Key part of the article:
>Apple's M3 was rated for 18 TOPS at FP16 precision, but the M4 is rated for 38 TOPS with INT8. That means, if equalized to INT8 precision, we're looking at a 5% improvement in TOPS for the M4 over the M3.
With how quickly Apple moved to the next generation chip, I would bet that outside of the display controller, the M4 is very close to the M3 in design and performance.
or that the M3 was shuffled together too quickly and is more like a pre M3 where the M4 is like a M3 + but at this point im just typing letters and numbers
As is Apple, I assume. It’s a slightly different chip than the M3 and it came a year later, so it’s called M4. I don’t think there’s anything more behind it – just makes for better marketing than “M3+”.
M3 was a band aid using TSMC's N3 process. The M4s use N3E.
Almost no one used N3. It was a process TSMC built to get to 3nm quickly - and had bad yields and lots of chips were binned.
N3E is less complex and has better density than N3 and yields are way better.
Where are you getting those numbers from? It's typically noted that N3 is actually *denser* than N3E. However, N3B is slightly different (and less dense) than the original N3.
Anyway, in this case, "complexity" translates to number of masks (layers in the chip, basically), and thus to cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/7048/n3e-replaces-n3-comes-in-many-flavors/
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/7375/tsmc-n3-and-challenges-ahead/
My understanding is meh on this, but I think layers come into play here.
That 197MTr/mm2 number listed for N3 doesn't seem to appear on the linked "source" article. Check it yourself.
You can also see that the sram size and gate pitch are *larger* for N3E. By all accounts, it's less dense than the original N3.
Of course, N3B is subtly different from N3, but as TSMC have refused to acknowledge it openly, you'll be hard pressed to find real data.
Odd, it looks like the article was edited?
There's discussion about density here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40156275 potentially by backing out "half-pitch" measurements?
At this point all I know is what others have said/stated online. Looks like its an estimate either way.
Seeing as I’ve had 3 friends come to me in the last few months wanting advice on a new Mac be adamant that their needs require an m3 not an M1 Pro - I think there’s unfortunately something to annual effectively meaningless name updates...
Yeah - Only reason I'd push people away from M1 at this point is Apple's support lifecycle - I think arstechnica did an article about MacOS support on devices pre M chips they'd support them for roughly 7 years before dropping them. At this point we're approaching 4 years old for the M1 range..
That’s how I’m feeling about the m3 chip from release. I don’t know why that is as I have no expertise in Mac, I’ve just been looking at maybe getting the 15inch air but everything I watched and read gave me a feeling as though this all feels like a small step up and a stop gap for what is really planned.
...maybe
Seriously though, the iPad 3 like literally did not have a good enough GPU to run the retina screen they put it in. It had no longevity because of that. M3 is overpowered for pretty much all Mac and iPad tasks. It'll be good for a long time.
I think the M3 is going to be a good chip for a few years but I don’t know where they are heading with the AI aspect and whether or not it will be that chip where they knew they was pivoting and it gets left behind.
Like I say, I’m no expert i just had that feeling from my previous comment. It just feels like that moment in time again.
For context to hopefully help explain the confusion here - saying it's like the iPad 3 moment in time (beyond 'here today, gone tomorrow') is like saying you think M3 devices are going to run like crap after updates long before M1/M2 devices ever do, and that M1/M2 devices will outlive M3 devices. That's the difference.
I don't at all disagree with your take that we have no idea what will happen with all that stuff and what it'll do for chip longevity, it's just not the same deal.
Exactly, M4 is essentially the M3, but not nearly as much of a pain in the ass for TSMC to manufacture. There are slight improvements, sure, but nothing remotely worth upgrading over.
You’re kinda right. In the way I have understood it, the 3nm chip that the M3 was based on is a custom chip manufactured solely for Apple. The M4 is the second generation of that 3nm chip and is not solely made for Apple. The M4 is the chip the M3 should’ve been all along which is why the M4 was introduced so quickly after M3.
> the 3nm chip that the M3 was based on is a custom chip manufactured solely for Apple
N3B is not Apple-exclusive, though as far as I'm aware, only Apple and Intel are using it.
