| eva01beserk said: Reminds me when ryzen first started to compete and reviewers where comparing same core count chips. Yea, intel still beat them slightly but they forgot to mention the same core count cost twice as much from intel. We are seeing the same shit right now. Sure intel is hot garbage now so beating them is no accomplishment. When compared to AMD we re seeing an over a grand machine competing with mid range. A mid range that day viewed a year ago and is a whole node behind. So no, apples M1 is still not impressing me. |
I suppose we can go back and forth on this when it comes to performance to no end, but I am not interested. Especially that my OP didn't really mention anything about performance, I was focusing on the bigger picture which is the fact that Apple is objectively impressive by all measures, which is good news for smartphones, and ARM-equipped machines like tablets and, more importantly, the Switch.
Apple's transition to ARM is shockingly butter smooth with zero trade offs. Not even the most optimistic fanboy thought this would be possible, especially how the competition has stumbled for years to get anything remotely close to being a product that one can consider buying. This is the best MS had to offer at a starting price of 1100:
An usable mess, and as a result, excitement for ARM-based PCs has been low. Then the M1 happens and the industry is falling in-line to make it a success, you can be unimpressed all you want, just know you're in the minority, as businesses are throwing their hard earned money at ARM now that Apple has cracked the code.
I do wonder if the developers' response can make Apple shorten their "2 years to only-ARM" to just one year, as I am eager for Apple to gain the freedom to ditch the 86x hardware accelerators they implemented in the M1 and focus purely on making a making an ARM-SoC that's not balanced for 86 compatibility.
