←back to thread

447 points stephenheron | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.351s | 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
noelwelsh ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
kangs ◴[] No.45023430[source]
yes and no. i have macbook pro m4 and a zbook g1a (ai max 395+ ie strix halo)

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!

replies(2): >>45023675 #>>45023892 #
aurareturn ◴[] No.45023892[source]

  yes and no. i have macbook pro m4 and a zbook g1a (ai max 395+ ie strix halo)
You're comparing the base M4 to a full fat Strix Halo that costs nearly $4,000. You can buy the base M4 chip in a Mac Mini for $500 on sale. A better comparison would be the M4 Max at that price.

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)
Because it uses a metal enclosure.
replies(1): >>45024977 #
KingOfCoders ◴[] No.45024977[source]
Someone has these two machines, and claims the x86 feels faster in his work.

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

replies(2): >>45025131 #>>45027490 #
aurareturn ◴[] No.45025131[source]

  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.
Yea, I never said he is wrong in his own experience. I was pointing out that the comparison is made between a base M4 and maxed out Ryzen. If we want to compare products in the same class, then use M4 Max.

  MacBook Pro, 2TB, 32gb, 3200 EUR
A little disingenuous to max out on the SSD to make the Apple product look worse. SSD prices are bad value on Apple products. No one is denying that.
replies(1): >>45025299 #
KingOfCoders ◴[] No.45025299[source]
I didn't "max out" the SSD, I chose an SSD to match the machine of the user.

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."

replies(1): >>45025432 #
1. aurareturn ◴[] No.45025432[source]

  I didn't "max out" the SSD, I chose an SSD to match the machine of the user.
Why don't you try to match in CPU speed, GPU speed, NPU speed, noise, battery life, etc? Why match SSD only?

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.

replies(1): >>45025455 #
2. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.45025455[source]
Evo X2, 128gb, 2000 EUR

Max Studio, 128gb, 4400 EUR

replies(2): >>45025631 #>>45025703 #
3. aurareturn ◴[] No.45025631[source]
Great. Here's what you're getting between an M4 Max vs an AMD AI 395+: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF

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.

replies(1): >>45025723 #
4. ◴[] No.45025703[source]
5. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.45025723{3}[source]
AMD 395+/ Cachyos MT Geekbench 6 25334 - not sure where you get your Geekbench number from for the 395+

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"

replies(2): >>45026017 #>>45028128 #
6. aurareturn ◴[] No.45026017{4}[source]
You: AMD 395+/ Cachyos MT Geekbench 6 25334

Me: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF

replies(1): >>45026207 #
7. ◴[] No.45026207{5}[source]
8. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.45028128{4}[source]
Source: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/13318696