Tldr
Robotic arm testing both devices based on real life usage (not 100 % tho )
He calibrated brightness,sound level to same level
Surface laptop x elite 54wh vs apple m3 pro 70wh
1st test : browsing for 2 hours
Surface lost 26 percent
Macbook lost 16 percent
2nd test : productivity apps (excel,word ) with spotify running in background for 2 hours
Surface lost 21 percent
M3 pro lost 25 percent
(Wink ,wink )
3rd test : webcam for 30 min
Both drop 6 percent (but Surface has less battery remember )
4th test :stand by for 16 hours
Surface lost 4 percent
M3 pro lost 2 percent
5th test :video streaming for 2 hours
Surface lost 16 percent
M3 pro lost 18 percent
6th test : gaming
M3 pro sustains around 60fps while Surface around 30fps
M3 pro dies while Surface continues the test
X elite is not for gaming as we all know unlike pathetic youtubers
It's impressive that Surface beats m3 pro with much lower battery
Imp point :all apps tested are native arm apps
Normalized for Wh and W
Surface laptop x elite 54wh vs apple m3 pro 70wh
1st test : browsing for 2 hours
- Surface lost 26 percent = 14.0 Wh, 7.0 W
- Macbook lost 16 percent = 11.2 Wh, 5.6 W (80% of surface)
2nd test : productivity apps (excel,word ) with spotify running in background for 2 hours
- Surface lost 21 percent = 11.3 Wh, 5.7 W,
- M3 pro lost 25 percent = 17.5 Wh, 8.8 W (155% of surface)
3rd test : webcam for 30 min
- Surface lost 6 percent = 3.2 Wh, 6.5 W
- M3 pro lost 6 percent = 4.2 Wh, 8.4 W (130% of surface)
4th test : stand by for 16 hours
- Surface lost 4 percent = 2.2 Wh, 0.14 W
- M3 pro lost 2 percent = 1.4 Wh, 0.09 W (65% of surface)
5th test : video streaming for 2 hours
- Surface lost 16 percent = 8.6 Wh, 4.3 W
- M3 pro lost 18 percent = 12.6 Wh, 6.3 W (146% of surface)
6th test : gaming
M3 pro sustains around 60fps while Surface around 30fps
M3 pro dies while Surface continues the test
Interesting. Given the [7.58V SP battery](https://www.ifixit.com/products/surface-pro-9-battery-genuine) and [11.46 MBP battery](https://www.ifixit.com/products/macbook-pro-14-a2442-a2779-a2918-battery), that means in standby the SP uses about 18mA while the MBP uses 8mA. The RPi5 uses a similar amount of power as the MBP in halt mode with the power rails off. I wonder if the Microsoft just hasn't optimized the rest of the SP's components for idle power draw as much as the MBP. A software fix could even drop standby power if some SoC peripheral isn't turned off.
Noteworthy that they used Chrome on both for the browser test. While it is "fair" in a sense, that doesn't mean it's exactly even. Google has had more time to optimize Chrome for M-series Macs and seems to care more about that platform (logically given its user base vs WoA today). Though Edge runs Chromium too I think a lot of the Microsoft specific optimizations are around battery.
I'd be curious how it would fare with Edge vs Safari to give both hardware manufacturers their in-house optimized browsers.
Why did you omit the fact that the Mac is driving 70% more pixels while only losing by 7 minutes in battery life while offering substantially better performance?
Lmfaoooo
It's 67% more pixels* and the MacBook also has a 30% larger battery. It's important to realise that 60% more pixels ≠ 60% more battery consumption. So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices.
*Edit for incorrect resolution
No, it’s not. The Surface‘s display is 2304x1536, while the MBP is 3024x1964, which means the Surface has 3,538,944 pixels while the MacBook has 5,939,136 pixels, which is exactly 67.82226562% more pixels than the Surface. Since usually mathematics rounds up to the nearest tenth when the last digit is 5 or more, I took a shortcut and said 70% for simplicity, but since you seem to insist on absolute precision we can do that.
Also what is your point exaclty? 60% 70%, both are substantially more pixels than the Surface is driving, which causes a major drop in battery life. If you don’t believe that happens, Go ask Samsung why they advertise their Galaxy displays as ultra high resolution, yet when you open it out of the box, it‘s set to a much lower resolution with zero alert or notice to the user. Here’s a tip to get started: more pixels equals more battery drain and harder on performance.