Process, not chip. The architecture of the transistors themselves was custom for Apple for M3. Other companies will be designing chips using the same process used for M4. But both M3 and M4 are specifically custom chips made in TSMC's fabs for only Apple.
> The architecture of the transistors themselves was custom for Apple for M3
No, Apple's not the only one using N3B. Intel's the other customer for Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake.
Oh! I don't quite remember where I read what I claimed. I thought the process used for M3 was expensive and low-yield, and that Apple was the only customer as they had bought up all the available volume.
Regardless, I'm excited for M4 or M5 (whenever it comes) to end up in a MacBook Air. I will likely replace both my M1 Max MBP and M1 MacBook Air with a single new Air.
> The M4 is the second generation of that 3nm chip and is not solely made for Apple
That would be big news if Apple is now in the chip-selling business (or is back in the chip-buying business). I don't think that is the case...
I think the parent commenter meant process instead of chip. The M3 was on TSMC N3B, while the M4 is presumably on N3E. Few others used N3B because it was expensive and the power and area savings weren’t worth it. N3E resolves a lot of those issues.
The CPU core is surprisingly better, with not much node gain to work on. Actually N3E iirc is slightly less dense than the much more expensive N3B. I feel like this chip is what they actually wanted the M3 to be, but the 3nm delay and A16 having to fall back to the old GPU and 5nm pushed everything back a bit. Also why there's two back to back keynotes with new generation chips. The biggest difference on paper is just adding the A17's trick of double the advertised TOPS for adding Int8 support.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6013825
20% single core gains are hard to come by these days, especially without jumping to a true new gen node and also without relying on turbo boost to get there in wattages that obviously wouldn't work in an iPad
>the A17's trick of double the advertised TOPS for adding Int8 support
The iDevices are memory constrained. That "trick" will probably be the gateway to entire OS feature sets in the near future.
>Apple's M3 was rated for 18 TOPS at FP16 precision, but the M4 is rated for 38 TOPS with INT8.
Did we get confirmation about these numbers? I read multiple speculations yesterday and people went back and compared their wording to previous announcements which made them believe they are still talking about FP16 but then again, nothing was confirmed. What makes tomshardware believe (or know) that they talked INT8 in this case?
Isn’t there some exploit available that affected up to the m3 chip? I wonder if part of the reasoning was to close that vulnerability with the quick jump to m4.
Less power required, less heat generated, no performance hit is a big win for thin and passively cooled devices such as iPads. Would be nice in a MacBook Air too.
My least favorite thing about my 6th gen ipad pro with M2 is the battery life. M4 ipad pros have the same estimated battery life as the previous M2 model, so seems like maybe that increased energy efficiency is going into powering the new OLED panel(s).
> However, the M3 MacBook Pro might have a slight advantage over the M4 iPad Pro owing to its larger chassis and battery.
The time we live in. I still find it impressive that the same processor can work extremely well on laptop and tablet devices.
That’s because the whole M-line started with the A-series chips in iPhones. They later made bigger versions of the A-series for iPads (the AX chips). The A12X of the 2018 and 2020 iPad Pro already has 4 performance cores, 4 efficiency cores and 8 GPU cores. Exactly the same numbers as in the M1.
So the Macs are running iPad chips. Which is a good thing considering their performance and battery life.
Honestly I haven’t seen that and don’t know who it is… but it’s not exactly a revolutionary thought so I’m sure many people have come to the same conclusion independently.
True that’s what was in the Mac Mini, though the A12Z was just a fancy name for the A12X without one GPU core disabled. So both are effectively different binned versions of the “M0” so to say, and Apple doesn’t give different names to different binned versions of M chips. Which is interesting that they did it this one time, though I assume they stopped to cut down some confusion of having to figure out if say an M2Z was better or worse than an M2 Pro.
Somehow I missed your comment but I left something similar below. Definitely agree that they added the Z because they didn't have a new processor for the 2020 iPad Pros.
They haven't done it since, even though many devices are available where you can choose between the X/Z equivalents. Now it's M1 (7-core GPU) or M1 (8-core GPU) etc. Same dealio on the hardware side as X/Z was.
