That Apple was able to just pull out M4 after Qualcomm released their specs hints to me that they have a bunch of stuff up their sleeve to improve performance. So we have a horserace between Qualcomm and Apple but Apple has a decent lead. Intel and AMD aren't even in the performance picture these days; even with water-cooled monsters that recommend 1KW PSUs. I could see Apple alternating GPU and CPU performance improvements. Intel's not dead because they're getting $8.5 billion from the US Government but I suspect it's more for fabbing than x86. Intel's had 4 years to respond to Apple Silicon and they aren't getting it done on efficiency. This is almost starting to sound like there are physics problems that can't be resolved in x86 which is why Microsoft is moving fast to ARM. It will be interesting to see if someone can figure out how to run Windows 11 ARM on an iPad Pro.
I would guess that M2 and M3 just took longer than Apple wanted and M4 is closer to their original schedule, helped by TSMC not wanting to stay on the low yield first gen N3 node. I don’t think Apple intentionally did this to fight Qualcomm, more of a happy accident.
Don't forget that the new Snapdragon is only faster than the M3 when it uses 100 % of the package power. The new snapdragon comes in 2 forms. One with low power and one with high power usage and it is only the high power usage that is faster than the M3. And Qualcomm has no answer for the M3 Pro max or the M4 Pro, Max, Ultra and the extreme.
@@Exodai-Academy I assume that they're following Apple's path with the base model first. Apple just has a big lead on them doing these kinds of SoCs and I'm sure that there will be some things that need to be fixed. In the meantime, if you want a good laptop to run Windows 11 ARM, you buy the M2 or M3 MacBook Pro 14 or 16.
You can always tell a MAC fan when they compare Apple CPU benchmarks with Intel instead of AMD. And if that isn't enough, there is always the own goal with Apple in their pricing and refusal to allow 3rd party repairs.
Apple do allow third party repairs, including using second hand parts. And we compared with Intel as that chip WAS the highest single core performance available. Until the fanless M4 in an iPad. I could compare with AMD but it would just be more of a bloodbath.
@@iCaveDave Yes, Apple have watered down their rules on right to repair a month ago after a consumer backlash. I don't doubt the efficiency of the M4, but your own graphs show single digit gains over Intel. That's not great given all the media hype. But as I said, the kicker is in the pricing, which is at least 2-3 times to only use a handful of apps ! I don't see the value in that.
@@iCaveDave The M4 is very good, but the price means everyone will buy the Intel or AMD product. Unfortunately for Apple, over charging customers is less sustainable when cost of living is going through the roof.
@Matlockization you can’t just buy an M4 chip though, and once it’s in a Mac mini the whole system will be sub $600. That’s a way better value than pretty much any 86 desktop.
Nonsense. Intel is not going anywhere. As for Windows, it will run on both Intel and ARM. Win win! As for Apple, well their their stuff looks good...in their ecosystem. The world is a lot bigger than MacOS.
We’ll see. Once ARM chips get traction on the Windows side I think the change will be dramatic, though it could take 3-5 years to hit the tipping point
Intel and Amd are affordable Just because Apple is good doesn’t mean it is suitable for all application No one wants a expensive RUclips / Netflix watching machine
@@Vj-mi7fi I struggle to work out how you decide intel and AMD are cheaper when they make just the chip. You can't buy an M4 on its own so how are you comparing?
What has a low end motherboard? This is the thing, it’s very hard to compare, because Apple sells a complete unit, with small footprint, zero noise, low power consumption, extremely fast storage etc, not all of which can really be given a specific money value. You also get a full office suite in iWork and a decently powerful video and audio edit suite in iMovie and GarageBand. And MacOS never charges for updates. There’s advantages to both, but it’s not an easy comparison to make.
@@iCaveDave don’t be so salty. Apple’s M tablets and laptops are on a steady decline at the moment. Apple stock is only balanced by strong iPhone sales and pump’n’dump through buybacks. It’s not like Apple is smashing it either, purely based on devices sold.
I have been a Mac user since 1984 ( Yes I'm and old) and I'm not pro Intel. Intel is on verge to deliver a new chip manufacturing technology (ruclips.net/video/FBz0lUP-A9s/видео.htmlsi=K4x8SMdYJrZiOwDr). Obviously they have to deliver and God knows that the don't have the best records. Intel will probably move to Arm or Risc5 technology very soon. They will slowly scale out of the X86 production (That is easy now as Apple as shown with the use of a software layer such as Rosetta 2) . Intel will not die so easily. Especially the US government as no interest to let Intel die. They will support massive investment in Intel to save them. Intel is just to important to the USA and the defense industry. I do not believe that the US wants to have their defense industry running on products produce in Taiwan and/or using open source chips.
Of course they'll still be working. What would stop working in them? Your point doesn't make much sense. My 1998 G3 iMac works. Doesn't mean it's something worth using daily.
@@iCaveDave soldered/glued ram, ssd, gpu and everything else. That will most likely make those computers stop working...ofc in combination with the high usage of the ssd as "ram replacement", because 640k (8 lousy gb) should be enough for everybody. One can still replace almost everything on the g3. My mac pro from 2010 was peak apple (Still running in my recording studio like a charm). The glued and soldered mess, that followed, not so much
That might be true for laptops, but not for pcs. If my x86-based machine brakes down, i can and will replace almost anything damaged within a few minutes. If my arm-based mac studio/pro/mini brakes down, it's electronic waste. No matter how little the damage is. ARM is a total mess for (semi-)professional users. It works for convenience mobil devices though. tablets, phones, and even laptops are quite nice in that regard. I may add, the difference in speed is insignificant. amds threadripper is no joke, far from it.
You have a very fun future with SOC and I had the same ride with Apple Motorola prior to Steven going to Intel. It's been a FUN ride mate. Loved every year of it. Have a great week.
Yes and no. People said the same in the 90s. How could we eve need more than 250mb of storage? Tasks continue to grow in complexity, and will always improve to fill the available compute.
For simple (read: dumb) productivity, yes. For AR/VR, and AI enhanced productivity, creativity and next gen killer apps, nope! Besides hardware, creating the OS platform of the next gen is the issue. Waiting for WWDC 2024! But yes, marketing for next level will become hugely important.