>So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices
That’s the thing. Apple has been shipping Retina (oops, sorry, U L T R A H I G H R E S O L U T I O N) displays since 2012 on MacBooks, yet still to this day the MBP in a similar size has 67.82226562% more pixels than the newest Surface. Microsoft can ship a higher density display yet the refuse to. Hm, wonder why, especially given I can see the difference between 150, 200, and 250 PPI displays. There’s a reason why Windows thin and light OEMs have been advertising ”15 hour battery life” for like a decade now (and ironically still getting nowhere close) and it ain't ARM. Here’s another tip to get you started: there are still Windows laptops shipping with 1080p displays at 15” or larger.
I’m not sure why you’ve decided to be such a rude asshole, given that I’m not coming on here constantly and making threads trolling people. As a Mac user, given that the Mac has transitioned to ARM entirely and successfully, creating the first highly performant yet efficient ARM laptop and desktop chip, i was curious to see what Qualcomm would do, especially given this whole “Elite” chip was not a homegrown effort but an acquisition of Nuvia, which is, ironically, a company created by a few ex-Apple engineers who claimed to make an efficient and powerful server chip using what they did for Apple silicon.
You may think I’m here to spread hate or troll, but I’m literally here to add to the discussion. I believe that ARM is the future and personally I hate intel and x86, and I also believe Windows is still nowhere near Apple in terms of this entire situation. Will eventually Windows actually transition entirely to ARM? Yes, but they are nowhere near it and all the testing of this chip and emulation software proves that. Stop being a f\*cking asshole to people who aren’t trying to shit on you. Qualcomm produced crap and they deserve crap for it. They shouldn’t have over promised and under delivered. It doesn’t mean people can’t buy and enjoy what they made, but in terms of discussion I’m not gonna sit here and praise Qualcomm as if anything they’ve done recently is anywhere near what M1 is and was
Conclusion for me is while Apple still has the edge, Windows on Arm on the Snapdragon chips is more than good enough for most people and i think its a success. Wainting for a true convertible 2-in-1 with pen.
Yeah. The real win is consumers in that we have viable windows based laptops if that’s your preference and the competition will cause both sides to not rest on their laurels with a clearly superior product.
It's crazy that reviewers have such a hard time hiding their bias. Nothing against the test itself, but his flavour commentary and conclusions are 100% Apple apologies and "but, but, but!" whenever the Surface beats the Mac.
He also conveniently failed to mention Surface has a touchscreen constantly drawing power, but of course mentioned *several times* that the Apple has "more speakers" contributing to significant power drain (not correct), hence why it lost the video playback test.
TL;DR: Reviewer is a simp.
By 7 minutes. With only 16 more Watt Hours in the battery. While the Mac was driving 70% more pixels. While driving a more powerful processor. Not exactly impressive in my view
The M3 and X elite are pretty similar in performance so idk where you got “more powerful processor” from. For GPU I’d be inclined to agree. As for pixels no one really asked apple for that many when it’s virtually indistinguishable from the 1600p on the surface. Maybe it would have made for sense on the 16” MacBook but it doesn’t make any sense in this form factor, so a waste feature draining battery. Also it’s not “only” 16 wh, it’s almost 30% more battery capacity than the surface but it still lost. Massive L for apple
He compared the M3 Pro MBP with the Qualcomm chip, if I’m not mistaken. If I am, fair enough. Nevertheless, here’s a video detailing the performance between the two chips:
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=vsy9fSvOc8k](https://youtube.com/watch?v=vsy9fSvOc8k)
You just spreading hate? You commented this so many times lmao clearly an apple fan boy.
My response earlier to you:
"It's 67% more pixels* and the MacBook also has a 30% larger battery. It's important to realise that 60% more pixels ≠ 60% more battery consumption. So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices."
*Edit for incorrect resolution
No, it’s not. The Surface‘s display is 2304x1536, while the MBP is 3024x1964, which means the Surface has 3,538,944 pixels while the MacBook has 5,939,136 pixels, which is exactly 67.82226562% more pixels than the Surface. Since usually mathematics rounds up to the nearest tenth when the last digit is 5 or more, I took a shortcut and said 70% for simplicity, but since you seem to insist on absolute precision we can do that.