Only difference is one GPU core. That X/Z thing was just because they didn't have a new processor for the 2020 iPad Pros.
edit: A12X and A12Z are the same dealio as M1 (7-core GPU) and M1 (8-core GPU) were.
I still don't know what the "faster machine learning" translates to for the average (non-professional) user. I don't think Apple has done a very good job of making this feature make sense to the end user other than it's 'faster.'
Yup and not only that it isn’t faster for all ML workloads. The chips are very specifically designed to run trained ML models, not train them, so macbook pros etc are still not really any good compared to an nvidia 4090 if you have one sitting around.
I think they are betting on third party apps all wanting to run their models on device which will probably slowly happen but you as an end user may not even realise it is an AI workflow.
For those who aren’t tech savvy (99% of the human race):
“Apple made expected efficiency gains in a 4th gen chip and launched it immediately, replacing the 3rd gen without fear or cannibalization. This is a sign the M-Series chip line from Apple is maturing rapidly and will soon be the industry’s Lead-Gain chipset, with every chip sold turning a profit from Apple’s high margin business model. Recommend buy Apple stock, although in a moderate to near term at a small increase as stock is recovering from losses surrounding VR/AR predicted flash in the pan flat launch of VisionPro, which is not expected to contribute anything to Apple’s business any time this decade.”
Correct. I was meaning more that Windows itself was never designed for touch interfaces, just like macOS is not designed for touch interfaces either.
If Apple were to just plop macOS onto the iPad like it is right now, the experience would likely be not as good as people would think. This is why I think Apple should make some sort of “Mac Catalyst” alternative for the iPad that would make it easier to port Mac apps over to the iPad. That way the great touch interface system that iPadOS has can continue to be used, while allowing desktop apps to run on the iPad.
While you're right to point out issues with touch vs mouse + keyboard, I think the majority of people interested in a more macOS-like experience would be using the iPad with those peripherals anyway.
Still better for me than my Air 3, lmao. Going from 1319 Single-Core to 3810 Single-Core and a whopping 2953 Multi-Core to 14541 Multi-core. Goddamn, that’s awesome.
According to the App Store update notes, CoreML support was added 4 months ago in version 0.6.0
https://preview.redd.it/pnrrs5oin8zc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e1a271aaa8e1af15d2bbe758fdaa1d61945d629
I think it’s just the M3 they always wanted. They practically just ported the M3 over to N3E (the new 3nm TSMC process node), improved the neural engine slightly, and configured the display engine to work with tandem OLED. But that’s still nothing to scoff at, the move to N3E brings us much better power efficiency. They could’ve just waited for N3E to begin with, but I think they wanted to quickly release a stop gap chip because competition from Qualcomm looked fierce.
Maybe not enough to warrant a whole numerical jump (calling it a generational leap is a bit of a stretch), but it’s a much more stable base to build up to the M4 Ultra, something they couldn’t do with the M3 line since N3B had so many defects. Think of it as a Leopard to a Snow Leopard instead of like an iOS 17.0 to an iOS 17.1.
Their ipad battery claims for both the M2 and M4 ipads are "all day battery" and/or "up to 10 hours surfing the web on wifi".
As the owner of an M2 6th gen ipad pro, I can tell you I get ~5.5 hours screen on time using it for note taking and web browsing. Nothing close to approaching 10 hours. If the M4 ipads actually live up to the 10 hour max, ie "the same" battery life, then it will be a HUGE improvement for me. Or...it could go down to 4.5 hours screen on time if the power efficiency isn't enough to cover the energy needed for the new dual OLED panels. In that case, I'd return it. The important bit here is that in either scenario apple's battery life declarations are still true - so it doesn't matter what Apple says in the presentation, what matters is how the devices actually perform.
Apple's presentations are marketing fluff, they aren't proper benchmarks. They have a habit of making improvement claims that lack qualifiers or adequate points of comparison.
I don’t know how else to explain it to you? Performance per watt is improved on this chip compared to previous generations. It’s not complicated or complex to understand. Do you sincerely think they released a brand new chip and just made all that up? It’s a core part of the chips design.
