NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

less power consumption with 20% added performance right there for all 3nm deniers.

single passively cooled arm cpu making fun of almost entire x86 cpu lineups is good for competition in the long run. maybe windows crowd will also start getting normal laptops in the end.

addition of 16/512 to list of base models is also a long awaited touch, now countries stocking only base models will get access to 16Gb base without wait, as it's not a custom model anymore.

A laptop with the supposedly amazing Meteor Lake processor has 200 minutes less runtime despite a 20Wh larger battery. It's wild how far behind intel STILL is.

Fast panel for Apple, 27.2 ms and 34.5 ms are great values where ghosting won't be visible, maybe some motion blur but no ghosting so that's very nice. That backlight bleeding is extreme though. Trash keyboard as usual with Apple, extremely thin ABS plastic which turns to shiny mess within 2-6 weeks of usage (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254561591?sortBy=best). Excellent everything else, very nice laptop and even surprisingly fair price for Apple but then again at first upgrade here the 14 MBP is clearly much better value.

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 20:01:24Trash keyboard as usual with Apple

disagree, many typists like them for durability and typing speed. generation of magic keyboards that came after butterfly ones is very good.

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 20:01:24which turns to shiny mess within 2-6 weeks of usage.

depends on hands
keycaps are easily replaceable without disassembly if anything, 10 bucks

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 20:01:24and even surprisingly fair price for Apple

it hasn't changed since M2 Air tho, M1 was cheaper because apple silicon was new

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 20:01:24That backlight bleeding is extreme though.

i think someone staring at black screen at max brightness in dark room has bigger problems than backlight bleeding lol

Wow, what a huge disappointment as always. Horrible GPU performance, nothing crazy when it comes to CPU despite the 3nm process, and 60 Hz in 2024 like what??? And 8/256 base configuration LOL. Not sure who's this for.

Quote from: lmao on March 08, 2024, 20:22:04disagree, many typists like them for durability and typing speed. generation of magic keyboards that came after butterfly ones is very good.

I agree with that but I was talking strictly about their durability, everything else is a matter of personal preference so I don't want to comment on that (especially not as someone who can quickly adjust to any keyboard).

Quote from: lmao on March 08, 2024, 20:22:04depends on hands
keycaps are easily replaceable without disassembly if anything, 10 bucks

I mean it is pure friction under fingers where they polish matte plastic to glossiness. You can use gloves and there won't be any difference. That is inevitable with any ABS keyboard on the market and while PBT keycaps are infinitely superior in durability they are also thicker and more expensive so it's not surprising that pretty much all OEMs use ABS. Then again why is Apple stubborn to make absolute thinnest ABS coating on their keycaps, that's the question here. This is extreme but it's normal for Apple to develop so fast:

• M1 Pro - Unsightly keypad wear after only 7 months. Is this normal? None of my other non-Apple laptops exhibit this issue. (https://www.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/uw1mfn/m1_pro_unsightly_keypad_wear_after_only_7_months/?rdt=46251) (2 years ago)
• How do I clean my Mac keyboard? (https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/18ogno0/how_do_i_clean_my_mac_keyboard/) (3 months ago)

Replacing keycaps is easy, sure, but why even bother so often and so frequently with that just because they [Apple] can't create like 40% thicker caps. I've seen 5+ y.o. heavily used cheap Acers with such wear, not an expensive premium product after just a month or two, meh. Well, none but Macs 😐

Quote from: lmao on March 08, 2024, 20:22:04it hasn't changed since M2 Air tho, M1 was cheaper because apple silicon was new

The M2 16/512 was actually 200€-250€ more expensive (https://imgur.com/BqMiJvX) 😳 Of course it dropped now in price because of the new Air but that same M3 16/512 is currently at 1700€ (https://imgur.com/wZH1qzx). Excellent value!

Quote from: lmao on March 08, 2024, 20:22:04i think someone staring at black screen at max brightness in dark room has bigger problems than backlight bleeding lol

True for max brightness 😁 But watching movies and stuff like that, they often have very dark areas where such bleed is visible fairly easily even at 30-50% brightness. Not an issue for me personally though, I prefer panel response times over backlight bleed because I see the former easily but the latter mostly when I intentionally make to see it (like all lights off at night and watching dark content).

