←back to thread

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

447 points stephenheron | 1 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
chvid ◴[26 Aug 25 06:35 UTC] No.45023027[source]▶
I don't think there is a single thing you can point to. But overall Apple's hardware/software is highly optimized, closely knit, and each component is in general the best the industry has to offer. It is sold cheap as they make money on volume and an optimized supply chain.

Framework does not have the volume, it is optimized for modularity, and the software is not as optimized for the hardware.

As a general purpose computer Apple is impossible to beat and it will take a paradigm shift for that for to change (completely new platform - similar to the introduction of the smart phone). Framework has its place as a specialized device for people who enjoy flexible hardware and custom operating systems.

replies(3): >>45023643 #>>45024503 #>>45027744 #
john01dav ◴[26 Aug 25 08:06 UTC] No.45023643[source]▶
> It is sold cheap as they make money on volume and an optimized supply chain.

What about all the money that they make from abusive practices like refusing to integrate with competitors' products thus forcing you to buy their ecosystem, phoning home to run any app, high app store fees even on Mac OS, and their massive anti repair shenanigans?

replies(2): >>45023818 #>>45032805 #
chvid ◴[26 Aug 25 08:28 UTC] No.45023818[source]▶
Macs today are not designed to be easily repairably but instead to be lighter and otherwise better integrated - I believe that is consequence of consumer preferences and not shady business practices.

As for the services - it is a bit off topic as I believe Apple makes a profit on their macs alone ignoring their services business. But in general I have less of a problem with a subscription / fee-driven services business compared to an advertisement-based one. And as for the fee / alternative payment controversy (epic vs apple etc.) this is something that is relevant if you are a big brand that can actually market on your own / build an alternative shop infrastructure. For small time developers the marketing and payment infrastructure the apple app store offers is a bargain.

replies(2): >>45024045 #>>45024284 #
omnimus ◴[26 Aug 25 08:57 UTC] No.45024045[source]▶
Macbooks are one of the heaviest laptops you can buy. I think they are doing it for the premium feel - it is extremely sturdy. I recently got some random lenovo YOGA for linux to go along side my macbook and it weighs less, is as thin and even has dedicated gpu - while having 2 user replaceable M.2 slots. It is also very sturdy but not as sturdy Macbooks.

What i am saying is that Apple could for sure fit replaceable drives without any change hit to size or weight. But their Mac strategy is price based on disk size and make repairs expensive so you buy new machine. I don't complain it is the reason why cheapest Macbook Air is the best laptop deal.

But let's stop this marketing story that it's their engineering genius not their market strategy.

replies(2): >>45024219 #>>45026453 #
1. weighterjsk ◴[26 Aug 25 13:43 UTC] No.45026453{3}[source]▶
>Macbooks are one of the heaviest laptops you can buy.

I don't think this is even close to true. My last laptop from 2020 weighed at ~2.6kg and it's 2025 counterpart is still at 2.1kg, while my work m1 mac is at 1.3kg

>. I think they are doing it for the premium feel - it is extremely sturdy

It's not merely a feel; I've succesfully thrown it to the pavement more than once from ~1.5 meters and it's continued working well, whereas none of my previous laptops have gotten away scot free before from even one drop

Apple does practice very hard repairability which I agree should be made much more accessible.