It's not the performance, it's the marketing and the pushing users for upgrade tactics. Or sure on Laptops, comparing the last good Macbook (the 2015) with the Air M1, it was an insanely good upgrade. The MacBooks in-between really show how Apple is able to make horrible decisions based on bottom line instead of the machines. But the 2020 iMac is a better machine for many still than any other options Mac have. The claim because it's like comparing if your car have 900 or 1200 horse powers, while you only use it for driving in the city. The Mac Studio with a display is horrible to work on if you are into Design ... it reminds me of my setup 20 years ago. The Box is such an annoying distraction ... and so is a normal monitor to be honest! And the the new 24" M iMacs are horrible for pro users ... fine computers for a store front or home private computer ... but horrible for pro users! There is no longer a desktop Mac for designers ... only for movie editors and people that render other insanely heavy tasks really. But I guess that's a result of stop working with Johny Ive.
Apple Silicon has the lead, Qualcomm is looking promising, Nvidia just announced they are officially joining the ARM for PC race alongside mediatek... and I promise you that AMD will be announcing their ARM for PC projects next... if Intel doesn't get with the program they are gonna be screwwwwed.
My theory is desktops will eventually move away from X86 whether it’s to ARM or a hole new architecture. I feel that X86 is already holding our desktops back from their full potential.
The average Apple fan is yelling for nothing. I don't wanna waste on a product that doesn't do heavy tasks for engineers. Not having hardware acceleration is a huge NO for 99% of the engineers. Maybe some street editors need such expensive trash. Heard that m4 has only 38 tops of AI performance whereas my 4090 has over 1900 tops AI hardware acceleration with ML and DL.
But, software is king. Intel and Win have long history keeping compatibility with old software. So they have more challenges to innovate. Apple ruin software with each updates. And kill lot of hardware. Or slow it down. I would worry more for apple because they forgot developers and professional users.
Windows have announced they’re killing 32 bit already. Apple pushes forward while Windows kneecaps their future development to keep a handful of edge cases going for too long.
People need to look at the history of Intel and how they ran their company Apple begged intel and I say begged in 2010 to improved their processors and Intel didnt think apple at the time was worth the investment, yes bad decision. Apple made prototypes over 8 years and Intel never impoved their chips think about that 8 years and you may ask why? Look at the executive bonuses they chose to make money instead of improving the product and they now after 14 years playing catch up in the consumer market. I hope the bonuses were worth the destruction of the company. Intel is done, Nvidia should have never leapfrog over intel unless they were asleep at the wheel. Intel night night
Let‘s face it: x86 systems are OLD. They consume too much power for their performance. They need to get rid of it. It‘s just alive because „compatibility is king“. Apple did it just: cut off what you don’t need. It may hurt some time, but eventually you’ll see the benefit. Battery life on x86/AMD64 systems are a joke when utilising the Laptops with more than 150 nits display and a YT video. Have a look at MacTechs videos for example. Let it die - R.I.P.
X86 has sucked for years and is expensive - manufacturers will be running hard for alternatives when available. The intel X86 cash cow will die die FAST
Apple could lead the market issue is apple itself refusing to let go of control of its products , this is why they lost PC race with Microsoft, phone race against Android Google and will lose the chip race against Qualcomm,Intel amd etc.
It is the end for Intel for the high price of its CPU. The birth of Apple Silicon Chip will face consequences if it follows Intel's footsteps. It is unknown about the Huawei CPU chip laptop cost and price of its laptops.
With Apple and Snapdragon now competing against each other in the PC market, it will ensure new hardware functionality is added to the SOC chips. The M4 chip gives Apple the starting point they wanted two years ago. I assume the next step is to improve GPU and multi-media capabilities. Intel is in for a hell of a challenge. Is the Apple Silicon release in 2020 similar to the iPhone release in 2007? It could just be because Snapdragon is trying hard to win the Windows market.
This is nonsense. What is happening now is because Intel lost focus last decade pursuing everything related with exascale: lustre filesystem, Omnipath, processors etc. Intel was even doing the modem for Apple. Intel has deep pockets and a lot of very smart people who know about processors. Now they are back on track, but it takes time to establish a new processor line. Apple is working on their silicon for ages (2010 m4?) so it's no surprise that they have a good processo after 14 years.
@@iCaveDave By "back on track" means on the right direction. Intel got rid of the distraction like file system and interconnect to focus on processors. The meteor lake or Gaudi are a step in the right direction.
Great minds think alike-very big grin. A week ago, I posted this comment on a PC centric website when they announced the introduction of the M4 iPad Pro. "IMO, after watching the iPad keynote and the debut of the amazing tech the new iPad Pro tablets incorporate, I couldn't help but think about the major historical significance of this product. Let me start by stating there are reasons that no one comments on computer products using Motorola CPUs (like the 68000 family) and why no one comments on products using the PowerPC chipsets anymore. With the debut of the M4 SOC chip family (with a 38 trillion ops Neural Engine) and a vastly superior energy efficiency power rating, the days of mainstream consumer products using x86 CMOS chip designs are numbered. Fairly soon, people will stop referring to products incorporating "x86" CMOS designs - because there won't be any!" At the time I wrote that comment, I had not seen the Geekbench scores for the M4 processor. Even I was amazed!
*Assuming they’re right* the Geekbench scores are epic. I don’t really doubt they are, there’s a lot appearing presumably from the review units out there. It bodes WELL for Apple.
