| |
| ▲ | monegator 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | correct! it's better on lenovos. All metal, trackpad has a proper click, keyboard doesn't shit itself. Screen is not retina, but then again i don't need that ridiculous resolution as the OS i'm using doesn't employ a toy UI with bubbles and rounded everything. Before this i had macbooks for 15 years, colleagues have this generation's macbooks at work, i like this one a lot more. | |
| ▲ | preg_match a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the battery life front, both Intel and AMD have caught up. Apple greatly inflates their battery numbers; to get 18 hours, you need the lowest spec model and you need to basically not use it. Chromium or Firefox open? Bluetooth active? Yeah, you’re looking at 12 hours, not 20. 12 is still good, but intel as of lunar lake (2 generations ago!) matched that. Now, the performance is still behind, particularly single core. But the efficiency is there, and these are standard x86 chips. The efficiency doesn’t come from ARM, it comes from the process node and chip design. Apple uses the latest process nodes with an SOC design. When intel does the same, as they have done, they match the efficiency easily on x86. The real gain is the SOC. When you shove the ram and chipset into the CPU you save massive battery. | | |
| ▲ | fooker a day ago | parent [-] | | You are saying multiple unrelated things. > On the battery life front, both Intel and AMD have caught up. Intel and AMD's cpus don't have batteries ;) Their chips are approximately as efficient as Apple's chips from ~2 years ago, but that's not their fault, it's Apple getting the entire allocation of new chips for about 1.5 years. > to get 18 hours, you need the lowest spec model and you need to basically not use it. Chromium or Firefox open? Bluetooth active? Yeah, you’re looking at 12 hours, not 20. I work on compilers, often maxing out all the CPU cores, and have stopped carrying the power adapter altogether. I plug it in maybe once in three days. > The efficiency doesn’t come from ARM, it comes from the process node and chip design. Apple uses the latest process nodes with an SOC design. When intel does the same, as they have done, they match the efficiency easily on x86. The real gain is the SOC. When you shove the ram and chipset into the CPU you save massive battery. Yes, I agree. IDGAF about whether the battery lasts longer because of ARM or magic pixie dust. | | |
| ▲ | preg_match a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I meant that Intel and AMD laptops have caught up to battery life, due to the chips. I have both an M1 Pro MacBook Pro and an Asus lunar lake laptop. The M1 battery life is… good. But again not what Apple claims, if you actually use the computer. The lunar lake laptop has better battery life. The base M1 is probably much better, but I still think these lofty 20 hour battery life claims from Apple are, well, lofty. It might be true if you playback local media with hardware acceleration and run in airplane mode. But as soon as you’re using all the antennas, the battery life goes down a lot. Bluetooth especially drains battery life. |
|
|
|