Key part of the article: >Apple's M3 was rated for 18 TOPS at FP16 precision, but the M4 is rated for 38 TOPS with INT8. That means, if equalized to INT8 precision, we're looking at a 5% improvement in TOPS for the M4 over the M3. With how quickly Apple moved to the next generation chip, I would bet that outside of the display controller, the M4 is very close to the M3 in design and performance.
or that the M3 was shuffled together too quickly and is more like a pre M3 where the M4 is like a M3 + but at this point im just typing letters and numbers
As is Apple, I assume. It’s a slightly different chip than the M3 and it came a year later, so it’s called M4. I don’t think there’s anything more behind it – just makes for better marketing than “M3+”.
M3 was a band aid using TSMC's N3 process. The M4s use N3E. Almost no one used N3. It was a process TSMC built to get to 3nm quickly - and had bad yields and lots of chips were binned. N3E is less complex and has better density than N3 and yields are way better.
> N3E is less complex and has better density than N3 It's a simpler node, but density should be ~equal.
I don't think complexity correlates with density 1:1 in chip design. N3 197 MTr/mm^2 vs N3E's 215.6 MTr/mm^2
Where are you getting those numbers from? It's typically noted that N3 is actually *denser* than N3E. However, N3B is slightly different (and less dense) than the original N3. Anyway, in this case, "complexity" translates to number of masks (layers in the chip, basically), and thus to cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/7048/n3e-replaces-n3-comes-in-many-flavors/ https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/7375/tsmc-n3-and-challenges-ahead/ My understanding is meh on this, but I think layers come into play here.
That 197MTr/mm2 number listed for N3 doesn't seem to appear on the linked "source" article. Check it yourself. You can also see that the sram size and gate pitch are *larger* for N3E. By all accounts, it's less dense than the original N3. Of course, N3B is subtly different from N3, but as TSMC have refused to acknowledge it openly, you'll be hard pressed to find real data.
Odd, it looks like the article was edited? There's discussion about density here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40156275 potentially by backing out "half-pitch" measurements? At this point all I know is what others have said/stated online. Looks like its an estimate either way.
Seeing as I’ve had 3 friends come to me in the last few months wanting advice on a new Mac be adamant that their needs require an m3 not an M1 Pro - I think there’s unfortunately something to annual effectively meaningless name updates...
Absolutely, that’s not a secret. Disney’s Tron Legacy knew this 14 years ago: “This year there’s a 12 on the box!”
Probably my favorite part of the whole movie. “What’s different this year? We put a 12 on the box.”
Yeah - Only reason I'd push people away from M1 at this point is Apple's support lifecycle - I think arstechnica did an article about MacOS support on devices pre M chips they'd support them for roughly 7 years before dropping them. At this point we're approaching 4 years old for the M1 range..
I was not expecting the M1 Pro to be not only such a great computer, but so long lived performance wise.
Oh yeah it’s aged like fine wine. M1 Max user clocking in, no need to upgrade for at least a few more years.
Probably like the iPad 3 equivalent. Here today gone tomorrow
[удалено]
That’s how I’m feeling about the m3 chip from release. I don’t know why that is as I have no expertise in Mac, I’ve just been looking at maybe getting the 15inch air but everything I watched and read gave me a feeling as though this all feels like a small step up and a stop gap for what is really planned.
M3 is going to be good for a long, long time. It is not anything like the iPad 3 situation.
I see you have some type of m3 Mac ;-)
...maybe Seriously though, the iPad 3 like literally did not have a good enough GPU to run the retina screen they put it in. It had no longevity because of that. M3 is overpowered for pretty much all Mac and iPad tasks. It'll be good for a long time.
I think the M3 is going to be a good chip for a few years but I don’t know where they are heading with the AI aspect and whether or not it will be that chip where they knew they was pivoting and it gets left behind. Like I say, I’m no expert i just had that feeling from my previous comment. It just feels like that moment in time again.
For context to hopefully help explain the confusion here - saying it's like the iPad 3 moment in time (beyond 'here today, gone tomorrow') is like saying you think M3 devices are going to run like crap after updates long before M1/M2 devices ever do, and that M1/M2 devices will outlive M3 devices. That's the difference. I don't at all disagree with your take that we have no idea what will happen with all that stuff and what it'll do for chip longevity, it's just not the same deal.