Now let's see how much it is about Apple's and ARM's "efficiency" Intel 14900k at 10nm(equivalent to 7nm TSMC) geekbench 6 average single core score 3098 Ipad air 8th generation TSMC 7 nm , geekbench 6 average single core score 1292 Apple m1 max TSMC 5nm , average geekbench 6 single core score 2380 Intel core ultra 7 165h at intel's 7 nm(about equivalent to TSMC's 5 nm) geekbench single core score from 2300 to 2500 depending on the source. I don't see any particular gains on efficiency either on Intel's x86 cores or on Apple's M cores, as long as lithography is about the same. You can say TSMC destroyed Intel at reaching first higher and most efficient densities , but you can't say Apple destroyed Intel in any other universe, but in an insane one. Plus you are touting Apple Silicon all the time. Apple silicon this , Apple silicon that . Just a moment please, take a deep breath and relax. Apple designs its own cpus, indeed, but all it has done is a very efficient modification of the ARM instruction set on the silicon. Intel on the other hand both developed and evolved the x86 instruction set and makes its own lithographies. If there is someone that is entitled to speak about own silicon this is Intel. Apple got very arrogant , basing its arrogance on the sales , but people still remember it during the days it was no more than a glorified Dell that was assembling pcs gathering products of other companies , Intel , AMD, nVidia and so on. Now it may seem like a feat to the internals on Apple that "designed" "their own silicon", and it is a feat , but not something to lose sleep about. Ultimately Apple will prevail because there is cancer inside Intel , and Pat still seems to struggle against it. But it will prevail on the complete failure of Intel to go on building its own lithographies, not because it designs faster and more effcient cpus. And it will prevail on the complete failure of microsoft to timely incorporate other ARM chips in its windows environment. It was suppposed to do this with snapdragon X elite during the launch of M2 (natural competitor of X elite). But they took their sweet time. They waited and waited and waited , until Apple moved forward to TSMC's N3B. And then they waited and they waited until Apple moved to to TSMC N3E. And only after this they tried to make some laptops with the xElite on TSMC's 4nm. Now what ? Do they want a cookie? They will lose and will lose miserably, because it takes eons to move their fat ass. And Apple will be boasting the fastest and more "efficient" chips. Well you know what ? Intel and Microsoft can go and keep company to Huawei. Difference is , Huawei got themselves a handicap from an external factor. Intel and microsoft inflicted the handicap by themselves.
@@iCaveDave Because Intel's latest and greatest is built on a similar(not identical) lithography as M1 is built . So, it is valid to compare them, when comparing efficiency of different chip architectures. Comparing Intel's latest and greatest with Apple's latest and greatest , on the other hand is absolutely incorrect , because Apple's latest and greatest is built on a far more efficient and dense lithography. Point is , valid comparisons , show chip design plays negligible role , when someone examines performance or energy efficiency. At least when someone takes into account lithography which seems to play the main differentiating role. Of course someone would claim that you can't even compare Apple's chips as Apple silicon, because it is a fabless company and so there is no Apple's silicon , because it all comes from TSMC. Still the point of this argument was not to compare prowess in lithography but chip architecture. So, the comparison can be done keeping of course an equal basis criteria , which is hardly mentioned to the ignorant public which is often dealt as fertile ground for unsubstantiated ads.
@@iCaveDave yes , of course, I am stating this clearly , they are behind . But not because their chip design or x86 is less efficient. They are working on an outdated lithography not far from what Huawei is working on, hence the remark in the first comment.
Yes, but just putting enough capital into building a current gen fab is slightly more money than Apple has spent on R&D in the past 40+ years. It’s not trivial
Windows is almost there when it comes to running well on Arm. Windows 11 works pretty well on my M1 Max Macbook Pro in VMWare Fusion Player. And Microsoft Office and most other productivity apps work as well. Haven't really tried gaming though. They still need some work there. I hear Crossover for Mac has been doing a pretty good job, but still a lot of compatibility issues.
M series do less, faster. We need backwards compatibility. Apple sales are falling due to m series. ARM is 40 years old, not sure why Apple thought it was the future. This video completely misses the point. People still want expandability, Apple just isnt. ruclips.net/video/MATm0_m8iRY/видео.html
You know what's funny - the video you've linked is right - people aren't upgrading from M1 Macs because it was such a massive jump FROM Intel. That is the message of the video. There's no need to upgrade. Apple is bringing in people from Windows, and from older Intel Macs, not trying to get M1 owners to buy an M2, M3 or M4.
4o being demoed on Apple silicon, and Windows versions of 4o not available until later... the programming bias may flip away from Windows to Mac more and more.
Have to say I've noticed a very dramatic difference between my intel i9 mbp and my m3 max mbp. I mean really dramatic. It leaves the intel one for dust without breaking a sweat.
No doubt at all. I'm now 65 years of age and have been waiting for SOC the longest time. This ancient late 80's?- current days of component PC's are way overdue to be lost in time. I now find myself buying only SCSI 5.25" or larger bare drives for their investment value. Even a modest red Apple stickered HD of 20MB - 340MB are now fetching US$500.00 for a "working" unit. Gotta tell you something.
@@iCaveDave Gone HUGE! I mean it's crazy now and I started with the original in 1984 and then "worked" with late 80's through late 90's pre Bondi iMac and I just love them.
Why would anyone want to purchase the genocide chip which supports a country that is taking freedom of speech away from the United States through its powerful Lobby organizations
Intel is not going anywhere ! I have both the 14 MacBook Pro and the new MSI 16 with the latest Intel Ultra processor with ARC onboard and both laptops edit my 4K videos in Davinci effortlessly. Secondly , battery life is great on the MSI as well. Thirdly , please don’t forget that Intel is HUGE in the B2B space , and just imagine all of those cloud services you mentioned and the data centers powering those services , Intel is still huge in that arena. Just my 2 cents. Competing is good for all of us ..
x86 as a platform tech is obviously in its sunset years but Intel could yet outlast it. They have the US govt spending tens of billions to onshore chip fabrication which has helped them recover from their serial embarrassing failures to deliver on their promised CPU generation upgrades. It remains to be seen how they recover in the medium term but their customer sector base is so broad they can survive for years without being anywhere near the leading edge. The fact that Intel still retains pretty respectable market share in laptops & PCs says more about AMD failure to scale & capitalise on their tech advantage. Anyway, if you want to laugh at a massive zombie failed tech company, it’s got to be Dell. 😂
Most cloud providers are highly interested in arm architectures and making moves (so Intel is slowly declining on that end too). Think about it, they have a lot of servers and the performance/efficiency gap we're seeing now on consumer products is magnified in those kinds of environments. You can always scale to performance as much as you like, question is at what cost (efficiency)? Intel needs to figure out their stuff coz the gap is getting wider. It's sink or swim
@@iCaveDave In 1978 at the age of 8 I was sat down in front of an Apple II. I learned about computers and gaming from there. Even had an Apple IIc. Fond memories. Modern Apple? I hate walled gardens and anti consumer practices with a hatred hotter than the core of the Sun. Apple represents all I have grown to recognize as evil.
With same or better efficiency? Performance is not everything if your chip requires 10x more power for 10 % higher performance. Putting such chips into laptops becomes problematic. Big and loud fans, low battery life and much worse performance when running on battery because at full power, it would not be able to run for more than half and hour. Which is what we see currently on PC laptops. On the other hand, Macbooks can run at full power even on battery. And typically, without turning fans on at all.
