Very much agree, I wonder as well. In other news, are there any adaptors out there that let me plug in two 4K displays and pretend to be a double wide single 4K display?
Yup, whereas the CPU in the SoC is roughly a little better in multicore than a desktop Ryzen 3600X and single core plays way at the top of the Zen 3 line.
The multiple monitor thing is weird. The Mac Mini supports more than one, and the one display it DOES support is the Pro Display XDR, which has more pixels than two 4K monitors.
The M1 Mac Mini supports one external display on the Thunderbolt port and a second one on the HDMI display. There are probably limitations on simultaneous resolution and refresh rates. This iteration of the M1 was not designed to handle large amounts of I/O. I would expect a more advanced version (M1X/M2) sometime in the next 6-12 months. That iteration will likely support 4 thunderbolt ports, multiple external monitors and larger RAM limits. That’s the one that Apple would use in iMacs and the other MacBook Pros.
I do wish that Apple would go ahead and release a 27” 5K display for the current machines. The 6K is way overkill and there are no good options for monitors >4K. They are probably waiting for the new iMacs with a new design language to put out a matching monitor.
We are talking about a half-inch thick ultrabook with 18 hours of battery life here.
The idea is that this can do the same as what was historically in a thick and heavy gaming laptop that got 4 hours of battery life in use..is very impressive. It firmly destroys all SKUs of the 15 inch MBP
Form factor is similar. Brightness is better as stated. I believe you get better speakers in the Pro, the charger is higher wattage and the GPU in the high end air and Pro is 8 cores while the GPU on the base Air is 7 cores.
It's thought that the MBP score is due to it being ran possibly during indexing on setup. The score difference is too big, it's a single sample, and the pro still fries it at single core.
He ripped apart a very different benchmark for what it was worth, that was GB3 at the time I believe. 5 was a rewrite to make it cross platform-equal.
In real world use it actually is far more relevant than thermally limited benchmarks. It just measures max peak burst performance...which is important because 90% of all users use their computer to do only bursty tasks rather than long term processing. See exporting a 10 second clip on an iPhone or loading a heavy SPA webpage on a Mac. These are 5 second burst tasks where real world use would not be thermally limited but would see real change consistent with Geekbench.
It's really only intended to be one of many benchmarks to tell the whole story; of course Linus would attack that because it doesn't make any real sense in his use and isn't the full story for him. If Geekbench was not tested, it would not cover the majority of computing uses and it would weigh cpus that had poor turbo or burst performance unfairly high for most uses.
Geekbench is kinda like 0-60MPH times and other tests (like SPEC2006) are like top speed I guess? The whole story is between them.
For sure, but in a world where you have near-infinite CPU power, ram, and performance per watt, the difference would not be noticeable between the two. I really think that the gains made in performance have enabled people to be far more okay with Electron. 6-10 years ago VSCode would have been seen as a non-option, now it's just 'bloated' compared to editors like Nova.
