In this review, Hardware Canucks tested [1] the M4 Pro (3nm 2nd gen) and the 395+ (4nm) at 50w and found the performance being somewhat comparable. The differences can be explained away by 3nm vs 4nm.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7HUud7IvAo

▲

aurareturn 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It isn’t comparable at all. In MT, maybe it is comparable with the M4 Pro still winning. In ST, it is 3-4x ahead of Strix Halo in efficiency.

▲

kllrnohj 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> In ST, it is 3-4x ahead of Strix Halo in efficiency.

The Hardware Canucks video didn't seem to do any such investigation, where did you get that number from?

	▲	AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It seems like a comparison of the battery life under light loads (accounting for the vast majority of the difference) multiplied by some unspecified single thread performance benchmark? But under light loads laptop battery life is dominated by things like the screen rather than the CPU, and on top of that the Macbook has a larger battery. Meanwhile under the heavy loads that actually tax the processor the M4 somehow has worse battery life even with the larger battery and a nominally lower TDP. Is the infamous efficiency not the processor at all and they're just winning on the basis of choosing more efficient displays and wireless chips?

▲

jamiek88 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How the heck is a 3.6x faster single thread M4 Pro 'comparable'? Which by the way you can buy in a $600 prebuilt not $2500 if you can even find this unobtanium chip.

	▲	tredre3 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Geekbench 6 scores vary based on cooling but the 395+ hangs out around 3000 and the M4 Pro around 3600, how is that 3.6x?
	▲	kllrnohj 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		where are you seeing 3.6x faster single thread performance???