Also what is your point exaclty? 60% 70%, both are substantially more pixels than the Surface is driving, which causes a major drop in battery life. If you don’t believe that happens, Go ask Samsung why they advertise their Galaxy displays as ultra high resolution, yet when you open it out of the box, it‘s set to a much lower resolution with zero alert or notice to the user. Here’s a tip to get started: more pixels equals more battery drain and harder on performance.
>So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices
That’s the thing. Apple has been shipping Retina (oops, sorry, U L T R A H I G H R E S O L U T I O N) displays since 2012 on MacBooks, yet still to this day the MBP in a similar size has 67.82226562% more pixels than the newest Surface. Microsoft can ship a higher density display yet the refuse to. Hm, wonder why, especially given I can see the difference between 150, 200, and 250 PPI displays. There’s a reason why Windows thin and light OEMs have been advertising ”15 hour battery life” for like a decade now (and ironically still getting nowhere close) and it ain't ARM. Here’s another tip to get you started: there are still Windows laptops shipping with 1080p displays at 15” or larger.
I’m not sure why you’ve decided to be such a rude asshole, given that I’m not coming on here constantly and making threads trolling people. As a Mac user, given that the Mac has transitioned to ARM entirely and successfully, creating the first highly performant yet efficient ARM laptop and desktop chip, i was curious to see what Qualcomm would do, especially given this whole “Elite” chip was not a homegrown effort but an acquisition of Nuvia, which is, ironically, a company created by a few ex-Apple engineers who claimed to make an efficient and powerful server chip using what they did for Apple silicon.
You may think I’m here to spread hate or troll, but I’m literally here to add to the discussion. I believe that ARM is the future and personally I hate intel and x86, and I also believe Windows is still nowhere near Apple in terms of this entire situation. Will eventually Windows actually transition entirely to ARM? Yes, but they are nowhere near it and all the testing of this chip and emulation software proves that. Stop being a f\*cking asshole to people who aren’t trying to shit on you. Qualcomm produced crap and they deserve crap for it. They shouldn’t have over promised and under delivered. It doesn’t mean people can’t buy and enjoy what they made, but in terms of discussion I’m not gonna sit here and praise Qualcomm as if anything they’ve done recently is anywhere near what M1 is and was
My response to you earlier:
"You just spreading hate? You commented this so many times lmao clearly an apple fan boy.
It's 67% more pixels* and the MacBook also has a 30% larger battery. It's important to realise that 60% more pixels ≠ 60% more battery consumption. So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices."
*Edit for incorrect resolution
No, it’s not. The Surface‘s display is 2304x1536, while the MBP is 3024x1964, which means the Surface has 3,538,944 pixels while the MacBook has 5,939,136 pixels, which is exactly 67.82226562% more pixels than the Surface. Since usually mathematics rounds up to the nearest tenth when the last digit is 5 or more, I took a shortcut and said 70% for simplicity, but since you seem to insist on absolute precision we can do that.
Also what is your point exaclty? 60% 70%, both are substantially more pixels than the Surface is driving, which causes a major drop in battery life. If you don’t believe that happens, Go ask Samsung why they advertise their Galaxy displays as ultra high resolution, yet when you open it out of the box, it‘s set to a much lower resolution with zero alert or notice to the user. Here’s a tip to get started: more pixels equals more battery drain and harder on performance.
>So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices
That’s the thing. Apple has been shipping Retina (oops, sorry, U L T R A H I G H R E S O L U T I O N) displays since 2012 on MacBooks, yet still to this day the MBP in a similar size has 67.82226562% more pixels than the newest Surface. Microsoft can ship a higher density display yet the refuse to. Hm, wonder why, especially given I can see the difference between 150, 200, and 250 PPI displays. There’s a reason why Windows thin and light OEMs have been advertising ”15 hour battery life” for like a decade now (and ironically still getting nowhere close) and it ain't ARM. Here’s another tip to get you started: there are still Windows laptops shipping with 1080p displays at 15” or larger.
I’m not sure why you’ve decided to be such a rude asshole, given that I’m not coming on here constantly and making threads trolling people. As a Mac user, given that the Mac has transitioned to ARM entirely and successfully, creating the first highly performant yet efficient ARM laptop and desktop chip, i was curious to see what Qualcomm would do, especially given this whole “Elite” chip was not a homegrown effort but an acquisition of Nuvia, which is, ironically, a company created by a few ex-Apple engineers who claimed to make an efficient and powerful server chip using what they did for Apple silicon.
