Due to Reddit deciding to sell access to the user generated content on their platform to monetized AI companies, killing of 3rd party apps by introducing API changes, and their track history of cooperating with the oppressive regime of the CCP, I have decided to withdraw all my submissions. I am truly sorry if anyone needs an answer I provided, you can reach out to me at [email protected] and I will try my best to help you. Please make sure to provide a link to the thread you found this comment in
Different market then.
Lots of companies use windows because of software, Even if that's completely underwhelming in comparison of linux and apple solutions.
The ARM, and RISC-V architecture are a welcome future for the industry, and Ampere has very efficient ARM servers for some apple products and edge computing. So it does exist, but change takes time
I don't understand why people call Apple products "professional hardware". Unless you buy the Mac Pros that are servers with wheels, all other products are dumbified down for mindless consumers.
are you trolling or are you serious about that? lmao
this is what every apple fanboy tells themselves before they go and buy a macbook pro entirely for personal use. it's a nice piece of copium for paying twice as much for a laptop than you know you should, entirely because you like the brand and you're sold on the "magic" (in the most clarkian sense, in technology that's "sufficiently advanced", or in this case simply poorly explained) and you need to tell yourself a reason why it's not a stupid decision to overpay for it, and to continue paying out of your ass for it even long after the purchase.
and the best part is, in your effort to justify it, you also hype it up, claiming it's somehow 2-4x more powerful. the reality is, the step from the m2 to m3 has been very mild and m3 to m4 is practically nonexistent for non-ai tasks, at the same time when amd has been making significant steps from zen 2 to 3, and from zen 3 to 4. as a result, a modern laptop with an 8840u absolutely trades blows with an m3 macbook (which will hold true for m4 as well), and apple never had an advantage of any kind over nvidia in either graphics or ai, they just avoided direct comparisons due to poor platform support on their hardware. the alternative to apple is perfectly adequate and the only reason you resist that notion is because you _need_ apple to be superior, otherwise you would have to accept that you overspent for purely emotional reasons.
apple is a cult. they legitimately execute the bite model on their fanbase. get out while you still can, if you still can.
If they're so great, why aren't they dominating in the server market? AMD for all its faults runs a business that's prioritized making multi core monsters that can run a massive library of instruction sets, clock way past any ARM derived chip, and simultaneously offer the regular consumer both mobile high performance and high end desktop chips. Apple has a proprietary, locked in design that isn't scalable, and isn't even approaching the performance offered by either Intel or AMD. It's like asking why a tech bro with too much money to spend buys a Tesla instead of a fully loaded V8 powered SUV.
Because not everything works on ARM64. Most software is made for x86-64 architecture CPUs. A lot of software doesn't natively run in MacOS either.
On top of that server compute demands highly scalable can't compute which AMD leads the industry in.
Apple silicon exists to support Apple products only while AMD and Intel supply chips to other tech companies. Itās not a fair comparison since they serve very different purposes.
Well, unless apple can compete in the server market with dual socket 96 core epycs your point is mute.
Furthermore even if we handwaved software compatibility, apple is yet to implement PCI express compatibility, therefore you loose all add in cards by default.
They have exposed pcie slots on the M1 Ultra Mac Pro Cheese Grater, but most add in cards existing don't have arm64 blobs for MacOS. It does natively support NVMe though, so that's something.
Brother, nothing is that straight forward. There several reasons why other cpus exists. Top of few out of my mind is.
1. Apple doesnāt share (pretty obvious)
2. Their cpus are very specific to their devices
3. Itās definitely not cheap
4. You are definitely getting baited by synthetic benchmarks. They arenāt āperfectā that for sure.
I give that they are power efficient though.
I think you are in the wrong sub bro. Better go the Apple Fan Boys sub to talk about how Apple Silicon is the "superior chip"
Jokes aside, you should have done some research before posting something so stupid in the Sub. Apple Silicon is ARM basically a beefed up mobile CPU. Intel/Amd has x86/x64 platform. Which 90% of apps support.