I have a m2 mac mini and an intel pc 11th gen i7, 32gb ram, nvidia gpu (gtx 1060) the intel pc was cheaper than the Mac. Running ollama with llama 3 my Mac choked and was unusable. The intel pc was much more usable though slow. The intel cpu is way slower than the m2 but pairing it with an old nvidia gpu and being cheaper means something. Also for Word, Excel, email web browsing etc the cpu makes no difference at all. All are fast enough. Also when it comes to business apps the Windows versions are often better.
I took an intel campus tour in Phoenix and got taken behind closed doors as a small group of university students. The projects they showed us were water cooled cpus under refrigeration and cooling. Engineers showed us what their work is and what they do day to day. I was not impressed because they only showed us the test rigs and thermal cycling of the next generation Intel Atom. They showed us how they fed 1 KW to a next generation Xeon and wanted to dissipate all that heat. I didn't see any manufacturing processes.
why would it be dead? most systems in the world are still running windows, entire industries operate on software designed for windows. probably even machines that assemble macs. so apple’s innovation with their base pricing, artificial limitations like “8 gig ram is enough”, and inability to upgrade or even fix their computers make their computers exclusively a user solution aimed at making customers buy more. intel is absolutely safe. in the recent years apple has done everything to make industrial clients consider alternatives.
Not because of Mac, but that Microsoft has seen what Apple Silicon has done and is starting to embrace ARM natively. Once that starts, there’s no stopping it.
AMD becomes much bigger competition for Intel these days, especially in servers market where power consumption is critical. This is area where Intel can't compete and customers do not even think about Intel. When building data center, having more than 3x bigger requirements for power and thus, cooling is deciding factor here.
Geekbench 6 uses some AI stuff the 14900KS doesn’t have any hardware acceleration for that. The 15th gen will probably beat the M4 by a lot again I presume. Not that I am defending Intel 😆
We’ll see - the AI stuff doesn’t affect the basic Single & Multi core scores, the AI parts are things like object removal which are seperately scored down the page I believe
@@iCaveDave Geekbench CPU scores are memory dependant(it's more of a responsiveness score as opposed to the raw CPU speed score that you find with cinebench). Companies like using geekbench for their ARM chip comparisons because the RAM is usually soldered and as such they tend to be able to choose higher bandwidth RAM than comparable socket RAM computers. For the most part it's a comparison of apples and oranges, but it makes the ARM computer appear good. Skewed expectations from these/similar benchmarks is mostly the reason that people were disappointed with the Qualcomm 8cx etc.
Only in apple devices and thats not a detail its the reason they can if they want to dominate or go in any direction they want. The rest of the market can use apple as a 'this can be done' focus point but they really compete in the rest of the market where apple is not.
@@iCaveDave i never use that shit,i am PC user!!mac is fine only for applications optimised for it while for everything else like gaming and everything else are waste of money
That Apple was able to just pull out M4 after Qualcomm released their specs hints to me that they have a bunch of stuff up their sleeve to improve performance. So we have a horserace between Qualcomm and Apple but Apple has a decent lead. Intel and AMD aren't even in the performance picture these days; even with water-cooled monsters that recommend 1KW PSUs. I could see Apple alternating GPU and CPU performance improvements.
Intel's not dead because they're getting $8.5 billion from the US Government but I suspect it's more for fabbing than x86. Intel's had 4 years to respond to Apple Silicon and they aren't getting it done on efficiency. This is almost starting to sound like there are physics problems that can't be resolved in x86 which is why Microsoft is moving fast to ARM.
It will be interesting to see if someone can figure out how to run Windows 11 ARM on an iPad Pro.
I'd bet my house on your comment sir! Have a great week.
I would guess that M2 and M3 just took longer than Apple wanted and M4 is closer to their original schedule, helped by TSMC not wanting to stay on the low yield first gen N3 node. I don’t think Apple intentionally did this to fight Qualcomm, more of a happy accident.
Don't forget that the new Snapdragon is only faster than the M3 when it uses 100 % of the package power. The new snapdragon comes in 2 forms. One with low power and one with high power usage and it is only the high power usage that is faster than the M3.
And Qualcomm has no answer for the M3 Pro max or the M4 Pro, Max, Ultra and the extreme.
@Exodai-Academy oh, I know. Everyone only ever looks at the biggest numbers though, I’ve learnt that much!
@@Exodai-Academy I assume that they're following Apple's path with the base model first. Apple just has a big lead on them doing these kinds of SoCs and I'm sure that there will be some things that need to be fixed. In the meantime, if you want a good laptop to run Windows 11 ARM, you buy the M2 or M3 MacBook Pro 14 or 16.
You can always tell a MAC fan when they compare Apple CPU benchmarks with Intel instead of AMD. And if that isn't enough, there is always the own goal with Apple in their pricing and refusal to allow 3rd party repairs.
Apple do allow third party repairs, including using second hand parts. And we compared with Intel as that chip WAS the highest single core performance available. Until the fanless M4 in an iPad. I could compare with AMD but it would just be more of a bloodbath.
@@iCaveDave Yes, Apple have watered down their rules on right to repair a month ago after a consumer backlash. I don't doubt the efficiency of the M4, but your own graphs show single digit gains over Intel. That's not great given all the media hype. But as I said, the kicker is in the pricing, which is at least 2-3 times to only use a handful of apps ! I don't see the value in that.
Single digit gains using a quarter of the power and on the lowest performance chip in Apple’s range in a fanless iPad. Yes.
@@iCaveDave The M4 is very good, but the price means everyone will buy the Intel or AMD product. Unfortunately for Apple, over charging customers is less sustainable when cost of living is going through the roof.
@Matlockization you can’t just buy an M4 chip though, and once it’s in a Mac mini the whole system will be sub $600. That’s a way better value than pretty much any 86 desktop.
Nonsense. Intel is not going anywhere. As for Windows, it will run on both Intel and ARM. Win win! As for Apple, well their their stuff looks good...in their ecosystem. The world is a lot bigger than MacOS.
We’ll see. Once ARM chips get traction on the Windows side I think the change will be dramatic, though it could take 3-5 years to hit the tipping point
Naah. Arm will not be powerful enough in the future.
Intel and Amd are affordable
Just because Apple is good doesn’t mean it is suitable for all application
No one wants a expensive RUclips / Netflix watching machine
You’re right. I guess that’s why you can get an iPad for £350 brand new.
