Hardware

I mean, cudos to them for participating in the arms race, but again, M3s are shipping right now, not in 6 months, and judging by the only 11 month window between m2 and m3, we’ll see another bump from Apple next year too. Further, the articles goes on and on about how the 80watt TDP isn’t for the chip but the whole system but then also points out that no one knows the power draw of the chip at all, yet still goes on and on about efficiency.

I’m happy that other chip makers are jumping in the race, even intel has gotten a kick in the pants to stop sitting around releasing high priced garbage because no competition, but all this marketing hype around the X Elite is premature and just a marketing gimmick to try and keep people interested for 6 more months until something finally ships.

Let‘s wait for independent benchmarks then. I wouldn‘t trust any company after the devastating shake up of the industry after the release of Apple Silicon for computers.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

That makes all those benchmarks relative but a tad outdated, especially since Intel’s Meteor Lake is a considerable jump in efficiency and performance, as claimed by the company.

Recently, those Apple M3 chips have been reviewed, primarily to critical acclaim, and we can see how they compare to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite and its Oryon processor (via Geekbench 6).

The company is coming out with its first-gen Oryon processor, and not only does it do well against the M2 series, but it also competes very well against the new M3 and M3 Pro (M3 Max is much more powerful due to it having 16 cores versus Qualcomm’s 12).

That said, if we’re being honest, it is Intel and AMD that are Qualcomm’s real competition, as most humans don’t jump between PC and Mac when buying a new laptop and instead tend to stick with one ecosystem or even one brand due to familiarity.

Clock speed, cache size, memory structure, and the chip’s architecture also matter, so AMD often competes against Intel using fewer cores, costing less money, and using less power.

Likewise, Apple is cagey with its performance-per-watt claims, only noting that when matching the M1’s peak performance (so the M3 is not running at its actual higher speed), the new M3 uses 50% less power.

The original article contains 1,802 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!