, I'm saying the price as it is relevant in showing what the barrier of entry is for that type of chip. Even as poorly implemented as it is in the Acer, it still comes out with exceptional results. My point is that a MBP 13 (or Surface Book 3 or Dell XPS 13 or Razer Blade Stealth 13, etc.) would be better suited with a Ryzen chip vs a more expensive Intel chip.
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
Awesome! When Apple manages to create these ARM chips and finds some way to migrate the x86 ecosystem to it (Windows compatibility too) and still blow past the competition (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA), then I'll be the first one in line to buy one of these computers.
However, until that time, these are the only real chips that are currently on the market today and function with the vast majority of productivity software in existence. So my point still stands - the Ryzen chips would have been a better choice.
The ARM chips in the iPads and iPhones already match mid-level INTEL mobile chips and surpass them in graphics, while other companies have already shown ARM can best anything INTEL or AMD can manufacture even at the server level. The future is very much closer than you think. FYI they already exist. And if you've been around since the PPC to INTEL transition everything is already in place for the software transition which for the most part will only require most developers to recompile their software for ARM. Apple has been here before but now they have the hardware and CPU/GPUs under their control. Forget about INTEL compatibility is a tiny minor of Mac users and that's what VMs are for. In any case, ARM will begin to undercut INTEL and AMD in the PC market just as it took over the smartphone and tablet market.
Be carefull about the whole arm on server thing. The ampere Altra with 80 core @3.3 Ghz is only slighty faster than an AMD's Epyc with 64 core @2.25Ghz. While it's great for servers, who can multithread like crazy, for consumers where single thread performance is still important, that kind of scaling is bad.
Outside of the Apple world, x86 going extinct won't happen unless there's a monumental gap in performance. Qualcomm doesn't have the R&D budget of Intel, no else seems interested to do ARM cpu for the desktop, and Jim Keller ( the guy behind every AMD sucess, and who made the apple A4/A5) recently joined Intel, so the old bear isn't dead yet.
My point is that ARM hardware already exists on the consumer side and up into the server range. It's very likely that Apple already has prototypes of higher class chips for their pro hardware. ARM dominants mobile (smartphones and tablets) and that power is creeping up into the PC market. Apple has the money and the talent to surpass INTEL and AMD in CPUs and GPU performance but they of course will not be going into the server market.
Going foward, Apple is going to evolve (even more) in their own world. Intel losing apple won't hurt them much. It's just that you seem to present things as if it's going to shake the whole PC world, when as I said, outside of Apple, x86 stronghold is too strong, and unless there's a massive gap in performance at a consumer level (think 30% for an equal core count) the big switch won't happen as long as the dinosaur Intel and Amd aren't that far behind in performance. App support is key, the few ARM pc that are available to the consumer right now are not interesting because there's no app for them, and x86 emulation is slooooow.
Apple making the fastest consumer cpu in the world won't make Dell/HP/AMD/Intel go bankrupt. Why ? Because Apple doesn't sell junk, when lots of people want to buy junk. The power pc used to be the fastest consumer cpu in the world, but apple was still in the shadows of wintel.
There's three scenario : - Apple chips are so fast ( > 30%) that every single premium pc becomes obsolete outside of gaming, and apple get a monopoly on the pro market. - Qualcomm finally get a big revelation and manage to makes ARM chip that compete with Apple, making the port of Application on Arm finally relevant. -ARM chips only advantage are power consumption, x86 heat machine manage to keep up in speed, devs are being lazy, and a big slpit happen : macintosh are joinning the ARM realm, and other pc's are staying on a 42 years old cpu's.
I know it’s anecdotal, but when friends with kids heading to college ask me what computer to buy for their kids, when given a choice, the ones who’ve followed my advice of buying a MacBook versus Dell, Acer, HP, etc., have gotten their kids through their entire college career with the one MacBook. Those who chose the non-Apple computers, on average, needed to replace the computer at least once during the same period of time. Totally unscientific, but it seems to me that the MacBooks hold up better over time. Some universities also have mini Apple Stores on campus, which is a big plus.
By the way, my choice for a computer I’m lugging around campus would be the Air, hands down. I cannot imagine anything at an undergrad program level, even engineering, physics, chemistry, etc., that would overtax an Air.
Also anecdotal of course but my friends and I had the same experience... I went through 2 PCs at university on a 3 year course! I have always used PCs and Macs so was easy to change. The 3rd laptop I bought was a MacBook Pro which is still going strong 8 years later!
I know it’s anecdotal, but when friends with kids heading to college ask me what computer to buy for their kids, when given a choice, the ones who’ve followed my advice of buying a MacBook versus Dell, Acer, HP, etc., have gotten their kids through their entire college career with the one MacBook. Those who chose the non-Apple computers, on average, needed to replace the computer at least once during the same period of time. Totally unscientific, but it seems to me that the MacBooks hold up better over time. Some universities also have mini Apple Stores on campus, which is a big plus.
By the way, my choice for a computer I’m lugging around campus would be the Air, hands down. I cannot imagine anything at an undergrad program level, even engineering, physics, chemistry, etc., that would overtax an Air.
Also anecdotal of course but my friends and I had the same experience... I went through 2 PCs at university on a 3 year course! I have always used PCs and Macs so was easy to change. The 3rd laptop I bought was a MacBook Pro which is still going strong 8 years later!
I sold a 15" MBP in 2019 that was 10-years old and my current MBP 15" (Quad-Core i7 with Nivida 1.5GB GPU) is 7-years old. If I didn't need more than 16GB of memory I stick with it until the end. It still runs the latest OS!
I'm torn. I'm about ready to update my MacBook (still rocking a base model Late 2013 13 in. MacBook Pro) and I use it mainly for illustration work in Photoshop and Clip Studio along with some design work in InDesign. I don't know if I should pay the extra $300 for the Pro, or go with the Air, because the processor for the Air still runs better than the base processor for the late 2013 Pro, based on benchmark scores)
I'm torn. I'm about ready to update my MacBook (still rocking a base model Late 2013 13 in. MacBook Pro) and I use it mainly for illustration work in Photoshop and Clip Studio along with some design work in InDesign. I don't know if I should pay the extra $300 for the Pro, or go with the Air, because the processor for the Air still runs better than the base processor for the late 2013 Pro, based on benchmark scores)
what did you decide? I'm torn as well. Need to purchase first laptop for my daughter who will (hopefully) start college Fall 2021. She is planning to be a graphic design major and hoping to use the Adobe Suite. Purchasing now instead of June 2021 bc she's currently online FT and working off a small Chromebook.
So we are looking at $800 for MBA or $1200 for MBP. Major difference seems to be processor? Seems like she'd be fine with the MBA but just not sure. When I bought child #1 her MBP in 2017, the difference was clear which way to go. Also, if I go with base model of either option, should I upgrade to 16 GB memory?
I'm torn. I'm about ready to update my MacBook (still rocking a base model Late 2013 13 in. MacBook Pro) and I use it mainly for illustration work in Photoshop and Clip Studio along with some design work in InDesign. I don't know if I should pay the extra $300 for the Pro, or go with the Air, because the processor for the Air still runs better than the base processor for the late 2013 Pro, based on benchmark scores)
what did you decide? I'm torn as well. Need to purchase first laptop for my daughter who will (hopefully) start college Fall 2021. She is planning to be a graphic design major and hoping to use the Adobe Suite. Purchasing now instead of June 2021 bc she's currently online FT and working off a small Chromebook.
So we are looking at $800 for MBA or $1200 for MBP. Major difference seems to be processor? Seems like she'd be fine with the MBA but just not sure. When I bought child #1 her MBP in 2017, the difference was clear which way to go. Also, if I go with base model of either option, should I upgrade to 16 GB memory?
Ended up getting the 2020 Macbook Pro from the refurbished store for $1,099
I'm torn. I'm about ready to update my MacBook (still rocking a base model Late 2013 13 in. MacBook Pro) and I use it mainly for illustration work in Photoshop and Clip Studio along with some design work in InDesign. I don't know if I should pay the extra $300 for the Pro, or go with the Air, because the processor for the Air still runs better than the base processor for the late 2013 Pro, based on benchmark scores)
what did you decide? I'm torn as well. Need to purchase first laptop for my daughter who will (hopefully) start college Fall 2021. She is planning to be a graphic design major and hoping to use the Adobe Suite. Purchasing now instead of June 2021 bc she's currently online FT and working off a small Chromebook.
So we are looking at $800 for MBA or $1200 for MBP. Major difference seems to be processor? Seems like she'd be fine with the MBA but just not sure. When I bought child #1 her MBP in 2017, the difference was clear which way to go. Also, if I go with base model of either option, should I upgrade to 16 GB memory?
Ended up getting the 2020 Macbook Pro from the refurbished store for $1,099
Nice ... base model MBP? Can I ask which refurbished store?
Comments
I more interested in general real world CPU speed, SSD speed and encoding speeds. The Mac certainly has an advantage in the last two because of the T-2 chip (video encoding/decoding and SSD encryption) and Apple's SSD (best in class speeds). But there are also other things you won't find in that $650 laptop like a best in class T-1 chip fingerprint reader, a best in class Trackpad, 4x full-speed Thunderbolt ports and what are apparently some of the best speakers in a slim laptop.
There's a lot more to a laptop than just the CPU/GPU which affect the experience and the price.
Below is from the review on Tom's Hardware... the display just makes it useless for any professional grade video or photography. Despite having an awesome Ryzen processor it doesn't really seem to outpace the Del XPS with a 1056G7 in any meaningful way other than 3D.
You have to compare Apples to Apples when looking at the value of a laptop. That $650 laptop would easily cost $1799 if it had comparable all around specs.
Acer Swift 3 (AMD): Meet Ryzen 7 4700U
FOR
A nice processor that has an advantage with 3D application
AGAINST
Which is why Apple will move to ARM and blow past all of them to include onboard graphics.
However, until that time, these are the only real chips that are currently on the market today and function with the vast majority of productivity software in existence. So my point still stands - the Ryzen chips would have been a better choice.
Sadly, most OEMs are often lazy when it comes to try hard (that's from a desktop dell xps, who's supposed to high end):
Outside of the Apple world, x86 going extinct won't happen unless there's a monumental gap in performance. Qualcomm doesn't have the R&D budget of Intel, no else seems interested to do ARM cpu for the desktop, and Jim Keller ( the guy behind every AMD sucess, and who made the apple A4/A5) recently joined Intel, so the old bear isn't dead yet.
By the way, my choice for a computer I’m lugging around campus would be the Air, hands down. I cannot imagine anything at an undergrad program level, even engineering, physics, chemistry, etc., that would overtax an Air.
Fortunately found link that 9to5mac did survey. Check this out. You will be surprised. https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/05/2020-mac-updates-poll/
Apple making the fastest consumer cpu in the world won't make Dell/HP/AMD/Intel go bankrupt. Why ? Because Apple doesn't sell junk, when lots of people want to buy junk. The power pc used to be the fastest consumer cpu in the world, but apple was still in the shadows of wintel.
There's three scenario :
- Apple chips are so fast ( > 30%) that every single premium pc becomes obsolete outside of gaming, and apple get a monopoly on the pro market.
- Qualcomm finally get a big revelation and manage to makes ARM chip that compete with Apple, making the port of Application on Arm finally relevant.
-ARM chips only advantage are power consumption, x86 heat machine manage to keep up in speed, devs are being lazy, and a big slpit happen : macintosh are joinning the ARM realm, and other pc's are staying on a 42 years old cpu's.
So we are looking at $800 for MBA or $1200 for MBP. Major difference seems to be processor? Seems like she'd be fine with the MBA but just not sure. When I bought child #1 her MBP in 2017, the difference was clear which way to go. Also, if I go with base model of either option, should I upgrade to 16 GB memory?