Apple M1, Why It Matters: A PC Hardware Enthusiast Perspective

[Julio Franco]

Ever since Apple's M1 SoC launched, the tech community has been abuzz trying to draw comparisons to see where it stands in terms of performance and efficiency against Intel or AMD. Here's why we think M1 is a very relevant development in the world of computer hardware.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/2167-apple-m1-why-it-matters/

 

[duckofdeath]

What matters the most is how we all seem to accept that tech corporations ups the ante on how big lies and half truths they can get away with when selling products to consumers.
If this isn't curbed soon, product marketing will be all fairy tales.

 

[Squid Surprise]

What matters the most is how we all seem to accept that tech corporations ups the ante on how big lies and half truths they can get away with when selling products to consumers.
If this isn't curbed soon, product marketing will be all fairy tales.

You just trolling or do you have specific examples that apply to this article?

 

[duckofdeath]

You just trolling or do you have specific examples that apply to this article?

The easy one is the pre and post launch wording about how fast it is. That's one of a long line of lies and half truths these corporations constantly gets away with.

 

[SysTor]

As someone that uses Mac and PC I applaud Apple's innovation. I just wish they were not so greedy. They could have had much larger market share and many more developers for the Mac, if they were not so overpriced.

 

[ET3D]

I don't think that PC space needs a specific answer to this. Microsoft is already offering Windows on ARM, and its limited software (even with compatibility). Having Mac as an alternative doesn't help much in this respect. Intel has already been toying with big-little style CPUs.

The short of it is, as I see it, PC makers will continue with what they're doing. That'd make for faster, more power efficient PCs. Apple isn't a real alternative and therefore not a real threat. It does show what can be done, but none of that is strictly necessary, or as innovative as Apple wants people to think.

 

[ayesco96]

Rip intel

 

[Squid Surprise]

The easy one is the pre and post launch wording about how fast it is. That's one of a long line of lies and half truths these corporations constantly gets away with.

Where is that mentioned in the article?

 

[Biostud]

Most users don't care about what cpu is faster, as long as they get an overall good experience.

So the complete opposite to the PC master race

 

[punctualturn]

As someone that uses Mac and PC I applaud Apple's innovation. I just wish they were not so greedy. They could have had much larger market share and many more developers for the Mac, if they were not so overpriced.

That is nothing.

Wait until the close the Mac OS to only accept software from the app store.

The worse part is that the rabid fanbois that are already locked up in the iOS side, are fighting anyone that dares asking for either an option for sideloading or an option to another store.

 

[Bullwinkle M]

You just trolling or do you have specific examples that apply to this article?

Specific examples:

Windows 10 IS NOT more secure than previous versions of Windows
In fact, Windows 10 CANNOT be secured by the end user, only Microsoft

A clean/optimized backup of Windows 7 / 8.1 or 10 does not boot faster than a clean/optimized backup of Windows XP yet Microsoft says they do have faster boot times
I have XP booting in 3 seconds flat on an 11 (or 12) year old Nehalem
Newer versions don't even come close to that speed

Newer chipsets also boot slower than older chipsets due to their complexity

UEFI systems do not provide more security to the end user than BIOS systems

How many examples do you need?
I can go on all day!

 

[Farkinell]

Specific examples:

Windows 10 IS NOT more secure than previous versions of Windows
In fact, Windows 10 CANNOT be secured by the end user, only Microsoft

A clean/optimized backup of Windows 7 / 8.1 or 10 does not boot faster than a clean/optimized backup of Windows XP yet Microsoft says they do have faster boot times
I have XP booting in 3 seconds flat on an 11 (or 12) year old Nehalem
Newer versions don't even come close to that speed

Newer chipsets also boot slower than older chipsets due to their complexity

UEFI systems do not provide more security to the end user than BIOS systems

How many examples do you need?
I can go on all day!

This is the second article (and I’m sure there’s more) where I’ve seen you comment with frankly unbelievable claims comprising a bizarre mixture of conspiracy theory and two-decades-out-of-date marketing spiel for Windows XP. Like, what’s the deal?

 

[krisstarr]

Quite a bit of enthusiasm based on Apple's claims and Apple has a great history of failing to back up their claims. Plus a lot of noise for a market that is less than 5% of the computers.

 

[Bullwinkle M]

This is the second article (and I’m sure there’s more) where I’ve seen you comment with frankly unbelievable claims comprising a bizarre mixture of conspiracy theory and two-decades-out-of-date marketing spiel for Windows XP. Like, what’s the deal?