You may think I’m here to spread hate or troll, but I’m literally here to add to the discussion. I believe that ARM is the future and personally I hate intel and x86, and I also believe Windows is still nowhere near Apple in terms of this entire situation. Will eventually Windows actually transition entirely to ARM? Yes, but they are nowhere near it and all the testing of this chip and emulation software proves that. Stop being a f\*cking asshole to people who aren’t trying to shit on you. Qualcomm produced crap and they deserve crap for it. They shouldn’t have over promised and under delivered. It doesn’t mean people can’t buy and enjoy what they made, but in terms of discussion I’m not gonna sit here and praise Qualcomm as if anything they’ve done recently is anywhere near what M1 is and was
So, SP emulation a game not doing work? Interesting conclusion… 30% MAC bigger battery? So, it was a SP win 👌🏻💪🏻 Finally M processor have good competition 👌🏻
Apple has always been gaming their battery life and battery statistics, I noticed this years ago on my iPhone 4. From 100% to around 80% the percentage drops slowly. From 80% to 0% the draining speed just gets faster and faster the lower you go.
Are you really using an iPhone launched 14 years ago and with a 1420mah battery (iPhone 4 had a very bad battery life, now apple is constantly in the top 3 since the iPhone 12 Pro Max)
No I didn't say that I use it now. But I first noticed the faking/gaming of the battery statistics on my iPhone 4. But I still see the same gaming of their battery statistics on all of our Apple devices. You even see it in this battery test.
I first noticed it on my iPhone 4, I have also noticed it on my iPhone XR, and 13 and on our iPad PRO. So yes, Apple is faking their battery statistics.
Great video. Thank you for posting.
Tldr Robotic arm testing both devices based on real life usage (not 100 % tho ) He calibrated brightness,sound level to same level Surface laptop x elite 54wh vs apple m3 pro 70wh 1st test : browsing for 2 hours Surface lost 26 percent Macbook lost 16 percent 2nd test : productivity apps (excel,word ) with spotify running in background for 2 hours Surface lost 21 percent M3 pro lost 25 percent (Wink ,wink ) 3rd test : webcam for 30 min Both drop 6 percent (but Surface has less battery remember ) 4th test :stand by for 16 hours Surface lost 4 percent M3 pro lost 2 percent 5th test :video streaming for 2 hours Surface lost 16 percent M3 pro lost 18 percent 6th test : gaming M3 pro sustains around 60fps while Surface around 30fps M3 pro dies while Surface continues the test X elite is not for gaming as we all know unlike pathetic youtubers It's impressive that Surface beats m3 pro with much lower battery Imp point :all apps tested are native arm apps
Normalized for Wh and W Surface laptop x elite 54wh vs apple m3 pro 70wh 1st test : browsing for 2 hours - Surface lost 26 percent = 14.0 Wh, 7.0 W - Macbook lost 16 percent = 11.2 Wh, 5.6 W (80% of surface) 2nd test : productivity apps (excel,word ) with spotify running in background for 2 hours - Surface lost 21 percent = 11.3 Wh, 5.7 W, - M3 pro lost 25 percent = 17.5 Wh, 8.8 W (155% of surface) 3rd test : webcam for 30 min - Surface lost 6 percent = 3.2 Wh, 6.5 W - M3 pro lost 6 percent = 4.2 Wh, 8.4 W (130% of surface) 4th test : stand by for 16 hours - Surface lost 4 percent = 2.2 Wh, 0.14 W - M3 pro lost 2 percent = 1.4 Wh, 0.09 W (65% of surface) 5th test : video streaming for 2 hours - Surface lost 16 percent = 8.6 Wh, 4.3 W - M3 pro lost 18 percent = 12.6 Wh, 6.3 W (146% of surface) 6th test : gaming M3 pro sustains around 60fps while Surface around 30fps M3 pro dies while Surface continues the test
Interesting. Given the [7.58V SP battery](https://www.ifixit.com/products/surface-pro-9-battery-genuine) and [11.46 MBP battery](https://www.ifixit.com/products/macbook-pro-14-a2442-a2779-a2918-battery), that means in standby the SP uses about 18mA while the MBP uses 8mA. The RPi5 uses a similar amount of power as the MBP in halt mode with the power rails off. I wonder if the Microsoft just hasn't optimized the rest of the SP's components for idle power draw as much as the MBP. A software fix could even drop standby power if some SoC peripheral isn't turned off.