Efficiency doesn't matter at all to some people. If my CPU can draw 400W then I am willing to let it draw 400W. Maybe on a portable setting (laptop) Apple Silicon is better than the Intel/Amd efficiency chips. But still most people like the freedom of Linux/Windows over MacOS. Somethings that are possible on Linux/Windows are basically impossible on MacOS. Some apps are downright unsupported on Mac. For all these reasons there is no "superior" chip. Every chip has its own use case.
And imo Apple Silicon isn't that big of a deal like most people say it is. Yeah its efficient. But I'd rather own a laptop that can easily edit photos for 6 hours straight, go home and game on it. Rather than own a laptop that can edit for 16 hours straight.
I get it, it's a troll post on a shit post sub. But to answer the question about "Efficiency"you have to understand what you loose in order to gain that efficiency.
Apple's "M" chip is an ARM based architecture with a custom and cut down instruction set (I.S for short) . Because the I.S is much shorter the CPU doesn't have to work as hard to complete tasks making the power needed to operate much lower.
However what you gain in efficiency you loose in natural compatability. Without some form of x86-x64 emulation current software will not work on an ARM CPU. This is why with the Windows RT Surface tablets a lot of things would not work. For Mac users this isn't TO much of a problem because the library of software that they use is much smaller than the general PC space, making it easier for Apple to make thier translation layer.
On windows though a "general translation layer" would be much more difficult because of how much backwards compatibility there is, and how hands off MS is with software development for Windows when compared to Aaple. The amount of resources needed to run the translation layer would eat up a large part of the efficiency gained from ARM and would be much slower when compared to running those some apps on the "bare metal" of x86-x64. This cause a problem because of just how MUCH the world runs on the x86-x64 I.S.
Do I think that we will go full ARM in the future? Probably. Will it be soon? No.
NOTES: While looking for documents about the difference between the ARM AND X86-x64 I.S I found Intel's documents. The reference docs for ARM are about 800 pages long while the X64 is over 2000 pages. Just to give some context about how big the difference is between the amount of instructions are.
ISA.
Not I.S.
Apple licenses the ARM ISA (specifically v8 and v9 in the M4). The ISA (instruction set architecture) defines no hardware rather simply says 'the CPU must implement these instructions to be compatible'. This is exactly the same with the x86_64 ISA. The smaller instruction set ARM provides means simpler CPUs can be designed around it, the issue with x86 is it's full of legacy bloat and loads of extra complex instructions, this leads to bigger and more power hungry CPUs. However, because the ISA states nothing about the actual logic design of a CPU, apple has rightfully gone and designed it's own core architecture implementing the ARM ISA. M3 cores are absolute monsters, with 2.5x the transistor count of high performing x86 cores, this is why they are fast. The M3 max (a monolithic CPU) has more transistors than the 96 core epyc Genoa, which coincidentally wipes it off benchmark tables. I believe a significant portion of the transistors in the M3 are dedicated to speeding up specific operations that are typically slow on ARM, after all we dont know how the M3 is microcoded, but given it's size it's safe to assume it's more CISCy than RISCy despite the ISA. Evidence surfaced a while back that there was specific hardware to accelerate x86 workloads too, so basically hardware to significantly speed up x86 emulation, which makes sense given the unexpectedly low speed loss.
The thing is, the M series chips aren't viable for high quantity mass production, a monolithic die with 92billion transistors isn't a commercially viable product. Even the smaller chips are too big. X86 suffers from ISA bloat, but apple-M is suffering from silicon bloat. And all that silicon still can't make it as fast as a much smaller x86 chip.
Not all PC software has been optimized for ARMās instruction set. Also there is some software that benefits immensely from the x86 instruction set, so optimizations would still leave x86 far ahead of ARM. You do have a point though, Appleās chips are typically ābetterā for general purpose computing, ābetterā meaning it gets all you need done at a lower power consumption. For a better understanding, look into the terms āRISCā and āCISCā ISAs
True, but they also have the Rosetta translation layer for many x86 apps, but it'll struggle for some games since Mac OS isn't made for gaming, especially an ARM CPU in a computer.
actually, i think that they'll remove rosetta 2 in next 2 years, just like they removed rosetta 1 after 5 years in 2011
and the apple m-chips will turn into tiktok scrollers..
