you dont get it , Once you put CPU results in one thread , you should put the same CPU in the multi thread tables. they hidden it because it is embarrassing to Apple ..
I get it just fine. I'm a scientist, so it's my job to think about how to present data in a clear and non-misleading manner. When you say that anandtech "deliberately hid" the 5950x multicore result, and did so because it's "embarrassing to Apple", along with your earlier comment that Apple must have paid anandtech off, you're spouting conspiracy theories.
Most likely, the reason they left it off is that they didn't think it was
meaningful or interesting to compare a CPU with 4 performance cores and 4 low-power cores to a CPU with 16 performance cores, for a multi-core task! I.e., just because a single-core comparison is meaningful, that doesn't mean a multi-core comparison is as well. If anything, the graph was unfair to the M1. If it were me, I would have added, to each result in the multi-core comparison, a label with the number of performance cores and the number of efficiency cores, so people could clearly see that, in most cases, the M1 was being compared to CPUs with
more performance cores.
As further evidence that anandtech isn't trying to "hide" anything, they explicitly wrote, in their article, that "Naturally, in higher power-level, higher-core count systems, the M1 can’t keep up to AMD and Intel designs, but that’s something Apple likely will want to address with subsequent designs in that category over the next 2 years."
More over , as I said earlier , Mac Mini is a desktop capable of having any 65 watts CPU inside. they ruined it when they offered it 2 years LATER with 20 watts CPU ...
it is not a Mobile . MAc Mini is a DESKTOP.
Late 2018 had i7 8700b with upto 64GB of RAM ..
Two years after they gave us 16 GB RAM MAX and some tiny 20 watts CPU ? while they could put i9 10900 inside and upto 128GB of max ram ?
New Mac mini is a downgrade AFTER TWO YEARS. not acceptable at all.
I think you're the one who's not getting it here. I agree, Apple should (and likely will) offer a high-end version of the Mini, with 4 TB4 ports, higher RAM options, and a more powerful CPU/GPU. But think it through:
They don't have such a chip now. So they only had two options:
- Offer a low-end AS Mini now (keeping the Intel Mini for those who need the added ports and RAM), and add a high-end AS Mini to the line in 2021 when the more powerful chips become available.
- Delay offering the low-powered AS Mini until the high-powered one is also available, releasing both together in 2021.
And by complaining they released only a low-end Mini now, you're basically complaining they did no. 1 instead of no. 2. But why on earth is no. 2 better for the consumer than no. 1?? All it does is deny consumers who might benefit from a low powered AS Mini today the ability to purchase that version until the the high-powered one is available. Your position makes no sense.
I.e., they're only offering a low-powered AS Mini
for now, because that's the only production AS Mac chip they currently have. Those consumers for whom that works can buy it now. Those that need more power/ports/RAM can wait for the high-powered Mini.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram