He's not wrong though. I own an M1 Macbook Air, and while there are some workloads that it can outperform my desktop at, it's still not even close to the level of functionality or comparability of my other machines. Hell, most days I just end up tossing my Thinkpad in my work bag, just because the keyboard and OS gets in my way less.
> Then don't buy a bloody M1. The M1 has always been Apple's entry-level efficiency-first processor.
No, I gotta disagree. Apple's marketing around the M1 was intentionally deceptive: they were forced to revoke their claim of having the "fastest CPU cores" after it was vehemently disproven. Their "faster than 97% of Windows laptops" conveniently didn't compare itself to AMD laptops or laptops with dedicated graphics. I'm just not really impressed. I seriously worry for Apple if this is all they were able to get out of the 5nm node on ARM. Considering how poorly ARM scales with higher TDPs, I don't think I want to see their "Pro stuff".
Why should they be forced to compare their integrated graphics to laptops with dedicated graphics? This is yet another uninteresting comparison. Of course a machine with some dedicated mobile 3080 is going to win the day in a head to head. But it's an absurd comparison because said machine will draw vastly more power and be heavier to boot. It's a different category of machine at that point.
> I seriously worry for Apple if this is all they were able to get out of the 5nm node on ARM
I think you're the only one who's worried.
Apple very clearly laid out their design goals with the M1: supremacy at performance per watt. And the fanboys protested with "I can build a faster desktop" or "my 4.5 lb laptop with dedicated graphics can get more FPS." It's just baffling. You've missed the whole point.
> My point is that this isn't even an interesting conversation to have. Your desktop can outperform a chip that runs an iPad? Cool story bro.
The desktop I'm comparing it to is 7 years old and cost $600 new. You can't even buy an M1 iPad for that price today.
> Their announcement explicitly said "when it comes to low power silicon."
Which is an arbitrary goalpost that means nothing. The M1 uses 7w at full tilt, does that mean we can compare it to an AMD 5800u running at the same wattage? It's a nothingburger, and that's why Apple doesn't use that zinger anywhere else in their marketing material.
> Why should they be forced to compare their integrated graphics to laptops with dedicated graphics?
Because that's what you can buy for $1000. That's the performance standard. If Apple wanted the M1 to be compared to machines with integrated graphics, they should have released a computer at that price point.
> Apple very clearly laid out their design goals with the M1: supremacy at performance per watt.
Sure, they have it. But I frankly don't care, and I have a hard time believing that other people do too. Performance-per-watt is Apple's neat way of giving performance a denominator, because they simply can't compete with the rest of the industry wholesale. It's something they've done over and over, insisting on pointless metrics like thinness and beauty to measure a product of objective capability. The datacenter market is looking at the M1 and laughing. Unless your business was already Mac-based, it's not like enterprise customers are going to be interested in beta-testing Apple's new hardware either. Honestly, I'm more impressed with Apple's social engineering than hardware engineering here.
> The desktop I'm comparing it to is 7 years old and cost $600 new. You can't even buy an M1 iPad for that price today.
Which desktop is this with what components? What's the metric you're comparing? Show me the benchmarks. This still feels like the world's dumbest comparison but hey I'm at least curious now.
> Which is an arbitrary goalpost that means nothing.
But it's the goalpost they very clearly set--you're the one who either missed it or willfully chooses to ignore it, which means you're the one being misleading, not them.
> Because that's what you can buy for $1000. That's the performance standard. If Apple wanted the M1 to be compared to machines with integrated graphics, they should have released a computer at that price point
A pure price comparison on its own is missing so many relevant factors and you know it. You can also buy a desktop that outperforms a smartphone that costs the same. Is that a fair comparison? How much energy do these machines consume, what's their battery life under load, how much do they weigh, etc etc. I don't just walk into Best Buy and say "here's a $1,000 bring me the thing with the best Geek Bench score, no other criteria."
>The datacenter market is looking at the M1 and laughing
What are you even talking about now. Since when was the datacenter in the design goals for the M1.
>But I frankly don't care, and I have a hard time believing that other people do too
No one cares about battery life or the weight of their laptop? This is news to me. I have a feeling it's news to all the people who buy ultrabooks, too.
>Performance-per-watt is Apple's neat way of giving performance a denominator, because they simply can't compete with the rest of the industry wholesale.
Because they're not trying to outcompete the entire industry in every form factor with the M1, since the goal is to provide stellar performance while still achieving efficiency that enables small form factor designs. You are exhausting with this "willfully missing the whole point" thing.
Again, they haven't even released the parts that are actually meant to compete at the higher wattages you're trying to compare against the M1.
I'll make an analogy--maybe it'll help. Car Company A just came out with a brand new sedan with industry best Miles Per Gallon. And beyond just the MPG rating, it can actually tow some pretty heavy loads, too! Heavier than other sedans in its weight class. Impressive stuff.
You're the guy with the F-350 dually pumping his chest saying "mine can still tow more!"
Please don't respond to someone breaking the site guidelines by breaking them yourself. I know that's hard when you're feeling provoked, but it only makes this place even worse.
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. That's not cool. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points respectfully in the future? That means no name-calling, no personal attacks, and no swipes.
It feels like you've constructed quite the straw-man to tear down.
Praise for the M1 is in the context of the form factors it exists in and the efficiency it works at.
Of course you can find more powerful hardware in larger form factors drawing 10x the power from the mains. The M1 runs in an iPad for crying out loud.
> The constraints for comparison are already stated: computation power being the main priority.
Then don't buy a bloody M1. The M1 has always been Apple's entry-level efficiency-first processor. We haven't even seen the "Pro" stuff yet.
reply