←back to thread

1080 points antipaul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
zdw ◴[] No.25066465[source]
AMD's Zen 3 (Ryzen 5xxx series) are beating the Apple M1 in single core score: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore

As another datapoint Ian (of Anandtech) estimated that the M1 would need to be clocked at 3.25Ghz to match Zen 3, and these systems are showing a 3.2Ghz clock: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1326516048309460992

replies(9): >>25066469 #>>25066520 #>>25066537 #>>25066720 #>>25067051 #>>25067086 #>>25068425 #>>25068547 #>>25069628 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[] No.25066469[source]
OK... but let's say it's 95% there, even. How much power does an M1 draw compared to a 5950X? It's not even funny. And the M1 is running at a lower clock.
replies(5): >>25066529 #>>25066541 #>>25066618 #>>25066722 #>>25066829 #
acomjean ◴[] No.25066829[source]
It’s very impressive. It seems like the open computing platforms where you have control of your hardware/ os are in real trouble.

I use Mac at work, but Linux at home, if the hardware isn’t competitive....

replies(4): >>25066910 #>>25066996 #>>25067041 #>>25068356 #
michaelmrose ◴[] No.25066910[source]
- Mac has ~10% of the global market for end user machines. It doesn't now, never has, and never will own the market nor does it desire to sell cheap enough machines to do so.

- Given that you can't add ram after the fact and 256GB is anemic the cheapest laptop that is a reasonable choice is $1400.

- The cheapest desktop option is $6000 with an 8 core cpu or 8000 with a 16 core.

- The average end user spends $700 on a computer

- We literally have marketing numbers and a worthless synthetic benchmark.

I think it entirely fair to say that the new macs are liable to be fantastic machines but there is no reason to believe that the advent of apple cpu macs marks the end of open hardware. Were you expecting them to sell their cpus to the makers of the cheap computers most people actually buy?

replies(6): >>25066968 #>>25067002 #>>25067010 #>>25067016 #>>25067333 #>>25067423 #
mirekrusin ◴[] No.25067010[source]
The average user was spending peanuts on phone before iPhone. They also had 0% market for phones.
replies(2): >>25067080 #>>25067601 #
dingaling ◴[] No.25067080{3}[source]
> The average user was spending peanuts on phone before iPhone.

The iPhone was mid-range at launch, $499 versus $730 for a contemporary smartphone like the N95

replies(3): >>25067268 #>>25067371 #>>25071236 #
bredren ◴[] No.25067268{4}[source]
This was not what it felt like when it debuted.

Blackberry was the competing “smart” phone [1] and the newest releases were we under half the price of iPhone w the same 2-year discount.

I had the blackberry curve myself at that time and iPhone seemed way high-priced.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/iphone-v-blackberry-side-b...

replies(1): >>25067947 #
1. Nullabillity ◴[] No.25067947{5}[source]
Guess it depends on the region. Here in Sweden I saw a few N95s and of Sony Ericsson and Nokia feature phones. Not a single Blackberry in sight, before or after.