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 20:51:18thinnest ABS coating on their keycaps

might be related to very minimal distance between keys and screen when lid closed idk

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 20:51:18Excellent value!

even better at $1500 in US, feelsbad for your vats

Quote from: Andreas Galster on March 08, 2024, 19:44:06A laptop with the supposedly amazing Meteor Lake processor has 200 minutes less runtime despite a 20Wh larger battery. It's wild how far behind intel STILL is.

Intel isn't though. The HP Dragonfly laptop that is compared has HIGHER battery life than brand new M3 Air (with Intel Raptor lake, so actually a generation behind) and the Meteor Lake laptop compared only has 3 hours less of battery life so at still a fantastic 12 hours. Sorry the Apple sheep love working for 15 hours straight like the little bootlickers they are but 12hrs vs 15 hrs is irrelevant in real world REAL WORK scenarios. Absolutely nobody with a brain or an ounce of self respect is working nonstop for over 10-11 hours.

Quote from: Andreas Galster on March 08, 2024, 19:44:06A laptop with the supposedly amazing Meteor Lake processor has 200 minutes less runtime despite a 20Wh larger battery. It's wild how far behind intel STILL is.

There is nothing surprising here. "3nm" TSMC vs "7nm" Intel. The winner is obvious.
It would be much more interesting to compare x86 cores on "3nm" TSMC with "3nm" ARM Apple on TSMC. And then I'm sure Apple would have no chance.

All this fuss is uninteresting as tests in incomparable code environments.

But it is much more interesting in reviews of Apple laptops to see a test of the memory controller, including its operation with 4k pages in random access. And what do we see here? And we still see the same shame of the latest SSDs, which are more than 100 times (here 174 times) slower at 4k IOPs than RAM.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

The shame of Apple is that as soon as this same 16GB (minus the OS kernel and drivers) of soldered memory runs out, everything will become dramatically worse - software performance will drop by more than 100(!) times, with any access to the swap file on the SSD,

This is exactly the problem - with its cheap price (and Apple's wild prices), RAM should be from 32GB, but rather 64GB. Already at 32GB, the load on the slow SSD of this laptop will drop significantly.

But the memory controller also consumes. And you have to pay for everything...

Quote from: NikoB on March 08, 2024, 21:43:22everything will become dramatically worse - software performance will drop by more than 100(!) times, with any access to the swap file on the SSD,

Bold of you to assume that you or any human on this planet can keep the pace - both mental and in operating the device - with the SoC and the RAM to actually notice any difference. Just try to calculate 86582×83.58 faster than the slowest calculator on the planet (good luck).

Quote from: AppleMFlop on March 08, 2024, 21:32:10Absolutely nobody with a brain or an ounce of self respect is working nonstop for over 10-11 hours.

And if they do they don't on battery. I will never understand that "better battery" argument for doing any work with laptops. 4-6 hours is more than enough. Almost all modern laptops charge very fast these days, 0 to 60% in 30 minutes and similar. Sure it's nice to have 10+ hours of battery life but why is that needed for actual work? Rhetorical question of course.

Literally not a single sane person will get home (if they WFH) and sit right next to any plug in their home and not plug it in. None.

Same if they use the device in their office/workplace - who in their right mind will sit at the desk and straight up refuse to plug the device in when the cable is just 20-30 cm away on their desk? Especially when pretty much all offices have docks and such with power delivery, external monitor(s) and so on?

Quote from: NikoB on March 08, 2024, 21:43:22more interesting to compare x86 cores on "3nm" TSMC with "3nm" ARM Apple on TSMC.

all you need to perform this comparison in your mind is the fact that x86 core is always larger and more complex than arm core.

Quote from: NikoB on March 08, 2024, 21:43:22including its operation with 4k pages in random access

4k pages are outdated tech used in x86 in 2024 because changing it will break a lot of software.
apple silicon is using bigger pages.