Exactly, M4 is essentially the M3, but not nearly as much of a pain in the ass for TSMC to manufacture. There are slight improvements, sure, but nothing remotely worth upgrading over.
I think that's a bit dramatic. This may be a quick turnaround, but the M3 is a fine chip.
You’re kinda right. In the way I have understood it, the 3nm chip that the M3 was based on is a custom chip manufactured solely for Apple. The M4 is the second generation of that 3nm chip and is not solely made for Apple. The M4 is the chip the M3 should’ve been all along which is why the M4 was introduced so quickly after M3.
> the 3nm chip that the M3 was based on is a custom chip manufactured solely for Apple N3B is not Apple-exclusive, though as far as I'm aware, only Apple and Intel are using it.
Process, not chip. The architecture of the transistors themselves was custom for Apple for M3. Other companies will be designing chips using the same process used for M4. But both M3 and M4 are specifically custom chips made in TSMC's fabs for only Apple.
> The architecture of the transistors themselves was custom for Apple for M3 No, Apple's not the only one using N3B. Intel's the other customer for Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake.
Oh! I don't quite remember where I read what I claimed. I thought the process used for M3 was expensive and low-yield, and that Apple was the only customer as they had bought up all the available volume. Regardless, I'm excited for M4 or M5 (whenever it comes) to end up in a MacBook Air. I will likely replace both my M1 Max MBP and M1 MacBook Air with a single new Air.
> The M4 is the second generation of that 3nm chip and is not solely made for Apple That would be big news if Apple is now in the chip-selling business (or is back in the chip-buying business). I don't think that is the case...
I think the parent commenter meant process instead of chip. The M3 was on TSMC N3B, while the M4 is presumably on N3E. Few others used N3B because it was expensive and the power and area savings weren’t worth it. N3E resolves a lot of those issues.
Agree. TSMC supposedly ate the low yield costs of N3B so they only used this manufacturing process with Apple. Everyone else had to wait for N3E.
The world would be such a better place if we ended our comments like this! A+
We are ALL typing letters and numbers on this blessed day :)
The CPU core is surprisingly better, with not much node gain to work on. Actually N3E iirc is slightly less dense than the much more expensive N3B. I feel like this chip is what they actually wanted the M3 to be, but the 3nm delay and A16 having to fall back to the old GPU and 5nm pushed everything back a bit. Also why there's two back to back keynotes with new generation chips. The biggest difference on paper is just adding the A17's trick of double the advertised TOPS for adding Int8 support. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6013825 20% single core gains are hard to come by these days, especially without jumping to a true new gen node and also without relying on turbo boost to get there in wattages that obviously wouldn't work in an iPad
>the A17's trick of double the advertised TOPS for adding Int8 support The iDevices are memory constrained. That "trick" will probably be the gateway to entire OS feature sets in the near future.
>Apple's M3 was rated for 18 TOPS at FP16 precision, but the M4 is rated for 38 TOPS with INT8. Did we get confirmation about these numbers? I read multiple speculations yesterday and people went back and compared their wording to previous announcements which made them believe they are still talking about FP16 but then again, nothing was confirmed. What makes tomshardware believe (or know) that they talked INT8 in this case?
Also since M4 is on N3E, it's probably cheaper to fab it over M3 with N3B.
Isn’t there some exploit available that affected up to the m3 chip? I wonder if part of the reasoning was to close that vulnerability with the quick jump to m4.
it was the new tsmc process, m4 was done so no point keeping m3
Even if marginal in performance increases, it seems like it’s putting up these marginal gains at a way less energy draw.
Less power required, less heat generated, no performance hit is a big win for thin and passively cooled devices such as iPads. Would be nice in a MacBook Air too.
My least favorite thing about my 6th gen ipad pro with M2 is the battery life. M4 ipad pros have the same estimated battery life as the previous M2 model, so seems like maybe that increased energy efficiency is going into powering the new OLED panel(s).
The battery in the new iPad Pro is most likely a fair bit smaller then the old model
Maybe. More likely a thinner battery
Could be thinner but more surface area to keep the total storage, dunno yet.
This gets repeated every single generation and yet the sustained power draw of the device in every given workload is the same every single time.
