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
How many iterations to match Apple?
In day to day usage the strix halo is significantly faster, and especially when large context LLM and games are used - but also typical stuff like Lightroom (gpu heavy) etc.
on the flip side the m4 battery life is significantly longer (but also the mpb is approx 1/4 heavier)
for what its worth i also have a t14 with a snapdragon X elite and while its battery is closer to a mbp, its just kinda slow and clunky.
so my best machine right now is the x86 actually!
yes and no. i have macbook pro m4 and a zbook g1a (ai max 395+ ie strix halo)
Here's a comparison I did between Strix Halo, M4 Pro, M4 Max: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF
As you can see, Strix Halo is behind M4 Pro in performance and severely behind in efficiency. In ST, M4 Pro is 3.6x more efficient and 50% faster. It's not even close to the M4 Max.
(but also the mpb is approx 1/4 heavier)
You don't own any of the machines but have "made" a comparison by copying data from the internet I assume.
This is like explaining to someone who eats a sweet apple that the internet says the apple isn't sweet.
MacBook Pro, 2TB, 32gb, 3200 EUR
HP G1a, 2TB, 128gb, 3700 EUR
If we don't compare laptops but mini-PCs,
Evo X2, 2TB, 128gb, 2000 EUR,
Mac Mini, 2TB, 32gb, 2200 EUR
You don't own any of the machines but have "made" a comparison by copying data from the internet I assume.
This is like explaining to someone who eats a sweet apple that the internet says the apple isn't sweet.
MacBook Pro, 2TB, 32gb, 3200 EUR
You: "You're comparing the base M4 to a full fat Strix Halo that costs nearly $4,000."
Then
You: "A little disingenuous to max out on the SSD to make the Apple product look worse."
I didn't "max out" the SSD, I chose an SSD to match the machine of the user.
That's why your post was disingenuous.
If it helps you focus on what the actual discussion, we are comparing maximum CPU and GPU speeds for the dollar. That's it.
Max Studio, 128gb, 4400 EUR
And of course, the Mac Studio itself is a much more capable box with things like Thunderbolt5, more ports, quieter, etc.
I can see why some people would choose the AMD solution. It runs x86, works well with Linux, can play DirectX games natively, and is much cheaper.
Meanwhile, the M4 Max performs significantly better, more efficient, likely much more quiet, runs macOS, more ports, better build quality, Apple backing and support.
You: "If it helps you focus on what the actual discussion, we are comparing maximum CPU and GPU speeds for the dollar."
You: "Mac Studio itself is a much more capable box with things like Thunderbolt5, more ports, quieter"
They’re not arguing against their subjective experience using it, they’re arguing against the comparison point as an objective metric.
If you’re picking analogies, it’s like saying Audis are faster than Mercedes but comparing an R8 against an A class.
2. I'd say apples and oranges is subjective and depends on what is important to you. If you're interested in Vitamin C, apples to oranges is a valid comparison. My interest in comparing this is for running local coding LLMs - and it is difficult to get great results on 24/32gb of Nvidia VRAM (but by far the fastest option/$ if your model fits into a 5090). For models to work with you often need 128gb of RAM, therefor I'd compare a Mac Studio 128gb (cheapest option from Apple for a 128gb RAM machine) with a 395+ (cheapest (only?) option for x86/Linux). So what is apples to oranges to you, makes sense to many other people.
3. Why would you think a 395+ and an M4 Pro are in "a different class"?
They have a MacBook Pro with an M4, not an M4 Pro. That is a wildly different class of SoC from the 395. Unless the 395 is also capable of running in fanless devices too without issue.
For your first point, yes it does matter if the discussion is about objectively trying to understand why things are faster or not. Subjective opinions are fine, but they belong elsewhere. My grandma finds her Intel celeron fast enough for her work, I’m not getting into an argument with her over whether an i9 is faster for the same reason.
Your second point is equally as subjective, and out of place in a discussion about objectively trying to understand what makes the performance difference.