Quote from: AppleMFlop on March 08, 2024, 21:32:10Absolutely nobody with a brain or an ounce of self respect is working nonstop for over 10-11 hours.

anyone with a brain understands that 15 hours is just a scripted web surfing benchmark, not any real work scenario. when you start working, laptop with "15 hours wifi" will last you longer than laptop with "7 hours wifi" by (very roughly) about half. actual amount of hours depends on your load.
if you are interested why long battery life matters, get out of basement and get on the first 6-7+ hrs plane (or two back to back) in your life.

and overall about "working 10hrs is not self respectful" - imo it's more like an opinion of someone who never worked and probably typing this 'high-end philosophy' on a cheap lenovo, while $200-300k/yr engineers are working their asses off and sleeping at work lol.

those engineers when some random nobody on the internet says they are brainless and do not respect themselves:
gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Woody-Harrelson-Wiping-Tears-Money.gif

@lmao

They are idiots though. In Sales you can make the same money or even more with 2-3 hours max per day, respecting yourself and your family.

I haven't worked more that 3 hours per day on average for the last ten years, all while making 6 figures and traveling the work as our company is remote first.

But you do you and use money bills to dry your tears. I would have to do the same if I needed to sleep at work to make decent money while not having enough free time to actually enjoy it. It's even better if people like you live in high priced cities where large chunk of that money has to go into high living costs for a average quality of life.

Pro tip: buy crypto during the next bear market and easily 10x your money with 0 effort.

Quote from: lmao on March 08, 2024, 22:50:44and overall about "working 10hrs is not self respectful" - imo it's more like an opinion of someone who never worked and probably typing this 'high-end philosophy' on a cheap lenovo, while $200-300k/yr engineers are working their asses off and sleeping at work lol.

To be fair he said:

Quote from: AppleMFlop on March 08, 2024, 21:32:10Absolutely nobody with a brain or an ounce of self respect is working nonstop for over 10-11 hours.

And there really is no sane person on the planet who won't take a break of at least 20-30 minutes if they really have to work 10-11-12 hours shift.

Quote from: Andreas Galster on March 08, 2024, 19:44:06A laptop with the supposedly amazing Meteor Lake processor has 200 minutes less runtime despite a 20Wh larger battery. It's wild how far behind intel STILL is.

You can't compare a CPU with a Base TDP of 10.5 watts (M3 base) to a CPU with a base TDP of 28 watts (Intel 155H)
Here's what I mean:

I'm going to compare an Apple M3 chip to ...........another Apple M3 chip.

Let's compare both these M3 chips on a "Sustained" Run of Cinebench R23:

Apple M3 Base 8 Core (10.5 watt sustained) CPU:  8,237 points / 10.5 watts = 784 points / watt

Apple M3 Pro 12 Core (27 watt sustained) CPU: 15,106 points / 27 watts: = 559 points / watt

784 points / 556 points = 1.41. 

So, the M3 Base has 41% more performance per watt than a M3 Pro.  Therefore, I conclude that an M3 chip is better than an M3 chip.  (what?)

Hmmm, I wonder what happens when I compare 2 chips with the same TPD.  Well, let's see:

Let's compare the 27 Watt TPD M3 Pro to a 28 Watt TDP Intel 155H (both running at their base TDPs):

Intel 155H at 28 watts sustained: 13,000 Points.  13,000 Points / 28 watts = 464 points / watt.

As I mentioned above, the Apple M3 Pro 12-core (27 watt sustained) CPU: 15,106 / 27 watts: = 559 points / watt

559 / 464 = 1.2.

So when comparing these 2 chips, M3 Pro chip is roughly 20% more performant per watt under load than a 155H when using the same amount of watts. That's not that much, considering an optimization of a 155H (a second gen. 155H if you will) may increase efficiency by 10% alone.

Now, let's run that same Intel 155H at 45 watts instead of 28 watts:  14,500 points / 45 watts = 322 points / watt.

464/322 = 1.44.  Therefore, a 155H running at 28 Watts is 44% more performant per Watt than when running at 45 Watts.