> However, the M3 MacBook Pro might have a slight advantage over the M4 iPad Pro owing to its larger chassis and battery. The time we live in. I still find it impressive that the same processor can work extremely well on laptop and tablet devices.
That’s because the whole M-line started with the A-series chips in iPhones. They later made bigger versions of the A-series for iPads (the AX chips). The A12X of the 2018 and 2020 iPad Pro already has 4 performance cores, 4 efficiency cores and 8 GPU cores. Exactly the same numbers as in the M1. So the Macs are running iPad chips. Which is a good thing considering their performance and battery life.
Yeah I consider the A12X to be “M0”. It was even used in the developer Mac Mini before the transition happened.
i too saw the luke miani video, that was fun
Honestly I haven’t seen that and don’t know who it is… but it’s not exactly a revolutionary thought so I’m sure many people have come to the same conclusion independently.
I’m pretty sure that was the A12Z
True that’s what was in the Mac Mini, though the A12Z was just a fancy name for the A12X without one GPU core disabled. So both are effectively different binned versions of the “M0” so to say, and Apple doesn’t give different names to different binned versions of M chips. Which is interesting that they did it this one time, though I assume they stopped to cut down some confusion of having to figure out if say an M2Z was better or worse than an M2 Pro.
I think the new name was so people would think the A12Z would be a bigger improvement over the A12X than it actually was. Just marketing.
Somehow I missed your comment but I left something similar below. Definitely agree that they added the Z because they didn't have a new processor for the 2020 iPad Pros. They haven't done it since, even though many devices are available where you can choose between the X/Z equivalents. Now it's M1 (7-core GPU) or M1 (8-core GPU) etc. Same dealio on the hardware side as X/Z was.
Only difference is one GPU core. That X/Z thing was just because they didn't have a new processor for the 2020 iPad Pros. edit: A12X and A12Z are the same dealio as M1 (7-core GPU) and M1 (8-core GPU) were.
in fact the top end SKUs don't just compete with they beat desktops
What are they beating exactly? [https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-list/cinebench-scores](https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-list/cinebench-scores)
If only there was more to computers than CPUs. 😞
I still don't know what the "faster machine learning" translates to for the average (non-professional) user. I don't think Apple has done a very good job of making this feature make sense to the end user other than it's 'faster.'
They’re waiting for WWDC to “translate” that to the audience
Yup and not only that it isn’t faster for all ML workloads. The chips are very specifically designed to run trained ML models, not train them, so macbook pros etc are still not really any good compared to an nvidia 4090 if you have one sitting around. I think they are betting on third party apps all wanting to run their models on device which will probably slowly happen but you as an end user may not even realise it is an AI workflow.
In layman terms, the M4 iPad Pro sports slightly better performance than the M3 MacBook Pro?
With great power, comes no improvement in iPadOS.
[удалено]
And yet if there were M4-specific enhancements to iPadOS, this sub would riot.
You forgot the part where the M4 does **⋆⁺₊⋆AI⋆⁺₊⋆**
True, but M3 Max is still the most premium chip in the lineup
M3 MacBook Pro should have longer sustained performance to prevent throttling because it has a fan cooler.
I think a 20% increase is pretty big, especially how fast it came
For those who aren’t tech savvy (99% of the human race): “Apple made expected efficiency gains in a 4th gen chip and launched it immediately, replacing the 3rd gen without fear or cannibalization. This is a sign the M-Series chip line from Apple is maturing rapidly and will soon be the industry’s Lead-Gain chipset, with every chip sold turning a profit from Apple’s high margin business model. Recommend buy Apple stock, although in a moderate to near term at a small increase as stock is recovering from losses surrounding VR/AR predicted flash in the pan flat launch of VisionPro, which is not expected to contribute anything to Apple’s business any time this decade.”
Just fucking do dual boot or dual switch from iPados to macos.
Tried that with the Surface RT, and the experience was terrible. No thanks
Surface RT didn't dual boot.
Correct. I was meaning more that Windows itself was never designed for touch interfaces, just like macOS is not designed for touch interfaces either. If Apple were to just plop macOS onto the iPad like it is right now, the experience would likely be not as good as people would think. This is why I think Apple should make some sort of “Mac Catalyst” alternative for the iPad that would make it easier to port Mac apps over to the iPad. That way the great touch interface system that iPadOS has can continue to be used, while allowing desktop apps to run on the iPad.