@@iCaveDave brand new old gen , one plus tabs are better for that price
@@Vj-mi7fi I struggle to work out how you decide intel and AMD are cheaper when they make just the chip. You can't buy an M4 on its own so how are you comparing?
@@iCaveDave they have low end mother board that have max ram and storage capacity compared to Apple
What has a low end motherboard? This is the thing, it’s very hard to compare, because Apple sells a complete unit, with small footprint, zero noise, low power consumption, extremely fast storage etc, not all of which can really be given a specific money value. You also get a full office suite in iWork and a decently powerful video and audio edit suite in iMovie and GarageBand. And MacOS never charges for updates. There’s advantages to both, but it’s not an easy comparison to make.
Not another YT channel for applebros patting each other on the back :) Intel isn't going anywhere.
Tell that to their stock price.
I'd add though, it's not Apple that will kill Intel, it's Intel that will if they're too stubborn to move to a modern architecture instead of X86.
@@iCaveDave don’t be so salty. Apple’s M tablets and laptops are on a steady decline at the moment. Apple stock is only balanced by strong iPhone sales and pump’n’dump through buybacks. It’s not like Apple is smashing it either, purely based on devices sold.
could well imagine that in 10 years, Windows will primarily run on ARM architecture. Unfortunately, sticking with x86 won't win any prizes anymore.
100% agreed. It won’t be overnight, and there’s work to be done around graphics and making use of separate GPUs but it’s coming I think
I thought your T-shirt was good but the Boeing comment cracked me up. Priceless.
Thank you!
I have been a Mac user since 1984 ( Yes I'm and old) and I'm not pro Intel. Intel is on verge to deliver a new chip manufacturing technology (ruclips.net/video/FBz0lUP-A9s/видео.htmlsi=K4x8SMdYJrZiOwDr). Obviously they have to deliver and God knows that the don't have the best records. Intel will probably move to Arm or Risc5 technology very soon. They will slowly scale out of the X86 production (That is easy now as Apple as shown with the use of a software layer such as Rosetta 2) . Intel will not die so easily. Especially the US government as no interest to let Intel die. They will support massive investment in Intel to save them. Intel is just to important to the USA and the defense industry. I do not believe that the US wants to have their defense industry running on products produce in Taiwan and/or using open source chips.
AMD and Apple are both American too. Intel isn’t magic.
My late 2009 IMac 24 is still working . I wonder how just long an M1, 2 ,3, 4 machine will last ? 15 years ? Pull the other one .
Of course they'll still be working. What would stop working in them? Your point doesn't make much sense. My 1998 G3 iMac works. Doesn't mean it's something worth using daily.
@@iCaveDave soldered/glued ram, ssd, gpu and everything else. That will most likely make those computers stop working...ofc in combination with the high usage of the ssd as "ram replacement", because 640k (8 lousy gb) should be enough for everybody.
One can still replace almost everything on the g3. My mac pro from 2010 was peak apple (Still running in my recording studio like a charm). The glued and soldered mess, that followed, not so much
My M1 Pro leaving me with zero reason to upgrade. Their sales are going down because their product has become so gooooood.
@@doemis8573 I mean the GpU is an art of the SIP, that’s like being annoyed you can’t upgrade integrated graphics on an Intel chip. Same same.
That might be true for laptops, but not for pcs.
If my x86-based machine brakes down, i can and will replace almost anything damaged within a few minutes. If my arm-based mac studio/pro/mini brakes down, it's electronic waste. No matter how little the damage is.
ARM is a total mess for (semi-)professional users. It works for convenience mobil devices though. tablets, phones, and even laptops are quite nice in that regard.
I may add, the difference in speed is insignificant. amds threadripper is no joke, far from it.
You have a very fun future with SOC and I had the same ride with Apple Motorola prior to Steven going to Intel. It's been a FUN ride mate. Loved every year of it. Have a great week.
I had my fun with the old BBC Acorns - probably some of the oldest ARM chip powered systems too!
"Because it's a Boeing." LOL
Felt right.
The CPUs are getting to the level where almost nobody needs more power. Marketing will become more important than performance.
Yes and no. People said the same in the 90s. How could we eve need more than 250mb of storage? Tasks continue to grow in complexity, and will always improve to fill the available compute.
@@iCaveDave If anything the OS will grow to need a new chip.
For simple (read: dumb) productivity, yes. For AR/VR, and AI enhanced productivity, creativity and next gen killer apps, nope! Besides hardware, creating the OS platform of the next gen is the issue. Waiting for WWDC 2024! But yes, marketing for next level will become hugely important.
It's not the performance, it's the marketing and the pushing users for upgrade tactics.
Or sure on Laptops, comparing the last good Macbook (the 2015) with the Air M1, it was an insanely good upgrade.
The MacBooks in-between really show how Apple is able to make horrible decisions based on bottom line instead of the machines.
But the 2020 iMac is a better machine for many still than any other options Mac have.
The claim because it's like comparing if your car have 900 or 1200 horse powers, while you only use it for driving in the city.
The Mac Studio with a display is horrible to work on if you are into Design ... it reminds me of my setup 20 years ago.
The Box is such an annoying distraction ... and so is a normal monitor to be honest!
And the the new 24" M iMacs are horrible for pro users ... fine computers for a store front or home private computer ... but horrible for pro users!
There is no longer a desktop Mac for designers ... only for movie editors and people that render other insanely heavy tasks really.
But I guess that's a result of stop working with Johny Ive.
The 2020 iMac is not a better choice than Apple silicon. At all.
@@iCaveDave for allot of professionels it is; you are blind on specs.
Its a much better form factor do do design work at than a box and a monitor.
Apple Silicon has the lead, Qualcomm is looking promising, Nvidia just announced they are officially joining the ARM for PC race alongside mediatek... and I promise you that AMD will be announcing their ARM for PC projects next... if Intel doesn't get with the program they are gonna be screwwwwed.
Exactly
My theory is desktops will eventually move away from X86 whether it’s to ARM or a hole new architecture. I feel that X86 is already holding our desktops back from their full potential.
They have been held back for over 10 years - tablets simply couldn’t have happened with these
Yep! Well, Apple’s desktops are already there…
The average Apple fan is yelling for nothing. I don't wanna waste on a product that doesn't do heavy tasks for engineers. Not having hardware acceleration is a huge NO for 99% of the engineers. Maybe some street editors need such expensive trash. Heard that m4 has only 38 tops of AI performance whereas my 4090 has over 1900 tops AI hardware acceleration with ML and DL.