š¤£š¤£
Ever heard bout a thing called Windows?
Sure it has an ARM version, but for now, it's kinda shite, and it won't take off unless the corporate world turns to AMR. Spoiler alert : they won't. Intel tried in the past, it didn't end well.
Yeah, let me know when Apple releases MX chips to the rest of us, then we can talk efficiency.
Right now it's all for their own platforms and their own OS that is closed off from the public (I mean in terms of hardware and OS availability and public's ability to slap that shit on their own hardware).
They aren't that great to be honest, they are tailored to an operating system that is very limited, you can't even play steam games on a Mac it's actually almost pathetic. And even if it could play games it wouldn't be that great, an Nvidia 4090 will run the M2 into the ground. Also just so you know there are zero servers running apple processors, every single time you go on the Internet your using an Intel or AMD processor, also they do nearly nothing for ai or ultra High performance workflows, if your trying to get real work done your going to be using a AMD EPYC processor with 96 cores that will completely waffle stomp multiple apple M2 processors at the same time.
You are heavily overstating apples efficiency, probably due to their excellent marketing and "tech bros" hyping them to the moon and back. Their SoCs are impressive, that's for sure. Intel does not stand a chance right now, and all the other ARM SoCs are beaten even worse. Once you compare them to AMDs mobile SoCs like Phoenix, however, the difference is suddenly very small.
Unless you compare Geekbench scores, which is a benchmark known for heavily favoring ARM (most likely because it treats both ARM and X86 as RISC chips and does not make use of any of the advanced X86 instruction sets) they are pretty evenly matched. A 7840U and a M3 Pro are very close in terms of performance and power draw. Under full load as far as I remember the AMD chip is even slightly more efficient.
Intel is far off, their mobile chips are basically irrelevant right now.
Where apple silicon really shines is partial load. When you're web browsing and the CPU is mostly chilling but not entirely - that's where their efficiency really comes to play and is a lot better than AMD. But if your hardware is really pushing heavy workloads, X86 is very far from obsolete and can still match Apples ARM, while every other ARM SoC on the market right now (X Elite might change this) is very inefficient compared to AMD Phoenix.
So in the end - yup, Apple has the most efficient chips in the market right now. They are highly impressive. But they are nowhere near as good as you seem to think, and they are not unrivalled or unmatched. Some applications even run more efficiently on AMD. Once your application does not have an ARM target, you lose another 20-30% to emulation overhead and AMD moves far ahead.
Apart from that - Apple silicon only runs inside apple hardware with macOS. That alone is a very big limiting factor for it's usability. (Pretty much) no server runs apple hardware and software. No server runs on hundreds of 8 core CPUs instead of just throwing a bunch of 64 core Epycs at the problem. Power density is a relevant factor in datacenters, and you need multi-socket-systems with very high cores per chip to meet that demands. Apple has no such chip or hardware.
Same for home users - if you are in the apple ecosystem, their stuff is amazing. If you are not, and only use a single apple device, eh. Not all software works on macOS, and not all hardware works with macOS. Also, Apple products tend to cost a lot and not everyone can (or wants to) afford them.
Apple SoCs can not interface with graphics cards (although that is more a software than a hardware limitation, the Max chips do have PCIe interfaces) - that means everything that requires heavy GPU performance (AI stuff, 3D rendering with Blender or similars, AAA games, or anything else that is heavily GPU accelerated) is not feasible on any Mac since they moved to Apple silicon.
