←back to thread

Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

447 points stephenheron | 4 comments | 25 Aug 25 21:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

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
noelwelsh ◴[26 Aug 25 07:00 UTC] No.45023177[source]▶
Like a few other comments have mentioned, AMD's Strix Halo / AI Max 380 and above is the chip family that is closest to what Apple has done with the M series. It has integrated memory and decent GPU. A few iterations of this should be comparable to the M series (and should make local LLMs very feasible, if that is your jam.)
replies(3): >>45023314 #>>45024665 #>>45028422 #
aurareturn ◴[26 Aug 25 07:20 UTC] No.45023314[source]▶
On Cinebench 2025 single threaded, M4 is roughly 4x more efficient and 50% faster than Strix Halo. These numbers can be verified by googling Notebookcheck.

How many iterations to match Apple?

replies(5): >>45023430 #>>45023759 #>>45024770 #>>45024943 #>>45027784 #
FirmwareBurner ◴[26 Aug 25 08:20 UTC] No.45023759[source]▶
>How many iterations to match Apple?

Until AMD can built a tailor made OS for their chips and build their own laptops.

replies(1): >>45024066 #
1. aurareturn ◴[26 Aug 25 09:00 UTC] No.45024066[source]▶
Here's an M4 Max running macOS running Parallels running Windows compared to AMD's very best laptop chip:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/13494385?baseli...

M4 Max is still faster. Note that the M4 Max is only given 14 out of 16 cores, likely reserving 2 of them for macOS.

How do you explain this when Windows has zero Apple Silicon optimizations?

replies(1): >>45024346 #
2. FirmwareBurner ◴[26 Aug 25 09:47 UTC] No.45024346[source]▶
Maybe Geek bench is not a good benchmark?
replies(2): >>45024444 #>>45024694 #
3. aurareturn ◴[26 Aug 25 10:00 UTC] No.45024444[source]▶
Maybe it is? Cinebench favors Apple even more.

GB correlates highly with SPEC. AMD also uses GB in their official marketing slides.

4. TiredOfLife ◴[26 Aug 25 10:33 UTC] No.45024694[source]▶
Geekbench is the closest thing to a good benchmark that's usable across generations and architectures.