A huge no for 99% of engineers. Who make up 0.5% of the market? It’s okay for it not to be for you. It’s for most people.
But, software is king. Intel and Win have long history keeping compatibility with old software. So they have more challenges to innovate. Apple ruin software with each updates. And kill lot of hardware. Or slow it down. I would worry more for apple because they forgot developers and professional users.
Windows have announced they’re killing 32 bit already. Apple pushes forward while Windows kneecaps their future development to keep a handful of edge cases going for too long.
People need to look at the history of Intel and how they ran their company Apple begged intel and I say begged in 2010 to improved their processors and Intel didnt think apple at the time was worth the investment, yes bad decision. Apple made prototypes over 8 years and Intel never impoved their chips think about that 8 years and you may ask why? Look at the executive bonuses they chose to make money instead of improving the product and they now after 14 years playing catch up in the consumer market. I hope the bonuses were worth the destruction of the company. Intel is done, Nvidia should have never leapfrog over intel unless they were asleep at the wheel. Intel night night
Absolutely. If Intel had GOOD low energy chips, the 12” MacBook would have been a massive success. Instead they pushed Apple to their own chips.
Let‘s face it: x86 systems are OLD. They consume too much power for their performance. They need to get rid of it. It‘s just alive because „compatibility is king“. Apple did it just: cut off what you don’t need. It may hurt some time, but eventually you’ll see the benefit.
Battery life on x86/AMD64 systems are a joke when utilising the Laptops with more than 150 nits display and a YT video. Have a look at MacTechs videos for example.
Let it die - R.I.P.
100% agreed!👍
X86 has sucked for years and is expensive - manufacturers will be running hard for alternatives when available. The intel X86 cash cow will die die FAST
I believe so.
Apple could lead the market issue is apple itself refusing to let go of control of its products , this is why they lost PC race with Microsoft, phone race against Android Google and will lose the chip race against Qualcomm,Intel amd etc.
You’re funny, considered doing stand up?
It is the end for Intel for the high price of its CPU. The birth of Apple Silicon Chip will face consequences if it follows Intel's footsteps. It is unknown about the Huawei CPU chip laptop cost and price of its laptops.
As Apple doesn’t sell their chips to anyone else that’s just not an issue
With Apple and Snapdragon now competing against each other in the PC market, it will ensure new hardware functionality is added to the SOC chips. The M4 chip gives Apple the starting point they wanted two years ago. I assume the next step is to improve GPU and multi-media capabilities.
Intel is in for a hell of a challenge. Is the Apple Silicon release in 2020 similar to the iPhone release in 2007? It could just be because Snapdragon is trying hard to win the Windows market.
It’s an exciting time either way!
May God Bless BootCamp Assistant's users :>
I’m still one on my old 2013 iMac!
This is nonsense. What is happening now is because Intel lost focus last decade pursuing everything related with exascale: lustre filesystem, Omnipath, processors etc. Intel was even doing the modem for Apple. Intel has deep pockets and a lot of very smart people who know about processors. Now they are back on track, but it takes time to establish a new processor line. Apple is working on their silicon for ages (2010 m4?) so it's no surprise that they have a good processo after 14 years.
You think the way Intel looks now is “Back on track?” Jeez.
@@iCaveDave By "back on track" means on the right direction. Intel got rid of the distraction like file system and interconnect to focus on processors. The meteor lake or Gaudi are a step in the right direction.
It's too soon to say. Intel is doing a comeback. Give it now to 2 years.
I think we said that 2 years ago. And a couple of years before that too.
Great minds think alike-very big grin. A week ago, I posted this comment on a PC centric website when they announced the introduction of the M4 iPad Pro.
"IMO, after watching the iPad keynote and the debut of the amazing tech the new iPad Pro tablets incorporate, I couldn't help but think about the major historical significance of this product. Let me start by stating there are reasons that no one comments on computer products using Motorola CPUs (like the 68000 family) and why no one comments on products using the PowerPC chipsets anymore.
With the debut of the M4 SOC chip family (with a 38 trillion ops Neural Engine) and a vastly superior energy efficiency power rating, the days of mainstream consumer products using x86 CMOS chip designs are numbered. Fairly soon, people will stop referring to products incorporating "x86" CMOS designs - because there won't be any!"
At the time I wrote that comment, I had not seen the Geekbench scores for the M4 processor. Even I was amazed!
*Assuming they’re right* the Geekbench scores are epic. I don’t really doubt they are, there’s a lot appearing presumably from the review units out there. It bodes WELL for Apple.
Now let's see how much it is about Apple's and ARM's "efficiency"
Intel 14900k at 10nm(equivalent to 7nm TSMC) geekbench 6 average single core score 3098
Ipad air 8th generation TSMC 7 nm , geekbench 6 average single core score 1292
Apple m1 max TSMC 5nm , average geekbench 6 single core score 2380
Intel core ultra 7 165h at intel's 7 nm(about equivalent to TSMC's 5 nm) geekbench single core score from 2300 to 2500 depending on the source.
I don't see any particular gains on efficiency either on Intel's x86 cores or on Apple's M cores,
as long as lithography is about the same.
You can say TSMC destroyed Intel at reaching first higher and most efficient densities ,
but you can't say Apple destroyed Intel in any other universe, but in an insane one.
Plus you are touting Apple Silicon all the time. Apple silicon this , Apple silicon that .
Just a moment please, take a deep breath and relax. Apple designs its own cpus, indeed,
but all it has done is a very efficient modification of the ARM instruction set on the silicon.
Intel on the other hand both developed and evolved the x86 instruction set and makes its own
lithographies. If there is someone that is entitled to speak about own silicon this is Intel.
Apple got very arrogant , basing its arrogance on the sales , but people still remember it during
the days it was no more than a glorified Dell that was assembling pcs gathering products
of other companies , Intel , AMD, nVidia and so on.
Now it may seem like a feat to the internals on Apple that "designed" "their own silicon", and
it is a feat , but not something to lose sleep about.
Ultimately Apple will prevail because there is cancer inside Intel , and Pat still seems to struggle against it.
But it will prevail on the complete failure of Intel to go on building its own lithographies, not because
it designs faster and more effcient cpus. And it will prevail on the complete failure of microsoft to timely
incorporate other ARM chips in its windows environment.