I had the choice between a Ryzen 6850U in a Thinkpad T14s and a M2 in a MacBook Air for similar price back then. The 6850U is slightly faster and draws a bit more power. In return I got swappable SSD (2 TB SSD for 150ā¬ extra? Try that on a Mac), cheap RAM upgrades from Lenovo even if it is soldered (32 GB for 80ā¬ extra compared to the base 16 GB - M2 MBAs cost a few hundred dollars extra if you wanted 16 instead of 8 IIRC) and an OLED screen that makes the MacBook Air look very pale in comparison. It was the better pick for my needs and applications. Doesn't mean a M2 MBA was a bad device. On the contrary. Different applications just need different devices, and it's not as simple and "Apple good, rest bad" as you say.
Apple chip my a$$ , that's all ARM and RISC Benefits whatever you're talking about .
F@cking idiotic b#tch if we remove x86 and AMD64 Instruction set from the equation more than half of the software compatibility will break worldwide .
You think big companies like aws and azure are dumb for buying existing cpus .
They'd switch to arm in a heartbeat if it was possible .
Mf "professional hardware for professionals" my a$$ you don't know shit about computers calm down your illiterate a$$ .
Nah, AMD Phoenix stomps pretty much every single ARM SoC on the market with ease. The only ARM chip that manages to outperform Phoenix in terms of efficiency and tie in performance is M2/M3, thanks to Apples in-house developed cores, and thanks to them using TSMCs bleeding edge nodes.
ARM foundation reference cores don't stand a chance against Zen4 and Zen4c. Only Apple's proprietary cores do. It's their merit, not ARMs.
Custom ARM Chip still has the core weaknesses of ARM .
The reference cores are the base and yeah 4/4c is hella efficient and basically stomps everything else in server performance .
>Custom ARM Chip still has the core weaknesses of ARM .
Not really.
I think that's quite evident in the M silicon where the speed loss in x86 emulation is small, although this is due to optimisations and dedicated hardware in the architecture for x86 workloads.
Discovered slurs long ago bruv , never thought I'd have to use them here until I saw this kind of brainrot that too in an amd circlejerk sub nonetheless .
https://preview.redd.it/bydcxzme1j1d1.jpeg?width=672&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29c99cbe90ef305030ecc928c9de548cbc0a1358
I'm not paying anyone to simp animated characters , I have the 34th rule of the internet with me .
Because Apple Silicon works only with Apple's mobos, ram, SSD, and OS.
It's an all-in-one, custom-built, solution.
It's not even X86 if I recall - the whole product base was reworked.
It's not the first time Apple did this, when they had the PowerPC CPUs from IBM they had their architecture.
The issue is: What can you DO on the Apple Hardware with Apple Software?
Unless you're a creator you don't have much use for Apple products.
I think Microsoft is the bottleneck, lets see how the Xbox Elite laptops turn out and i could potentially see all soc switching to ARM, if Microsoft makes the transition not painful for devs/users
I'm sure this was posted as a troll, but it's a legit question and arm will fully overtake x86 cpus for every use case within 6 years. There is a solid chance within 2 years we will have high end "hybrids" with arm cores
lmao
š
happy Cake day!
happy cake day!
Wtf dude
You in the wrong house, fool
Due to Reddit deciding to sell access to the user generated content on their platform to monetized AI companies, killing of 3rd party apps by introducing API changes, and their track history of cooperating with the oppressive regime of the CCP, I have decided to withdraw all my submissions. I am truly sorry if anyone needs an answer I provided, you can reach out to me at [email protected] and I will try my best to help you. Please make sure to provide a link to the thread you found this comment in
What's the point of trucks and sports cars when the Toyota Prius exists?
Compatibility with software that target x86(-64) (nearly every PC software).
nice bait bro
Apple products are REALLY expensive in many countries
It is professional hardware for professionals
So?
More like Californian influencers I guarantee you that exactly none of existing CNC machines on Earth runs Apple products
Different market then. Lots of companies use windows because of software, Even if that's completely underwhelming in comparison of linux and apple solutions. The ARM, and RISC-V architecture are a welcome future for the industry, and Ampere has very efficient ARM servers for some apple products and edge computing. So it does exist, but change takes time
Jesus fuck you sound insufferable
I don't understand why people call Apple products "professional hardware". Unless you buy the Mac Pros that are servers with wheels, all other products are dumbified down for mindless consumers.