They are only unbelievable if you listen to the marketing propaganda and lies that Microsoft spouts

My Independent testing verifies all these claims (and more) as facts that trolls like you cannot ever disprove with more lies

 

[Squid Surprise]

Specific examples:

Windows 10 IS NOT more secure than previous versions of Windows
In fact, Windows 10 CANNOT be secured by the end user, only Microsoft

A clean/optimized backup of Windows 7 / 8.1 or 10 does not boot faster than a clean/optimized backup of Windows XP yet Microsoft says they do have faster boot times
I have XP booting in 3 seconds flat on an 11 (or 12) year old Nehalem
Newer versions don't even come close to that speed

Newer chipsets also boot slower than older chipsets due to their complexity

UEFI systems do not provide more security to the end user than BIOS systems

How many examples do you need?
I can go on all day!

Yeah... I meant relevant examples addressed by the article... go troll elsewhere...

 

[Markoni35]

Don't laugh. They properly tested it by creating a mechanical simulation of CPU components in Minecraft. It worked like charm. Or should I say, like a windmill.

 

[brucek]

Enthusiasts can enjoy debating the limits of M1s raw technical prowess, but when it comes to the merits of these latest macs as mainstream computing appliances, I have yet to hear any complaints. Kudos to Apple for designing a product with strong appeal for millions of users, even if I am not one of those target users.

My girlfriend has a 3 year old Chromebook, vastly less powerful (and expensive) than my high end laptop. I can brag about my tech specs all day, but the fact is, if we both turn on our laptops at the same time to look up something simple, she's often done before I'm even past loading windows and software updates (not even counting the reboot I'll next be asked to perform.)]

Right device for the right job...

 

[bviktor]

Specific examples:

Windows 10 IS NOT more secure than previous versions of Windows
In fact, Windows 10 CANNOT be secured by the end user, only Microsoft

A clean/optimized backup of Windows 7 / 8.1 or 10 does not boot faster than a clean/optimized backup of Windows XP yet Microsoft says they do have faster boot times
I have XP booting in 3 seconds flat on an 11 (or 12) year old Nehalem
Newer versions don't even come close to that speed

Newer chipsets also boot slower than older chipsets due to their complexity

UEFI systems do not provide more security to the end user than BIOS systems

How many examples do you need?
I can go on all day!

Yeah right, Windows XP boot in 3 seconds. The monitor won't even light up in 3 seconds on the damn thing. As someone who's been using Windows since 3.1, it's pretty clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we see you can say an infinite number of emtpy simpleton statements. Like "XP is good, Windows 10 is baaaad" or "BIOS is good, UEFI is baaaad". Why? "Because I said soooo."

"Specific" indeed. What an in-depth analysis of the PC landspace, thanks a bunch.

... What a clown. Please tell us more about your "unhackable", "unencryptable" magic Windows XP box, ran with admin rights and without updates! It's such an original and interesting fairy tale, and it's totally not pathetic! Mom's so proud of you. Jesus dude, get a life. Is this what you wanna do with your life? Spew random bullcr@p on internet forums? Do you actually think there's anyone who believes you? Or considers your rants funny? Or cares at all? Or... anything?

 

[Brahman05]

A nicely objective article. I have been waiting for something like this about this chip as I have felt the same way since I saw the launch. I am NOT an apple user, do not fall into the category of someone who needs this chip, but I do applaud them in some important ways for this chip. A challenge for the reviewers/writers of this article. Review one. All the reviews I have seen have been extremely biased in one way or another, I really want to know what it's limits are. Example, I watched one comparison video where they used 5min video clips for encoding. Granted, it did amazing, but when does that 16GB max ram peter out and become the bottleneck? Not to bash it, but to really push its limits. Come on techspot, do us all a solid.

 

[Brahman05]

I don't think that PC space needs a specific answer to this. Microsoft is already offering Windows on ARM, and its limited software (even with compatibility). Having Mac as an alternative doesn't help much in this respect. Intel has already been toying with big-little style CPUs.

The short of it is, as I see it, PC makers will continue with what they're doing. That'd make for faster, more power efficient PCs. Apple isn't a real alternative and therefore not a real threat. It does show what can be done, but none of that is strictly necessary, or as innovative as Apple wants people to think.