Therefore, a 155H is better than a 155H (what?)

Well, what this shows (and proves), is the more energy that goes through a processor, the less efficient it is. 

That's why the only way to correctly compare chips is when the TDPs are the same.

Folks, Intel is not as far off as people think.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 18:02:06Cinebench R23

r23 and earlier ones can't be used to compare arm and x86, only 2024 got official apple silicon support

all your calculations are way off too because benchmark numbers weren't achieved at some 'TDP' wattage. they all have their specific power consumption numbers that is different from tdp by unknown amount, somewhere between 'idle' and 'full load'.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 18:02:06what this shows (and proves), is the more energy that goes through a processor, the less efficient it is

there's a correlation but there's no causality

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 22:10:06I will never understand that "better battery" argument

Longevity. 4-6 hrs might be enough in short term but after years of use when battery health goes down, you looking at only 2-3 hrs by then. Sure you could replace the battery but that costs additional money. Would be nice to have such good battery life to begin with that even after the cells deteriorate you're still getting at least 4 hrs even after 5+ years.

good news btw, base 256Gb models are coming with 2 nand ssd chips again, so no more halved ssd speeds for base M3s

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 18:27:21

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 18:02:06Cinebench R23

r23 and earlier ones can't be used to compare arm and x86, only 2024 got official apple silicon support

all your calculations are way off too because benchmark numbers weren't achieved at some 'TDP' wattage. they all have their specific power consumption numbers that is different from tdp by unknown amount, somewhere between 'idle' and 'full load'.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 18:02:06what this shows (and proves), is the more energy that goes through a processor, the less efficient it is

there's a correlation but there's no causality

Actually, Cinebench R23 does run Natively on Apple M Processors.  Has been since the very first M1 Processor.  Anything Before R23 is not run Natively.

Regarding TDP:  Notice I state "SUSTAINED wattage". (AKA PL1 or Powerlimit 1, which is set by the manufacture of every laptop)

Therefore, every score I gave in my post was based on SUSTAINED performance in R23 running in a loop; and after either 10 to 15 minutes, the score of the last run, along with how many watts were be used during that run, are posted.

Literally, EVERY Tech Reviewer uses this method to conclude sustained performance.

Cinebench R24 is newer and is a longer test; and long enough of a test to where most laptops will have reached thermal limits in 1 run.

Notebookcheck does this same test I explained above using R15.  (though, R15 does not run Natively on Apple Silicon (maybe this was the Cinebench your thinking of))

In short, I'm correct in everything that I said.

PS, MacOS is known to be a lighter OS than Windows.  There is a really good chance that Apple gains a bit of efficiency due to such.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Cinebench R23 does run Natively on Apple M Processors

'running natively' doesn't mean 'optimized'
it's right there on Cinebench homepage, support was added only in cinebench 2024

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Therefore, every score I gave in my post was based on SUSTAINED performance in R23 running in a loop

no, you've grabbed some random value called 'TDP', that is unrelated to power consumption and is actually there for thermal design - and started crunching unrelated numbers without any clue what real power consumption during that benchmark was. you need to divide score by ACTUAL power consumption during test.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Literally, EVERY Tech Reviewer uses this method

probably that's why people ignore many reviewers

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56In short, I'm correct in everything that I said.

i'm getting strong nikob vibes

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 21:28:16

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Cinebench R23 does run Natively on Apple M Processors

'running natively' doesn't mean 'optimized'
it's right there on Cinebench homepage, support was added only in cinebench 2024

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Therefore, every score I gave in my post was based on SUSTAINED performance in R23 running in a loop

no, you've grabbed some random value called 'TDP', that is unrelated to power consumption and is actually there for thermal design - and started crunching unrelated numbers without any clue what real power consumption during that benchmark was. you need to divide score by ACTUAL power consumption during test.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Literally, EVERY Tech Reviewer uses this method

probably that's why people ignore many reviewers

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56In short, I'm correct in everything that I said.

i'm getting strong nikob vibes

This is right from the article:

"During the multi-core tests, the processor consumed ~21 watts for a short while, after which it steadily decreased and balanced out at 10.5 watts during 12 minutes of continuous load (R23 Multi: 8,237 points, so ~19 % less"

The same way notebook check got it's numbers is the same way I got my numbers. A Sustained score of 8,237 when consuming 10.5 watts.

