Do note that the M4 is built on TSMC's 3nm process while the 9950X is built on the relatively older 4nm process. This has been the case for the earlier Apple ARM processors too, as Apple made deals with TSMC to get priority access to the newer processes. In the end as a user you get a slighly faster machine, but that doesn't mean that's all thanks to the CPU architecture.
Apple's also has lower memory latencies by virtue of being a SoC design. Memory speed is increasingly becoming the bottleneck compared to computing power. However this is done at the cost of other features, like repleacable/upgradable RAM and CPU, which the other desktop processors support. This is not to say that one is better than the other, but there are surely tradeoffs involved.
> Do note that the M4 is built on TSMC's 3nm process while the 9950X is built on the relatively older 4nm process.
That helps (perhaps a lot, hard to say), but note that moving your design from 4 nm to 3 nm pitch isn’t as simple as recompiling your Verilog. So this is still a significant engineering achievement.
Apple is chasing a different design point from the desktop folks: low power and optimized more for single core workloads. Works for them but not of course for everyone.
The Mx machines aren’t SoCs in the sense a MediaTek part is: the main chip has a lot of integrated functional units, yes, but so do the Intel and AMD design. They do have multiple dice in a single package though.
Personally I don’t lose any sleep over the non-upgradability of RAM or mass storage. I started computing when you could add instructions by adding wires to the backplane, and later by writing your own microcode; you could build our own IO devices and wire them into the machine. Gradually we have had more and more integration, and RAM and mass storage are just the latest to go…and in exchange we get better performance and reliability.
I don’t hear people complaining that they can’t upgrade their disk drive’s write cache, or CPU’s cache for that matter. This is the way of the world.
Upgradability of RAM isn't the issue, it's the price of getting access to that RAM. On PC you get it for cheap, you just pay for the RAM modules. On Apple, you get it for arm and a leg, as you don't pay for the modules, but for the privilege to use their higher end model with enough RAM.
The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them with revenue from the higher end models. If RAM upgrades were priced based on RAM stick costs, the base model would have to be much more expensive and less people would have access to it.
Professional workstations have always cost an arm and leg - both arms and both legs usually, for example a SGI workstation used to cost 50K dollars! I think it's great that Apple also produces a subsidized low cost model so more people can get access to it.
> The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing
Depends what do you mean by "subsidizing".. Obviously their margins on entry level models are lower but I would still bet than they are much higher if not several times higher than the industry standard. They are certainly not selling them at or below cost, they can probably upgrade the base config to 16GB and still make more per unit sold than Dell/HP/etc.
Even MS get rid of 8GB with the new Surface: 13.8, Snapdragon, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD is $1000, the equivalent 13.6 M3 Air is $1,299 (8GB is $1100). So if Apple is subsidizing their lower-end Macs what on earth is MS doing? Surface is already a premium(ish) tier device and I'd assume their are paying more to Qualcomm than it costs Apple to make an M3 chip.
> the base model would have to be much more expensive
Why? I don't really get this logic. They are pricing their base models at what the market will bear, it wouldn't make sense to sell them at a discount just because they have more expensive models, they'd hike their prices even more if they could.
What they are making from memory/storage upgrades is basically free money on top of already presumably very reasonable margins (by industry standards).
> The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them
Source? I find that quite unlikely, considering their brand has strong recognition and demand, and design+manufacturing costs are probably not wildly different from other laptop makers.
They could be trying to get more people on board via lower prices, but the prices I've seen, although accessible to many people, seem similar to other brands, and seems quite compatible with making a profit.
They might be subsidising low-end models like that with the M-series, but as they were definitely overcharging for RAM way back when it was user-installable sticks… my gut feeling is RAM* is mostly a differential pricing strategy
* for laptops and desktops, storage pricing tiers also give me this feeling; however in the case of tablets and phones, the way they're used — for most people they are the primary computing device in their lives — less so.
Any (even the slimmest) evidence that this might be the case? Because it seems like an extremely far fetched claim... And year RAM/Storage upgrades seem like a clear example of market segmentation.
When I chose "might be" rather than "are indeed", that was to say it's not impossible rather than to outright agree. Other companies do have loss-leaders, I cannot rule out the possibility that Apple also does exactly what was asserted in the comment I was replying to.
I'm not sure even if that was the case it would fit the definition of a "loss-leader" unless we assume that Apple makes back the loss and more through the App Store and other services which seems extremely unlikely.
Otherwise who would selling laptops at a loss increase the sales of higher-end laptops, most people don't buy both.
> given they make more from services than from macs:
Almost all of that comes from iPhones/iPad/etc. services. Also IIRC 1/4 of their services revenue is just the $20 billion Google is paying them every year.
> but it would be mild surprise rather than shock.
Alright, you might be right. However, while I'm not shocked but still more than mildly surprised that there are people who think that this might be possible.
You don't, though. Unless you only care about single core performance and/or power usage.
Apple's chips are not even close to AMD/Intel value wise when it comes to MT performance on desktop. The $6,999 Mac Pro somehow losses to the $400 14700K (of course you still need a GPU/etc. but unless you care about niche use cases i.e. very high amounts of VRAM, you can get a GPU equivalent to the M2 Ultra for another $300-400 or so)
Well.. it's rather hard to run most other benchmarks on any M4 device. Anyway I don't think the exact % matters too much to get the point across .
But if we compare the difference between M3 and the 9950X in Cinebench and Geekbench and assume the ratio stays comparable it would still be slightly faster