It was suppposed to do this with snapdragon X elite during the launch of M2 (natural competitor of X elite).
But they took their sweet time. They waited and waited and waited , until Apple moved forward to TSMC's N3B.
And then they waited and they waited until Apple moved to to TSMC N3E. And only after this they tried to make
some laptops with the xElite on TSMC's 4nm.
Now what ? Do they want a cookie? They will lose and will lose miserably, because it takes eons to move their fat ass.
And Apple will be boasting the fastest and more "efficient" chips.
Well you know what ? Intel and Microsoft can go and keep company to Huawei.
Difference is , Huawei got themselves a handicap from an external factor. Intel and microsoft
inflicted the handicap by themselves.
Why are you comparing Intel’s latest and greatest with a 3 year old M1 Max?? 😂😂😂🤡
@@iCaveDave Because Intel's latest and greatest is built on a similar(not identical) lithography as M1 is built . So, it is valid to compare them, when comparing efficiency of different chip architectures.
Comparing Intel's latest and greatest with Apple's latest and greatest , on the other hand is absolutely incorrect , because Apple's latest and greatest is built on a far more efficient and dense lithography.
Point is , valid comparisons , show chip design plays negligible role , when someone examines performance or energy efficiency. At least when someone takes into account lithography which seems to play the main differentiating role.
Of course someone would claim that you can't even compare Apple's chips as Apple silicon, because it is a fabless company and so there is no Apple's silicon , because it all comes from TSMC.
Still the point of this argument was not to compare prowess in lithography but chip architecture. So, the comparison can be done keeping of course an equal basis criteria , which is hardly mentioned to the ignorant public which is often dealt as fertile ground for unsubstantiated ads.
@@prodromosregalides3402 So what you're really saying is Intel are 4 years behind Apple? Got it.
@@iCaveDave yes , of course, I am stating this clearly , they are behind .
But not because their chip design or x86 is less efficient. They are working on an outdated lithography not far from what Huawei is working on, hence the remark in the first comment.
Honestly I want intel to pull them selves together and manufacture higher tech silicon nodes like Samsung and tsmc
Yes, but just putting enough capital into building a current gen fab is slightly more money than Apple has spent on R&D in the past 40+ years. It’s not trivial
@@iCaveDave Your comment makes no sense. Intel is releasing a 1.8nm chip this year, made in house. Apple and tsmc can't build 1.8nm chips yet.
The boeing reference had be laughing
I try…
It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of price.
All of the above
And Timmy Cook is no one's fool. Let me tell you. I'm excited for Apple and personal computing in general. ;-)
Absolutely!
@@denblaakop You can't even spell?
Windows is almost there when it comes to running well on Arm. Windows 11 works pretty well on my M1 Max Macbook Pro in VMWare Fusion Player. And Microsoft Office and most other productivity apps work as well. Haven't really tried gaming though. They still need some work there. I hear Crossover for Mac has been doing a pretty good job, but still a lot of compatibility issues.
Yeah I’ve been trying Whisky recently too, no joy yet!
But generally they use way too much power
That’s the big issue. Power consumption means less battery life, noisy fans, chunky designs… nothing good comes from it.
M series do less, faster. We need backwards compatibility. Apple sales are falling due to m series. ARM is 40 years old, not sure why Apple thought it was the future. This video completely misses the point. People still want expandability, Apple just isnt.
ruclips.net/video/MATm0_m8iRY/видео.html
No, MOST people never upgrade computers. And Apples sales are absolutely not falling because of Apple silicon.
@@iCaveDave I work in I.T, totally wrong.
@@zicadibrove4119 Great to know. You're still wrong.
You know what's funny - the video you've linked is right - people aren't upgrading from M1 Macs because it was such a massive jump FROM Intel. That is the message of the video. There's no need to upgrade. Apple is bringing in people from Windows, and from older Intel Macs, not trying to get M1 owners to buy an M2, M3 or M4.
@@iCaveDave Look at the Windows market share, dream on.
4o being demoed on Apple silicon, and Windows versions of 4o not available until later... the programming bias may flip away from Windows to Mac more and more.
Fingers crossed. And WWDC is not far away!
amd64 cpu architecture is over
I believe it’s close.
Have to say I've noticed a very dramatic difference between my intel i9 mbp and my m3 max mbp. I mean really dramatic. It leaves the intel one for dust without breaking a sweat.
So quiet on Apple silicon, less heat to disparate!
Intel has time to update x86
That depends - how much can it be updated without breaking old stuff?
If apple start selling their cpu to 3rd party, it would definitely kill intel.
They won't.
Add suspicious monkey meme in here
No doubt at all. I'm now 65 years of age and have been waiting for SOC the longest time. This ancient late 80's?- current days of component PC's are way overdue to be lost in time. I now find myself buying only SCSI 5.25" or larger bare drives for their investment value. Even a modest red Apple stickered HD of 20MB - 340MB are now fetching US$500.00 for a "working" unit. Gotta tell you something.
Vintage stuff, especially vintage Apple is definitely fetching a pretty penny these days!
@@iCaveDave Gone HUGE! I mean it's crazy now and I started with the original in 1984 and then "worked" with late 80's through late 90's pre Bondi iMac and I just love them.
Why would anyone want to purchase the genocide chip which supports a country that is taking freedom of speech away from the United States through its powerful Lobby organizations
Intel is not going anywhere ! I have both the 14 MacBook Pro and the new MSI 16 with the latest Intel Ultra processor with ARC onboard and both laptops edit my 4K videos in Davinci effortlessly.
Secondly , battery life is great on the MSI as well.
Thirdly , please don’t forget that Intel is HUGE in the B2B space , and just imagine all of those cloud services you mentioned and the data centers powering those services , Intel is still huge in that arena.
Just my 2 cents. Competing is good for all of us ..
Absolutely, but I feel like B2B will notice ARM too pretty soon.
x86 as a platform tech is obviously in its sunset years but Intel could yet outlast it. They have the US govt spending tens of billions to onshore chip fabrication which has helped them recover from their serial embarrassing failures to deliver on their promised CPU generation upgrades. It remains to be seen how they recover in the medium term but their customer sector base is so broad they can survive for years without being anywhere near the leading edge. The fact that Intel still retains pretty respectable market share in laptops & PCs says more about AMD failure to scale & capitalise on their tech advantage. Anyway, if you want to laugh at a massive zombie failed tech company, it’s got to be Dell. 😂
Most cloud providers are highly interested in arm architectures and making moves (so Intel is slowly declining on that end too).