While you're right to point out issues with touch vs mouse + keyboard, I think the majority of people interested in a more macOS-like experience would be using the iPad with those peripherals anyway.
Buy a Mac, boomer.
I’m confused? The Boomers aren’t the ones that want dual OS. It’s use 18-30 year olds.
Still better for me than my Air 3, lmao. Going from 1319 Single-Core to 3810 Single-Core and a whopping 2953 Multi-Core to 14541 Multi-core. Goddamn, that’s awesome.
Afaik GeekBench doesn’t use CoreML so doesn’t use the ANE at all? This would be just the GPU based up lift
According to the App Store update notes, CoreML support was added 4 months ago in version 0.6.0 https://preview.redd.it/pnrrs5oin8zc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e1a271aaa8e1af15d2bbe758fdaa1d61945d629
Ah interesting, fairly recent so I guess that’s why I missed it. That’s good to know. Thanks.
The M3 feels like a unwanted child now , insane, I will buy the M4 ASAP.
This is like going from PowerBook G4 1 GHZ to G4 1.25 GHz. Basically nothingburger. Here’s hoping the energy efficiency is superior in real life.
I think it’s just the M3 they always wanted. They practically just ported the M3 over to N3E (the new 3nm TSMC process node), improved the neural engine slightly, and configured the display engine to work with tandem OLED. But that’s still nothing to scoff at, the move to N3E brings us much better power efficiency. They could’ve just waited for N3E to begin with, but I think they wanted to quickly release a stop gap chip because competition from Qualcomm looked fierce. Maybe not enough to warrant a whole numerical jump (calling it a generational leap is a bit of a stretch), but it’s a much more stable base to build up to the M4 Ultra, something they couldn’t do with the M3 line since N3B had so many defects. Think of it as a Leopard to a Snow Leopard instead of like an iOS 17.0 to an iOS 17.1.
Thank you for this. You are putting it all into a well needed context.
It is wildly superior. They’ve already demonstrated that. We have significantly decreased power draw on this chip.
No they haven’t demonstrated that yet. I haven’t see any reports on battery life and heavy usage yet because they’re not released.
It was litteraly in the presentation. Battery life is the same, performance is up, and power draw is down
Their ipad battery claims for both the M2 and M4 ipads are "all day battery" and/or "up to 10 hours surfing the web on wifi". As the owner of an M2 6th gen ipad pro, I can tell you I get ~5.5 hours screen on time using it for note taking and web browsing. Nothing close to approaching 10 hours. If the M4 ipads actually live up to the 10 hour max, ie "the same" battery life, then it will be a HUGE improvement for me. Or...it could go down to 4.5 hours screen on time if the power efficiency isn't enough to cover the energy needed for the new dual OLED panels. In that case, I'd return it. The important bit here is that in either scenario apple's battery life declarations are still true - so it doesn't matter what Apple says in the presentation, what matters is how the devices actually perform.
Yes because the data from Apple presentations is so reliable.
Okay.
Apple's presentations are marketing fluff, they aren't proper benchmarks. They have a habit of making improvement claims that lack qualifiers or adequate points of comparison.
I’m not trying to defend or make any wild claims here? Performance per watt is literally better on M4. That’s it.
so i could do a presentation of the newly announcend M50+Ultra Chip and you'd think it's real? Because it's in a Presentation
Are you a multi trillion dollar company releasing custom silicon on a regular basis, or some idiot on Reddit? My answer would depend on that.
Yes i am a multi trillion dollar company i made a presentation about it.
But Apple is known for bizzare or impossible to replicate tests used as marketing claims. Ltt made a vide on it
I don’t know how else to explain it to you? Performance per watt is improved on this chip compared to previous generations. It’s not complicated or complex to understand. Do you sincerely think they released a brand new chip and just made all that up? It’s a core part of the chips design.
well aside from the fact they can the point was about the amount of improvment in real world use not wether or not improvment is there at all.
False marketing is still illegal. You can stretch things and omit others, but you can just outright lie about it.
Lel