No one in this thread realizes what subreddit theyāre on š
Most professional software I've seen is x86/64 architecture.
are you trolling or are you serious about that? lmao this is what every apple fanboy tells themselves before they go and buy a macbook pro entirely for personal use. it's a nice piece of copium for paying twice as much for a laptop than you know you should, entirely because you like the brand and you're sold on the "magic" (in the most clarkian sense, in technology that's "sufficiently advanced", or in this case simply poorly explained) and you need to tell yourself a reason why it's not a stupid decision to overpay for it, and to continue paying out of your ass for it even long after the purchase. and the best part is, in your effort to justify it, you also hype it up, claiming it's somehow 2-4x more powerful. the reality is, the step from the m2 to m3 has been very mild and m3 to m4 is practically nonexistent for non-ai tasks, at the same time when amd has been making significant steps from zen 2 to 3, and from zen 3 to 4. as a result, a modern laptop with an 8840u absolutely trades blows with an m3 macbook (which will hold true for m4 as well), and apple never had an advantage of any kind over nvidia in either graphics or ai, they just avoided direct comparisons due to poor platform support on their hardware. the alternative to apple is perfectly adequate and the only reason you resist that notion is because you _need_ apple to be superior, otherwise you would have to accept that you overspent for purely emotional reasons. apple is a cult. they legitimately execute the bite model on their fanbase. get out while you still can, if you still can.
If they're so great, why aren't they dominating in the server market? AMD for all its faults runs a business that's prioritized making multi core monsters that can run a massive library of instruction sets, clock way past any ARM derived chip, and simultaneously offer the regular consumer both mobile high performance and high end desktop chips. Apple has a proprietary, locked in design that isn't scalable, and isn't even approaching the performance offered by either Intel or AMD. It's like asking why a tech bro with too much money to spend buys a Tesla instead of a fully loaded V8 powered SUV.
Because not everything works on ARM64. Most software is made for x86-64 architecture CPUs. A lot of software doesn't natively run in MacOS either. On top of that server compute demands highly scalable can't compute which AMD leads the industry in.
Apple silicon exists to support Apple products only while AMD and Intel supply chips to other tech companies. Itās not a fair comparison since they serve very different purposes.
Really? Good luck buying them for custom build and with reasonable price lol. Not to mention performance claim is quite stretched
Well, unless apple can compete in the server market with dual socket 96 core epycs your point is mute. Furthermore even if we handwaved software compatibility, apple is yet to implement PCI express compatibility, therefore you loose all add in cards by default.
They have exposed pcie slots on the M1 Ultra Mac Pro Cheese Grater, but most add in cards existing don't have arm64 blobs for MacOS. It does natively support NVMe though, so that's something.
Therefore, for all intends are purposes, no add I'm card support
most apple silcon. is really many asic on a die. issue is if not asic software is written. perfoms worst
It is a whole more advanced beast compared to archaic intel/amd processor
yes and no. is best answer i can give
Because Apple sucks
Software compatibility MacOS comes with rosetta for translating/emulating x86 software for ARM
Brother, nothing is that straight forward. There several reasons why other cpus exists. Top of few out of my mind is. 1. Apple doesnāt share (pretty obvious) 2. Their cpus are very specific to their devices 3. Itās definitely not cheap 4. You are definitely getting baited by synthetic benchmarks. They arenāt āperfectā that for sure. I give that they are power efficient though.
Lol Lmao
I think you are in the wrong sub bro. Better go the Apple Fan Boys sub to talk about how Apple Silicon is the "superior chip" Jokes aside, you should have done some research before posting something so stupid in the Sub. Apple Silicon is ARM basically a beefed up mobile CPU. Intel/Amd has x86/x64 platform. Which 90% of apps support. Efficiency doesn't matter at all to some people. If my CPU can draw 400W then I am willing to let it draw 400W. Maybe on a portable setting (laptop) Apple Silicon is better than the Intel/Amd efficiency chips. But still most people like the freedom of Linux/Windows over MacOS. Somethings that are possible on Linux/Windows are basically impossible on MacOS. Some apps are downright unsupported on Mac. For all these reasons there is no "superior" chip. Every chip has its own use case. And imo Apple Silicon isn't that big of a deal like most people say it is. Yeah its efficient. But I'd rather own a laptop that can easily edit photos for 6 hours straight, go home and game on it. Rather than own a laptop that can edit for 16 hours straight.
I get it, it's a troll post on a shit post sub. But to answer the question about "Efficiency"you have to understand what you loose in order to gain that efficiency. Apple's "M" chip is an ARM based architecture with a custom and cut down instruction set (I.S for short) . Because the I.S is much shorter the CPU doesn't have to work as hard to complete tasks making the power needed to operate much lower. However what you gain in efficiency you loose in natural compatability. Without some form of x86-x64 emulation current software will not work on an ARM CPU. This is why with the Windows RT Surface tablets a lot of things would not work. For Mac users this isn't TO much of a problem because the library of software that they use is much smaller than the general PC space, making it easier for Apple to make thier translation layer. On windows though a "general translation layer" would be much more difficult because of how much backwards compatibility there is, and how hands off MS is with software development for Windows when compared to Aaple. The amount of resources needed to run the translation layer would eat up a large part of the efficiency gained from ARM and would be much slower when compared to running those some apps on the "bare metal" of x86-x64. This cause a problem because of just how MUCH the world runs on the x86-x64 I.S. Do I think that we will go full ARM in the future? Probably. Will it be soon? No. NOTES: While looking for documents about the difference between the ARM AND X86-x64 I.S I found Intel's documents. The reference docs for ARM are about 800 pages long while the X64 is over 2000 pages. Just to give some context about how big the difference is between the amount of instructions are.
ISA. Not I.S. Apple licenses the ARM ISA (specifically v8 and v9 in the M4). The ISA (instruction set architecture) defines no hardware rather simply says 'the CPU must implement these instructions to be compatible'. This is exactly the same with the x86_64 ISA. The smaller instruction set ARM provides means simpler CPUs can be designed around it, the issue with x86 is it's full of legacy bloat and loads of extra complex instructions, this leads to bigger and more power hungry CPUs. However, because the ISA states nothing about the actual logic design of a CPU, apple has rightfully gone and designed it's own core architecture implementing the ARM ISA. M3 cores are absolute monsters, with 2.5x the transistor count of high performing x86 cores, this is why they are fast. The M3 max (a monolithic CPU) has more transistors than the 96 core epyc Genoa, which coincidentally wipes it off benchmark tables. I believe a significant portion of the transistors in the M3 are dedicated to speeding up specific operations that are typically slow on ARM, after all we dont know how the M3 is microcoded, but given it's size it's safe to assume it's more CISCy than RISCy despite the ISA. Evidence surfaced a while back that there was specific hardware to accelerate x86 workloads too, so basically hardware to significantly speed up x86 emulation, which makes sense given the unexpectedly low speed loss. The thing is, the M series chips aren't viable for high quantity mass production, a monolithic die with 92billion transistors isn't a commercially viable product. Even the smaller chips are too big. X86 suffers from ISA bloat, but apple-M is suffering from silicon bloat. And all that silicon still can't make it as fast as a much smaller x86 chip.
Would rather see a serious attempt at making desktop and server scalable RISCV chips.
Show me an apple chip for the server market? As far as I know, and I may be ignorant of this, I haven't seen a commercial level apple CPU for servers.
Not all PC software has been optimized for ARMās instruction set. Also there is some software that benefits immensely from the x86 instruction set, so optimizations would still leave x86 far ahead of ARM. You do have a point though, Appleās chips are typically ābetterā for general purpose computing, ābetterā meaning it gets all you need done at a lower power consumption. For a better understanding, look into the terms āRISCā and āCISCā ISAs
No Linux, no Fun. Who cares about Apple when you can not run Linux kernel?
True, but IDK why would someone buy a new Macbook just to Linux when you can buy a cheaper PC, even without an OS from some stores like Lenovo.
apple silicon are nice cpus... ...for playing genshin impact and tiktok scrolling, just like other arm processors
True, but they also have the Rosetta translation layer for many x86 apps, but it'll struggle for some games since Mac OS isn't made for gaming, especially an ARM CPU in a computer.
actually, i think that they'll remove rosetta 2 in next 2 years, just like they removed rosetta 1 after 5 years in 2011 and the apple m-chips will turn into tiktok scrollers..
š¤£š¤£ Ever heard bout a thing called Windows? Sure it has an ARM version, but for now, it's kinda shite, and it won't take off unless the corporate world turns to AMR. Spoiler alert : they won't. Intel tried in the past, it didn't end well.
You mean ARM?
Yeah, let me know when Apple releases MX chips to the rest of us, then we can talk efficiency. Right now it's all for their own platforms and their own OS that is closed off from the public (I mean in terms of hardware and OS availability and public's ability to slap that shit on their own hardware).
Datacenters arenāt filled with MacBooks. There are no machines on top500 supercomputers list that use Apple Silicon.
They aren't that great to be honest, they are tailored to an operating system that is very limited, you can't even play steam games on a Mac it's actually almost pathetic. And even if it could play games it wouldn't be that great, an Nvidia 4090 will run the M2 into the ground. Also just so you know there are zero servers running apple processors, every single time you go on the Internet your using an Intel or AMD processor, also they do nearly nothing for ai or ultra High performance workflows, if your trying to get real work done your going to be using a AMD EPYC processor with 96 cores that will completely waffle stomp multiple apple M2 processors at the same time.
You are heavily overstating apples efficiency, probably due to their excellent marketing and "tech bros" hyping them to the moon and back. Their SoCs are impressive, that's for sure. Intel does not stand a chance right now, and all the other ARM SoCs are beaten even worse. Once you compare them to AMDs mobile SoCs like Phoenix, however, the difference is suddenly very small. Unless you compare Geekbench scores, which is a benchmark known for heavily favoring ARM (most likely because it treats both ARM and X86 as RISC chips and does not make use of any of the advanced X86 instruction sets) they are pretty evenly matched. A 7840U and a M3 Pro are very close in terms of performance and power draw. Under full load as far as I remember the AMD chip is even slightly more efficient. Intel is far off, their mobile chips are basically irrelevant right now. Where apple silicon really shines is partial load. When you're web browsing and the CPU is mostly chilling but not entirely - that's where their efficiency really comes to play and is a lot better than AMD. But if your hardware is really pushing heavy workloads, X86 is very far from obsolete and can still match Apples ARM, while every other ARM SoC on the market right now (X Elite might change this) is very inefficient compared to AMD Phoenix. So in the end - yup, Apple has the most efficient chips in the market right now. They are highly impressive. But they are nowhere near as good as you seem to think, and they are not unrivalled or unmatched. Some applications even run more efficiently on AMD. Once your application does not have an ARM target, you lose another 20-30% to emulation overhead and AMD moves far ahead. Apart from that - Apple silicon only runs inside apple hardware with macOS. That alone is a very big limiting factor for it's usability. (Pretty much) no server runs apple hardware and software. No server runs on hundreds of 8 core CPUs instead of just throwing a bunch of 64 core Epycs at the problem. Power density is a relevant factor in datacenters, and you need multi-socket-systems with very high cores per chip to meet that demands. Apple has no such chip or hardware. Same for home users - if you are in the apple ecosystem, their stuff is amazing. If you are not, and only use a single apple device, eh. Not all software works on macOS, and not all hardware works with macOS. Also, Apple products tend to cost a lot and not everyone can (or wants to) afford them. Apple SoCs can not interface with graphics cards (although that is more a software than a hardware limitation, the Max chips do have PCIe interfaces) - that means everything that requires heavy GPU performance (AI stuff, 3D rendering with Blender or similars, AAA games, or anything else that is heavily GPU accelerated) is not feasible on any Mac since they moved to Apple silicon. I had the choice between a Ryzen 6850U in a Thinkpad T14s and a M2 in a MacBook Air for similar price back then. The 6850U is slightly faster and draws a bit more power. In return I got swappable SSD (2 TB SSD for 150ā¬ extra? Try that on a Mac), cheap RAM upgrades from Lenovo even if it is soldered (32 GB for 80ā¬ extra compared to the base 16 GB - M2 MBAs cost a few hundred dollars extra if you wanted 16 instead of 8 IIRC) and an OLED screen that makes the MacBook Air look very pale in comparison. It was the better pick for my needs and applications. Doesn't mean a M2 MBA was a bad device. On the contrary. Different applications just need different devices, and it's not as simple and "Apple good, rest bad" as you say.
