![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
This is why Intel has been lobbying everybody they can to stall or block the NVidia-ARM purchase. Intel fears what NVidia and their R&D division is capable of producing and how it will threaten their Datacenter and Supercomputer contracts.
There are much bigger heavy hitters attempting to block the sale of ARM to nVidia. Yeap, bigger than Intel.
How can this even be determined since presumably no one but AMD has access to them at this point? Are you just guessing or am I missing something?
Intel has been lobbying the FTC and congress to block the sale, they’ve spend a few million on them each so far.
Ram is attached to the CPU/GPU blocks, not hanging off the IO middle block. Would have the same issues as the first Epycs had with cache, but with the whole memory block, if it is laid out as per the article.
It'd be nice to see Apple cater more to gamers, but it doesn't "need" to embrace the gaming community. It really, truly doesn't.
When you right your right!
Yeah. As far as I can tell, someone sacrificed a laptop to get his own die shot, saw a stripe on the edge of it that wasn't in Apple's beauty shots, and just invented the idea that it's an interconnect out of whole cloth.
Apples implementation is yet to be seen.
Love'em or Hate'em, they have picked a direction and they are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to make it work and they have the name and money behind that name to get any bit of talent they think they need to get there.
People like to claim Apple will never pose an existential threat to Intel or AMD, and it might not, but they forget that Apple is relentless in a way its rivals aren't.
Apple should dump Metal in favor of Vulkan. Metal isn't making developers lives easier, which can be seen with how many use MoltenVK.
That's not how things work, unless the work load isn't dependent on in order execution. If it isn't then that's what GPU's are for.
I already see Apple losing market share as a result. Their market share is lower compared to last year, during a time period where the PC market has seen 13% growth. I had predicted that Apple would lose sales and their Intel based Macs would retain their value better. Here Apple is offering up to $1k in trade in value for a new M1 based Mac, which to me seems to support that Intel Macs are more desirable.
Personally, I'd be a bit skeptical of the gaming buy numbers for the last couple of years. Cryptomining has really borked the prices for higher end graphics cards. I'm betting it's put a damper on gaming purchases. I know I've not bought a new graphics card due to the drastic price increases.
Unless Apple opens up their processors to the likes of Lenovo, Dell, HP, Asus, etc, I don't see them as an threat to Intel and AMD. Look at how things have played out with cell phones. There's around twice as many Android phone users as there are Apple phone users.
I don't see businesses replacing $1000 laptops with $2000 ones for everyday usage by people who use mostly Office and a couple of 3rd party apps like MRP and payroll or whatever.
Its made their lives very easy. People having been coding for Apple ARM for over 10 years now. The iPhone has been out since 2007, and I think the App Store came no later than 2009? My timeline is fuzzy but certainly before 2010.
Which is found on every M1 die.
A lot of this I would bet is pent up market for gaming, but I would also bet a good portion of it is for crypto miners. People have long been buying Dell or whatever pre built machines just for the GPU’s. And the folks that are willing to pay a ridiculous premium on GPU’s are mostly people making money from them.
It begs the question: trade them for what? There are only two Intel based Macs at this point. The 27” iMac and the Mac Pro. If people are trading their $1200-$3000 computer in for ‘up to’ $1000 credit for a $1800 to $80,000 one then I guess Apple is good with that? (Edit: also the article itself also clearly states this is to get people to upgrade to new M1 Pros and M1 Max machines. And as another addendum Apple is committed to being Arm only by the end of 2022. The 27” iMac will likely be replaced no later than late Q2 22’ and the Mac Pro will likely be the last to come in November 22’)
No one cares. The group of people that need to boot windows while on a Mac is a very small group of people. ARM Macs can already virtualize Windows through VMware or Parallels. If you need a PC to run things natively then you buy a PC.
And they don’t need to. They can buy $750 entry level Mac Mini’s and call it a day. Likely will require no maintenance or CS intervention more than once a year if they decide to rollout the next version of macOS and all of it can happen remotely now anyway.
Absolutely. I think it’s silly that this convo is still necessary: but if you need to run Windows software than obviously buy Windows. For most office workers though that group of people is becoming vanishingly small.
All of those phones runs on ARM and nvidia is attempting to move that direction on desktop as well with their potential ARM acquisition.
You're right on crypto mining. It's difficult to know how many GPU purchases were actually for gamers, and how much pent-up demand there is for gaming GPUs.
Not exactly the TCO on a Mac is lower over a 4 year period than a PC in an Enterprise environment, a $2000 Macbook pro will easily outlive a $2000 PC in a grab and go environment, and once you factor in IT costs, software licensing, MDM systems, asset management, and all those other things Apple pulls way ahead for Total Cost of Ownership, there are a lot of studies to back this up.
From the business side of things, at least on my end, I don't have any windows only programs left that you would notice any performance difference on, nobody really has time to reboot their machine during the workday to use Bootcamp so we use Parallels and it's doing great, the Windows-only software is more than happy running on a 7-year-old i3, the M1's and their Rosetta 2 still run circles around those, so running an ancient i3 at 60% load vs a new M1 at 8% load for a full-screen application does nothing but cut down on fan noise and the electrical bill. Just about everything is now running as a web app, in Citrix, or has a macOS version so "better" windows performance is at best arbitrary. The only thing they really care about is power on times, how long it takes from clicking the icon until it is in front of them, and how loud everybody else's keyboard seems to be now that they no longer have the humming of a desktop fan running next to them.
As they did for the intel transition, and the one before that, and the one before that.... and yet me thinks that those transitions all worked out better for Apple than it did for those naysayers, hahahaha....
There are plenty of AMD based laptops that outperform the M1's. The M1 isn't about best performance but best battery life vs x86 offerings.
Then why do you have a 9900K? Obviously the M1 can't do certain things the 9900K machine can do, including 8TB SSD. I highly doubt the M1 would outperform the 9900K but I can't find any benchmarks since the M1's are always compared to other laptops, for good reason.
Here you go:
Plenty is a bit of a stretch the M1 basically trades blows with the AMD 5980HX when similarly configured, but of course, the 5980HX can be configured with significantly more ram, HDD space, and is often paired with a 3070 or better so once you start adding those things the AMD is going to pull ahead by a long shot but then you are comparing a 14w device to a 54-105w system depending on how you configure that AMD.
Well I've had both of these, and it was my experience that for native windows apps/usage, my 9900k ran circles around the M1-14" for the tasks I needed a computer for....