I disagree. What professional does not need better batrery life? That one thing alone is making microsoft and intel look horrible right now. Still a pc man though

 

[LuckyMenace]

M1 is amazing but the secret sauce really is Rosetta 2. People were making fun of Apple's "What a computer?" ads because they were iPads and not "computers." The fact your were using iOS or iPadOS did not legitimize Apple silicon as full powered processors. Rosetta 2 and it's performance on unoptimized, non-native apps is the true messiah in converting people to believe that Apple Silicon is more than good enough; it's a generational leap in efficiency.

Without Rosetta 2, Apple Silicon will be dismissed as another Apple walled garden ecosystem where only the chosen apps are allowed to precariously exist. The fact that so many apps works problem free on Day 1 launch of these computers is how will rethink mobile computing for the future.

 

[Brahman05]

What matters the most is how we all seem to accept that tech corporations ups the ante on how big lies and half truths they can get away with when selling products to consumers.
If this isn't curbed soon, product marketing will be all fairy tales.

Apple M1 beats AMD 64 core Milan in multithreaded workloads. Heard it here first.........
I agree with Linus Sebastian in that when I watched the launch video for this my BS meter was at defcon5 levels. I kept thinking, 'yeah, but it's Apple, so whats the catch, because its in there somewhere'. I also liked how he called them on their marketing slide that just said 'the competition' with a blue bar signifying Intel, which really didn't get much better when they added 'i3' to the bottom, in a footnote no less, after the fact to boot. Not even specifying which one. Nehalem maybe? NetBurst? Did they have I series then?
They did a great job on this, all things considered, but thier marketing on this was so 'spun' and skewed I got dizzy watching it. In fact it has made the opposite to its intent happen with me, it made me so overly skeptical from the used car salesman vibe I got that it's hard for me to acknowledge what really does make it good. Still looking for that catch though, it is Apple after all....

 

[Brahman05]

Just have to add the age old meme, only because I dont think I've seen it yet for this chip, ahem.....


Yes, but can it run crysis?

That horse may have died some time ago but it's still fun to beat

 

[Angga B]

It IS admiring in the technological perspective. But knowing this fruity company, they will take what is common (e.g: arm instructions), put special code guard in the entrance gate, then erect the protective garden so anyone "dare to venture" to the ecosystem simply could not escape. Worse with their current repair policy, where there would be no practical way to repair your OWNED device but to purchase new ones.

They want us to be mere consumers and kneel. I, do not want to help them achieve that.

 

[Bullwinkle M]

Yeah right, Windows XP boot in 3 seconds. The monitor won't even light up in 3 seconds on the damn thing. As someone who's been using Windows since 3.1, it's pretty clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we see you can say an infinite number of emtpy simpleton statements. Like "XP is good, Windows 10 is baaaad" or "BIOS is good, UEFI is baaaad". Why? "Because I said soooo."

"Specific" indeed. What an in-depth analysis of the PC landspace, thanks a bunch.

... What a clown. Please tell us more about your "unhackable", "unencryptable" magic Windows XP box, ran with admin rights and without updates! It's such an original and interesting fairy tale, and it's totally not pathetic! Mom's so proud of you. Jesus dude, get a life. Is this what you wanna do with your life? Spew random bullcr@p on internet forums? Do you actually think there's anyone who believes you? Or considers your rants funny? Or cares at all? Or... anything?

WoW dude....
Troll much?

I don't time the lights on any computer or the BIOS boot time which varies computer to computer

I time the boot time of WINDOWS (from boot Logo to Desktop)

Yes it does boot in 3 seconds flat but only on the Nehalem with the older chipset

It boots in 7 seconds on my newer Sandy Bridge due mainly to the chipset

switching from a dualcore 35 watt cpu to a 65 watt quadcore on Sandy Bridge adds another 2 seconds to the boot time

All tests were done on a Samsung 840 pro SSD except for the initial tweaking of Windows which required a slow computer and a slow drive

Many improvements to boot time cannot be measured on a fast SSD with a fast computer

I was unable to measure whether a specific tweak was improving the boot times or not, so in order to actually measure whether improvements were made, the slowest system was used

When all tweaks were verified on a slow system, the same tweaks were used on the fast system

A singe tweak may not measurably improve boot times, but in combination with all the other tweaks resulted in 3 second boot mainly due to the older (simpler) chipset

The overhead of 2 additional cores on the 4-core Sandy bridge actually did give slower boot times than a dualcore

These are facts, and yes, I AM still using this testbed "ONLINE"

It's easy for me and quite likely impossible for you

THESE ARE FACTS!