News Apple's Mac Mini M1 Consumes 3X Less Power Than Intel

everettfsargent

Reputable
Oct 13, 2017
111
22
4,585
0
You have posted the exact same graphic twice, the 2nd time just after this paragraph ...
"One of the interesting parts of the comparison is not exactly Apple's M1 vs Intel's previous-generation CPUs. It is against Apple’s very first generation of Mac Mini based on the single-core G4 processor based on the POWER microarchitecture. That model consumed 32W in idle mode and 85 Watts while being active. "

Where I would expect a graphic of comparison with a G4,

Oh and your 1st two links, neither one drops me into the Apple website benchmarks comparison(s). I end up here https://support.apple.com/?afid=p239|221109&cid=aos-us-aff-ir for both.
 
Last edited:
Feb 1, 2021
3
1
15
0
Reactions: kyzarvs

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,496
746
2,060
0
When are editors going to realize that

When are editors going to realize that "3X Less Power Than Intel" is physically impossible? 1X less power is 0! Say it uses 1/3 the power of Intel is accurate, saying it uses 2/3 less power is accurate, but 3X less power is impossible!!
It's an Apple PC. It's magical. While the Intel system uses 120W, the Apple system generates 240W while running and puts it back into the grid lowering your electric bill.
 
Feb 2, 2021
1
0
10
0
It is not fair comparison.
Of course previous generation 14-nano CPU, 64GB RAM system consumes more than 5-nano CPU, 16GB RAM one
 
When are editors going to realize that

When are editors going to realize that "3X Less Power Than Intel" is physically impossible? 1X less power is 0! Say it uses 1/3 the power of Intel is accurate, saying it uses 2/3 less power is accurate, but 3X less power is impossible!!
I roll my eyes internally every time I see phrases like '3x less'...; presumably, it is intended to sound more impressive than 'uses 66% less power'?
 
I got in a minor spat online explaining to hardware reviewers how percentages work..and more importantly, do NOT work. It seemed a struggle in trying to explain that if one product is '40% faster', it does NOT/cannot mean the other is '40% slower'. The best example of which, if one product 'A' is 100% faster, then 'Product B' is 50% slower...
 
Reactions: MRHOR and kyzarvs

kyzarvs

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2008
1,034
11
19,665
140
When are editors going to realize that

When are editors going to realize that "3X Less Power Than Intel" is physically impossible? 1X less power is 0! Say it uses 1/3 the power of Intel is accurate, saying it uses 2/3 less power is accurate, but 3X less power is impossible!!
Thanks - glad it's not just me!
 
Reactions: MRHOR

everettfsargent

Reputable
Oct 13, 2017
111
22
4,585
0
So three strikes and this article is out. Power savings calculation should be in % not three times less, broken link(s) and the exact same graphic twice.

Criticism for the sake of criticism is one thing, very basic errors not being corrected makes this website look really bad.

If would appear that authors here are under no obligations to correct their own articles or to even read the comments to their fly-by-night articles and rumor mongering. Kind of like farts as they only smell bad for a while unless those farts were really number twos like this article.
 

everettfsargent

Reputable
Oct 13, 2017
111
22
4,585
0
Had to go to a Mac website to find the correct links ...
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201897

Note: I had three different Apple computers, the last one purchased in 2005 (the last IBM PowerPC). Also had an SGI workstation at work. I do find ARM to be interesting as the R stands for RISC as opposed to the C in CISC which stands for complex (Microsoft almost killed RISC with micro ops or so I have been told).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS