←back to thread

447 points stephenheron | 7 comments | | HN request time: 1.078s | source | bottom

Hi,

My daily workhorse is a M1 Pro that I purchased on release date, It has been one of the best tech purchases I have made, even now it really deals with anything I throw at it. My daily work load is regularly having a Android emulator, iOS simulator and a number of Dockers containers running simultaneously and I never hear the fans, battery life has taken a bit of a hit but it is still very respectable.

I wanted a new personal laptop, and I was debating between a MacBook Air or going for a Framework 13 with Linux. I wanted to lean into learning something new so went with the Framework and I must admit I am regretting it a bit.

The M1 was released back in 2020 and I bought the Ryzen AI 340 which is one of the newest 2025 chips from AMD, so AMD has 5 years of extra development and I had expected them to get close to the M1 in terms of battery efficiency and thermals.

The Ryzen is using a TSMC N4P process compared to the older N5 process, I managed to find a TSMC press release showing the performance/efficiency gains from the newer process: “When compared to N5, N4P offers users a reported +11% performance boost or a 22% reduction in power consumption. Beyond that, N4P can offer users a 6% increase in transistor density over N5”

I am sorely disappointed, using the Framework feels like using an older Intel based Mac. If I open too many tabs in Chrome I can feel the bottom of the laptop getting hot, open a YouTube video and the fans will often spin up.

Why haven’t AMD/Intel been able to catch up? Is x86 just not able to keep up with the ARM architecture? When can we expect a x86 laptop chip to match the M1 in efficiency/thermals?!

To be fair I haven’t tried Windows on the Framework yet it might be my Linux setup being inefficient.

Cheers, Stephen

Show context
mmcnl ◴[] No.45023141[source]
A lot of insightful comments already, but there are two other tricks I think Apple is using: (1) the laptops can get really hot before the fans turn on audibly and (2) the fans are engineered to be super quiet. So even if they run on low RPM, you won't hear them. This makes the M-series seem even more efficient than they are.

Also, especially the MacBook Pros have really large batteries, on average larger than the competition. This increases the battery runtime.

replies(1): >>45023253 #
BlindEyeHalo ◴[] No.45023253[source]
The macbook air doesn't even have a fan. I don't think you could built a fan-less x86 laptop.
replies(5): >>45023498 #>>45023541 #>>45023684 #>>45023865 #>>45030767 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.45023498[source]
You can, the thing is you have to build it out of a solid piece of metal. Either that's patented by Apple or it is too expensive for x86 system builders.
replies(1): >>45023557 #
1. qcnguy ◴[] No.45023557[source]
If I recall correctly Apple had to buy enormous numbers of CNC machines in order to build laptops that way. It was considered insane by the industry at the time.
replies(2): >>45023936 #>>45023942 #
2. sys_64738 ◴[] No.45023936[source]
Now it makes complete sense. Sort of like how crowbarring a computer into a laptop form factor was considered insane back in the early 90s.
3. mschuster91 ◴[] No.45023942[source]
Yup. The original article is gone, however there is the key excerpt in an old HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24532257

Apple, unlike a lot, if not all large companies (who are run by MBA beancounter morons), holds insanely large amounts of cash. That is how they can go and buy up entire markets of vendors - CNC mills, TSMC's entire production capacity for a year or two, specialized drills, god knows what else.

They effectively price out all potential competitors at once for years at a time. Even if Microsoft or Samsung would want to compete with Apple and make their own full aluminium cases, LED microdots or whatever - they could not because Apple bought exclusivity rights to the machines necessary.

Of course, there's nothing stopping Microsoft or Samsung to do the same in theory... the problem these companies have is that building the war chest necessary would drag down their stonk price way too much.

replies(2): >>45027455 #>>45027849 #
4. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.45027455[source]
Some of the other big tech companies have or are able to have just as much, if not more cash, than Apple:

https://www.capitaladvisors.com/research/war-chest-exploring...

They just don’t want to bet they can deploy it successfully in the hardware market to compete with Apple, so they focus on other things (cloud services, ads, media, etc).

replies(1): >>45029929 #
5. johncalvinyoung ◴[] No.45027849[source]
For those like me who wanted to hunt down the linkrotted article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201108182313/http://atomicdeli...

6. mschuster91 ◴[] No.45029929{3}[source]
Google is not a hardware company (outside of the Pixel lineup where they just take some white-label ODM design).

Microsoft has a bit more hardware sales exposure from its consoles, but not for PCs. They don't have a need for revolutionary "it looks cool" stuff that Apple has.

Amazon, same thing. They brand their own products as the cheap baseline, again no need.

And Meta, all they do is VR stuff. And they did invest(ed?) tons of money into that.

replies(1): >>45030243 #
7. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.45030243{4}[source]
The point is they have enough cash to make an attempt to be whatever company they want. Apple chose to delve into hardware, the others chose not to, not because they don’t have the cash.