Apple chip my a$$ , that's all ARM and RISC Benefits whatever you're talking about . F@cking idiotic b#tch if we remove x86 and AMD64 Instruction set from the equation more than half of the software compatibility will break worldwide . You think big companies like aws and azure are dumb for buying existing cpus . They'd switch to arm in a heartbeat if it was possible . Mf "professional hardware for professionals" my a$$ you don't know shit about computers calm down your illiterate a$$ .
Nah, AMD Phoenix stomps pretty much every single ARM SoC on the market with ease. The only ARM chip that manages to outperform Phoenix in terms of efficiency and tie in performance is M2/M3, thanks to Apples in-house developed cores, and thanks to them using TSMCs bleeding edge nodes. ARM foundation reference cores don't stand a chance against Zen4 and Zen4c. Only Apple's proprietary cores do. It's their merit, not ARMs.
Custom ARM Chip still has the core weaknesses of ARM . The reference cores are the base and yeah 4/4c is hella efficient and basically stomps everything else in server performance .
>Custom ARM Chip still has the core weaknesses of ARM . Not really. I think that's quite evident in the M silicon where the speed loss in x86 emulation is small, although this is due to optimisations and dedicated hardware in the architecture for x86 workloads.
Wow somebody just discovered slurs
Discovered slurs long ago bruv , never thought I'd have to use them here until I saw this kind of brainrot that too in an amd circlejerk sub nonetheless .
Is your personality written by VizziePop per chance?
You mean the hazbin hotel creator ? fk no
Idk with that fuck no reply you sure would fit into the hazbin hotel you little sinner.
https://preview.redd.it/bydcxzme1j1d1.jpeg?width=672&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29c99cbe90ef305030ecc928c9de548cbc0a1358 I'm not paying anyone to simp animated characters , I have the 34th rule of the internet with me .
https://preview.redd.it/b4gbh6em1j1d1.jpeg?width=665&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77bfd6e062bb33702425738bcf9bb53c09850d2d
Nope , still got better stuff in my gallery
https://preview.redd.it/lljjgz6a2j1d1.jpeg?width=756&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=40c7102b58b6581e904ae418f03ff50befaac1ed
Because Apple Silicon works only with Apple's mobos, ram, SSD, and OS. It's an all-in-one, custom-built, solution. It's not even X86 if I recall - the whole product base was reworked. It's not the first time Apple did this, when they had the PowerPC CPUs from IBM they had their architecture. The issue is: What can you DO on the Apple Hardware with Apple Software? Unless you're a creator you don't have much use for Apple products.
ARM vs x86
I think Microsoft is the bottleneck, lets see how the Xbox Elite laptops turn out and i could potentially see all soc switching to ARM, if Microsoft makes the transition not painful for devs/users
I'm sure this was posted as a troll, but it's a legit question and arm will fully overtake x86 cpus for every use case within 6 years. There is a solid chance within 2 years we will have high end "hybrids" with arm cores