The cheapest HX 370 mini PC starts at $1000 vs $600 for Mac Mini. I am not even convinced M4 is more expensive to make at all given the die size difference.
You're right. But it doesn't tell us much about the cost of the M4 since Apple also did that with the Intel Mac Mini. The base M4 being the same price as the i3-8100B Mac Mini 6 years later might not say much either.Did you try to set up the Max Mini with equal RAM and storage? 32 GB + 1 TB Mac Mini is $1400
You're right. But it doesn't tell us much about the cost of the M4 since Apple also did that with the Intel Mac Mini. The base M4 being the same price as the i3-8100B Mac Mini 6 years later might not say much either.
The base model with a USB4 external SSD enclosure is actually good for video editing. You can’t edit videos due to bad media engines on the beelink and you can’t play all games either natively or via emulation on the Mac mini.I mean it’s not just that, it should be obvious to anyone that AMD is selling CPUs to vendors at a profit, who are then turning around and trying to ship a completed system for a profit. Apple cuts out the middleman there so they are automatically getting their CPUs for “cheaper”
But please this is probably the dozenth time the topic has revolved back to AMD vs Apple, I think it’s fair game for outright performance discussions and architecture but I don’t want to listen to bickering about laptop prices
Macbook Pro price is like the tech bro equivalent of the price of a dozen eggs
I live in Romania, and here we have on the greatest e-tailer (link, if you wanna check) 50 models... So yeah.... different. The cheapest is under 1000 euro (1 euro=5 lei). Also, I wouldn't count base MacMini, that's just a hook from Apple to catch the plebs... while the CPU is great and ram is acceptable, fixed 256GB in this day and age is not acceptable. And if you go to a devoce that has 24GB and 1TB of memory, you are over twice the base price and higher than a Beelink SER9, which is a 32GB Ram and 1TB sdd. And looks exactly like a Macmini before the Macmini was this size
For that kind of person, any last 2 or 3 gen PC/Mac is enough. I was responding to gdansk who was saying a AMD HX370 laptop was 1400 and was comparing a base macmini to a AMD minipc with different config. Mac having 256GB/16GB, miniPC having 1TB/32GBFor the kind of person who is just using their PC as an appliance, pretty much using the browser for everything and not getting any third party applications (and that's a huge chunk of the overall PC market) then 256 GB is more than enough.
They aren't marketing the Mini to the kind of people who read and post in tech forums. We aren't the customer they've designed it for. Your complaints read like someone posting in a forum for auto enthusiasts complaining that a Ford Focus doesn't have enough horsepower, and upgrading to the Focus RS where you get real horsepower costs too much and at that price there are better alternatives.
From my experience.For the kind of person who is just using their PC as an appliance, pretty much using the browser for everything and not getting any third party applications (and that's a huge chunk of the overall PC market) then 256 GB is more than enough.
They aren't marketing the Mini to the kind of people who read and post in tech forums. We aren't the customer they've designed it for. Your complaints read like someone posting in a forum for auto enthusiasts complaining that a Ford Focus doesn't have enough horsepower, and upgrading to the Focus RS where you get real horsepower costs too much and at that price there are better alternatives.
Intel CPUs struggle with very complex technical analysis of charts(lots of indicators, lines, graphs, charts, etc). M4 on an iPad(!) flies through them.
Does a Ryzen or 7800X3D also struggle in such a workload? I'm guessing it's more a software optimization issue for whatever software you are using, unless it's a class of software where Apple silicon naturally excels due to its arch, like maybe Java or Javascript or something else running in a browser?And I can tell something even better. Intel CPUs struggle with very complex technical analysis of charts(lots of indicators, lines, graphs, charts, etc). M4 on an iPad(!) flies through them.
Web browser...Does a Ryzen or 7800X3D also struggle in such a workload? I'm guessing it's more a software optimization issue for whatever software you are using, unless it's a class of software where Apple silicon naturally excels due to its arch, like maybe Java or Javascript or something else running in a browser?
It's complicated by a few other factors. He's using Safari (or at least WebKit + JSC) on an iPad versus an unstated browser with unstated extensions on an unstated Intel CPU.Tradingview?!?! Enough said... It's likely a memory leak, a bad extension, or a misbehaving script.
I use Tradingview app on iPad.It's complicated by a few other factors. He's using Safari (or at least WebKit + JSC) on an iPad versus an unstated browser with unstated extensions on an unstated Intel CPU.
One of the areas Zen 5 did improve quite a bit was in some browser benchmarks (though not all). I'm not sure but it's the only x64 CPU I've seen put up scores in certain web benchmarks that are near M4 though still behind.
Really? Any more info about that?Apple Silicon has instructions for accelerating Javascript.
We reviewed some of the code in V8 before in some thread but I can't find it.Apple Silicon has instructions for accelerating Javascript.
We reviewed some of the code in V8 before in some thread but I can't find it.
They are standard ARMv8.3 instructions, not Apple only. One such instruction - FJCVTZS - mimicks and combines behavior of two x86 instructions. But it is a case that JS uses often (converting double to signed integer) so it was worth adding such an instruction.
The last time we talked about FJCVTZS:I wonder what the x86 equivalent of this is?
And ARM added instruction(s) which match JavaScript behavior to enable faster JITs: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0801/h/A64-Floating-point-Instructions/FJCVTZS
With all its complexity is there even a single x64 instruction to do that? cvttsd2siq is close but still compare the implementations of TruncateDoubleToI in the arm64 and x64 macroassemblers in V8. A feature check and a single instruction vs all that crap. They just aren't innovating at the same rate.
I thought JavaScript has this behaviour because that's how it works by default on x86? Is this not just replicating some old SSE truncate behaviour?
It's close to cvttsd2siq but x64 version ends up being more instructions. At least 4 including an often untaken branch.
Although it was much worse on ARM before that which is probably why they added it.
As a part of my on-going campaign to eliminate the idea that JavaScript is an actual programming language, I protest the crappy language and curse those who continue to write more of it to clog up our computers .Apple Silicon has instructions for accelerating Javascript.