If you don't understand this.... we'll, just tell notebookcheck they know nothing about computers.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 22:10:01This is right from the article:

yep i was wrong on this one

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 22:10:01This is right from the article:

i mean i'm admitting wrong only to the fact that you've actually did use real consumption numbers. i was thinking you are picking them from the top off your head, because i got used to M3 having PL1 of 20W - forgot it's Air, not Pro.

the rest still stands - you used wrong benchmark, your conclusion has no causality.

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 22:50:05

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 22:10:01This is right from the article:

i mean i'm admitting wrong only to the fact that you've actually did use real consumption numbers. i was thinking you are picking them from the top off your head, because i got used to M3 having PL1 of 20W - forgot it's Air, not Pro.

the rest still stands - you used wrong benchmark, your conclusion has no causality.

So, notebookcheck used the wrong benchmark too, right?

PS, what software is optimized for Meterlake?  None of the Cinebenches are.

Is Windows even fully optimized yet?

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32notebookcheck used the wrong benchmark too, right?

are you surprised, they've even used R15 and R20 for M2 and M1 and are still using non-native games as 'gaming benchmarks'

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32Meterlake

meteorlake is x86 architecture, cinebench is based on intel's own opensource rendering library, so don't worry about that

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 23:41:39

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32notebookcheck used the wrong benchmark too, right?

are you surprised, they've even used R15 and R20 for M2 and M1 and are still using non-native games as 'gaming benchmarks'

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32Meterlake

meteorlake is x86 architecture, cinebench is based on intel's own opensource rendering library, so don't worry about that

And yet Nootbookcheck stillgives  MacBooks the highest scores in their reviews; and rightfully so.  They deserve those scores.  They are amazing machines.

That's because they know how to enterpret the numbers, see the overall picture.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:46:28That's because they know how to enterpret the numbers, see the overall picture.

it's because apple silicon is powerful enough to push even through outdated tests.

i have my own ideas why they were/are picky about tests, and are always making it look like r23 is some kind of a primary benchmark (which it's not by a mile, it's cpu-only rendering, no one does that irl), and don't use the same becnhmark routine for every laptop, e.g. intel laptops tend to not have cb 2024 results in reviews:
www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-14-OLED-review-The-1-2-kg-subnotebook-with-120-Hz-OLED-and-Core-Ultra-7.805236.0.html#toc-5

Hi,
Does it use temporal dithering?

Love your reviews guys :)

Would love them even more if your scoring included some deeply importants things for laptops: price, upgradability, and i/o. It's a bit frustrating to see Apple devices always get the highest score with laptops where you can't even change the storage, have to pay literally 1000+ bucks upgrades for beefy machines, or have to carry adapters with you all the time to be able to use the machine.

I feel brands who lack on those things get rewarded a lot, while other brands that try to do things great on those points don't get any credit.

9to5mac.com/2024/03/22/unpatchable-security-flaw-mac/
All M1-M3 processors have a security hole. The patch will inevitably slow down the system by 10-30%, especially with an SSD.

Would you say that the included 35W power adapter can be a contributing factor to faster battery degradation when the M3 MacBook Air is used to its full potential? The reason for this question is because I recently purchased a brand new M1 MacBook Air in late 2023 with a battery manufacture date of 2023. I use the machine with the Apple USB-C Multiport AV adapter which features pass through charging, however the hub takes 6W of power from the anemic 30W power adapter for itself leaving 24W for the MacBook Air. I use the machine both in docked mode with external display and on battery. After owning the machine for under 6 months, macOS claims the battery health to be 89%. When the battery is full, during intensive tasks up to 5W of power can be seen taken from the battery but this quickly goes down to 0W after a few minutes. I spoke to Apple Support and they said that the readings are completely normal and in spec.