Think about it, they have a lot of servers and the performance/efficiency gap we're seeing now on consumer products is magnified in those kinds of environments. You can always scale to performance as much as you like, question is at what cost (efficiency)?
Intel needs to figure out their stuff coz the gap is getting wider. It's sink or swim
@philamavikane9423 one of the biggest costs for server farms and cloud is energy and cooling so it would make a lot of sense!
Remember, the world runs on Sun, they’re not going anywhere.
Uhmm, yeah. Same for Intel.
Apple sucks.
Nope, that's your mom. Say hi for me.
yes, it is a matter of time, unless... intel makes a smart move to arm or other risc architecture...
They might!
not dead but screwed, sad. i trusted them , now its as bad as AMD cpus
Do you think they have long left?
AMD?
AMD is protected by their graphics division, but if they don’t look beyond x86 it’s not great on the CPU front
Useless apple😂
Maybe not everyone's interested in data...
x86 has higher software compatibility and raw performance. Intel is awesome. For light works arm is good and efficient.
Crapple. Not even once.
Say what now?
@@iCaveDave In 1978 at the age of 8 I was sat down in front of an Apple II. I learned about computers and gaming from there. Even had an Apple IIc. Fond memories. Modern Apple? I hate walled gardens and anti consumer practices with a hatred hotter than the core of the Sun. Apple represents all I have grown to recognize as evil.
@daviddesrosiers1946 wow. I guess it’s lucky there’s windows and android for you then
@@iCaveDave I have windows machines, Linux machines and plenty of Android.
If you believe the rumors, Intel has a few chips in development that will challenge Apples M-series performance dominance.
I wait since haswell on this kind of cpu
@@safebet5841 LOL!
It’s been said a lot of times, but it needs to challenge on efficiency too, and that’s where Intel has always struggled massively.
With same or better efficiency? Performance is not everything if your chip requires 10x more power for 10 % higher performance. Putting such chips into laptops becomes problematic. Big and loud fans, low battery life and much worse performance when running on battery because at full power, it would not be able to run for more than half and hour. Which is what we see currently on PC laptops.
On the other hand, Macbooks can run at full power even on battery. And typically, without turning fans on at all.
@@ZhuJo99 - Dunno, I’m not arguing as your logic is sound.
Love the Apple Shirt T-shirt.
From the company store
@@iCaveDave And what company might that be?
You don't think intel will recover?
It depends how quickly they can adapt, but I think the writing is on the wall for X86, but Intel may pivot to ARM or RISC5
@@iCaveDave do you think risc is better?
I have a m2 mac mini and an intel pc 11th gen i7, 32gb ram, nvidia gpu (gtx 1060) the intel pc was cheaper than the Mac. Running ollama with llama 3 my Mac choked and was unusable. The intel pc was much more usable though slow. The intel cpu is way slower than the m2 but pairing it with an old nvidia gpu and being cheaper means something. Also for Word, Excel, email web browsing etc the cpu makes no difference at all. All are fast enough. Also when it comes to business apps the Windows versions are often better.
That’s fair, but I don’t know what the llamas are
I took an intel campus tour in Phoenix and got taken behind closed doors as a small group of university students. The projects they showed us were water cooled cpus under refrigeration and cooling. Engineers showed us what their work is and what they do day to day. I was not impressed because they only showed us the test rigs and thermal cycling of the next generation Intel Atom. They showed us how they fed 1 KW to a next generation Xeon and wanted to dissipate all that heat.
I didn't see any manufacturing processes.
You wouldn't in the US, pretty much all the fabrication is done overseas
@@iCaveDave, it was a manufacturing facility.
@wyattb3138 oh wow, genuinely didn’t know the fab’d in the Us
why would it be dead? most systems in the world are still running windows, entire industries operate on software designed for windows. probably even machines that assemble macs. so apple’s innovation with their base pricing, artificial limitations like “8 gig ram is enough”, and inability to upgrade or even fix their computers make their computers exclusively a user solution aimed at making customers buy more. intel is absolutely safe.
in the recent years apple has done everything to make industrial clients consider alternatives.
Not because of Mac, but that Microsoft has seen what Apple Silicon has done and is starting to embrace ARM natively. Once that starts, there’s no stopping it.
AMD becomes much bigger competition for Intel these days, especially in servers market where power consumption is critical. This is area where Intel can't compete and customers do not even think about Intel. When building data center, having more than 3x bigger requirements for power and thus, cooling is deciding factor here.
I think intel is laying the foundations for a faster cpu architecture
Maybe, but there’s no sign of it yet? How long will people wait before jumping ship?
Geekbench 6 uses some AI stuff the 14900KS doesn’t have any hardware acceleration for that. The 15th gen will probably beat the M4 by a lot again I presume. Not that I am defending Intel 😆
We’ll see - the AI stuff doesn’t affect the basic Single & Multi core scores, the AI parts are things like object removal which are seperately scored down the page I believe
Beat at what power and cooling requirements?
@@iCaveDave Geekbench CPU scores are memory dependant(it's more of a responsiveness score as opposed to the raw CPU speed score that you find with cinebench). Companies like using geekbench for their ARM chip comparisons because the RAM is usually soldered and as such they tend to be able to choose higher bandwidth RAM than comparable socket RAM computers. For the most part it's a comparison of apples and oranges, but it makes the ARM computer appear good. Skewed expectations from these/similar benchmarks is mostly the reason that people were disappointed with the Qualcomm 8cx etc.
And, yes. Apple Silicon (SOC) will dominate before 2034. Mark my words.
💯
Only in apple devices and thats not a detail its the reason they can if they want to dominate or go in any direction they want. The rest of the market can use apple as a 'this can be done' focus point but they really compete in the rest of the market where apple is not.
Apple are overpriced shit overall and for fancy users more
Tell me you’ve not used a Mac in the past 5 years without telling me…
@@iCaveDave i never use that shit,i am PC user!!mac is fine only for applications optimised for it while for everything else like gaming and everything else are waste of money
@@Mr11ESSE111 that explains why you know so much about Macs. 👍👏
@@iCaveDave it explain why PC market are over 90% in compare to shit mac