> The desktop I'm comparing it to is 7 years old and cost $600 new. You can't even buy an M1 iPad for that price today.
Which desktop is this with what components? What's the metric you're comparing? Show me the benchmarks. This still feels like the world's dumbest comparison but hey I'm at least curious now.
> Which is an arbitrary goalpost that means nothing.
But it's the goalpost they very clearly set--you're the one who either missed it or willfully chooses to ignore it, which means you're the one being misleading, not them.
> Because that's what you can buy for $1000. That's the performance standard. If Apple wanted the M1 to be compared to machines with integrated graphics, they should have released a computer at that price point
A pure price comparison on its own is missing so many relevant factors and you know it. You can also buy a desktop that outperforms a smartphone that costs the same. Is that a fair comparison? How much energy do these machines consume, what's their battery life under load, how much do they weigh, etc etc. I don't just walk into Best Buy and say "here's a $1,000 bring me the thing with the best Geek Bench score, no other criteria."
>The datacenter market is looking at the M1 and laughing
What are you even talking about now. Since when was the datacenter in the design goals for the M1.
>But I frankly don't care, and I have a hard time believing that other people do too
No one cares about battery life or the weight of their laptop? This is news to me. I have a feeling it's news to all the people who buy ultrabooks, too.
>Performance-per-watt is Apple's neat way of giving performance a denominator, because they simply can't compete with the rest of the industry wholesale.
Because they're not trying to outcompete the entire industry in every form factor with the M1, since the goal is to provide stellar performance while still achieving efficiency that enables small form factor designs. You are exhausting with this "willfully missing the whole point" thing.
Again, they haven't even released the parts that are actually meant to compete at the higher wattages you're trying to compare against the M1.
I'll make an analogy--maybe it'll help. Car Company A just came out with a brand new sedan with industry best Miles Per Gallon. And beyond just the MPG rating, it can actually tow some pretty heavy loads, too! Heavier than other sedans in its weight class. Impressive stuff.
You're the guy with the F-350 dually pumping his chest saying "mine can still tow more!"
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. That's not cool. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points respectfully in the future? That means no name-calling, no personal attacks, and no swipes.
Please don't respond to someone breaking the site guidelines by breaking them yourself. I know that's hard when you're feeling provoked, but it only makes this place even worse.
Which desktop is this with what components? What's the metric you're comparing? Show me the benchmarks. This still feels like the world's dumbest comparison but hey I'm at least curious now.
> Which is an arbitrary goalpost that means nothing.
But it's the goalpost they very clearly set--you're the one who either missed it or willfully chooses to ignore it, which means you're the one being misleading, not them.
> Because that's what you can buy for $1000. That's the performance standard. If Apple wanted the M1 to be compared to machines with integrated graphics, they should have released a computer at that price point
A pure price comparison on its own is missing so many relevant factors and you know it. You can also buy a desktop that outperforms a smartphone that costs the same. Is that a fair comparison? How much energy do these machines consume, what's their battery life under load, how much do they weigh, etc etc. I don't just walk into Best Buy and say "here's a $1,000 bring me the thing with the best Geek Bench score, no other criteria."
>The datacenter market is looking at the M1 and laughing
What are you even talking about now. Since when was the datacenter in the design goals for the M1.
>But I frankly don't care, and I have a hard time believing that other people do too
No one cares about battery life or the weight of their laptop? This is news to me. I have a feeling it's news to all the people who buy ultrabooks, too.
>Performance-per-watt is Apple's neat way of giving performance a denominator, because they simply can't compete with the rest of the industry wholesale.
Because they're not trying to outcompete the entire industry in every form factor with the M1, since the goal is to provide stellar performance while still achieving efficiency that enables small form factor designs. You are exhausting with this "willfully missing the whole point" thing.
Again, they haven't even released the parts that are actually meant to compete at the higher wattages you're trying to compare against the M1.
I'll make an analogy--maybe it'll help. Car Company A just came out with a brand new sedan with industry best Miles Per Gallon. And beyond just the MPG rating, it can actually tow some pretty heavy loads, too! Heavier than other sedans in its weight class. Impressive stuff.
You're the guy with the F-350 dually pumping his chest saying "mine can still tow more!"