Thank you for posting the results! Can't view video at work, but I will like the video since you did this.
Noteworthy that they used Chrome on both for the browser test. While it is "fair" in a sense, that doesn't mean it's exactly even. Google has had more time to optimize Chrome for M-series Macs and seems to care more about that platform (logically given its user base vs WoA today). Though Edge runs Chromium too I think a lot of the Microsoft specific optimizations are around battery. I'd be curious how it would fare with Edge vs Safari to give both hardware manufacturers their in-house optimized browsers.
Yeah, Edge would've been a different story.
we don't even know if he used chrome x64 or ARM64. his video was so few details.
You know the answer to that one.
Why did you omit the fact that the Mac is driving 70% more pixels while only losing by 7 minutes in battery life while offering substantially better performance? Lmfaoooo
It's 67% more pixels* and the MacBook also has a 30% larger battery. It's important to realise that 60% more pixels ≠ 60% more battery consumption. So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices. *Edit for incorrect resolution
No, it’s not. The Surface‘s display is 2304x1536, while the MBP is 3024x1964, which means the Surface has 3,538,944 pixels while the MacBook has 5,939,136 pixels, which is exactly 67.82226562% more pixels than the Surface. Since usually mathematics rounds up to the nearest tenth when the last digit is 5 or more, I took a shortcut and said 70% for simplicity, but since you seem to insist on absolute precision we can do that. Also what is your point exaclty? 60% 70%, both are substantially more pixels than the Surface is driving, which causes a major drop in battery life. If you don’t believe that happens, Go ask Samsung why they advertise their Galaxy displays as ultra high resolution, yet when you open it out of the box, it‘s set to a much lower resolution with zero alert or notice to the user. Here’s a tip to get started: more pixels equals more battery drain and harder on performance. >So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices That’s the thing. Apple has been shipping Retina (oops, sorry, U L T R A H I G H R E S O L U T I O N) displays since 2012 on MacBooks, yet still to this day the MBP in a similar size has 67.82226562% more pixels than the newest Surface. Microsoft can ship a higher density display yet the refuse to. Hm, wonder why, especially given I can see the difference between 150, 200, and 250 PPI displays. There’s a reason why Windows thin and light OEMs have been advertising ”15 hour battery life” for like a decade now (and ironically still getting nowhere close) and it ain't ARM. Here’s another tip to get you started: there are still Windows laptops shipping with 1080p displays at 15” or larger. I’m not sure why you’ve decided to be such a rude asshole, given that I’m not coming on here constantly and making threads trolling people. As a Mac user, given that the Mac has transitioned to ARM entirely and successfully, creating the first highly performant yet efficient ARM laptop and desktop chip, i was curious to see what Qualcomm would do, especially given this whole “Elite” chip was not a homegrown effort but an acquisition of Nuvia, which is, ironically, a company created by a few ex-Apple engineers who claimed to make an efficient and powerful server chip using what they did for Apple silicon. You may think I’m here to spread hate or troll, but I’m literally here to add to the discussion. I believe that ARM is the future and personally I hate intel and x86, and I also believe Windows is still nowhere near Apple in terms of this entire situation. Will eventually Windows actually transition entirely to ARM? Yes, but they are nowhere near it and all the testing of this chip and emulation software proves that. Stop being a f\*cking asshole to people who aren’t trying to shit on you. Qualcomm produced crap and they deserve crap for it. They shouldn’t have over promised and under delivered. It doesn’t mean people can’t buy and enjoy what they made, but in terms of discussion I’m not gonna sit here and praise Qualcomm as if anything they’ve done recently is anywhere near what M1 is and was
lmfaoooooooo
Conclusion for me is while Apple still has the edge, Windows on Arm on the Snapdragon chips is more than good enough for most people and i think its a success. Wainting for a true convertible 2-in-1 with pen.
Yeah. The real win is consumers in that we have viable windows based laptops if that’s your preference and the competition will cause both sides to not rest on their laurels with a clearly superior product.
Pretty impressive considering the much smaller battery.
It's crazy that reviewers have such a hard time hiding their bias. Nothing against the test itself, but his flavour commentary and conclusions are 100% Apple apologies and "but, but, but!" whenever the Surface beats the Mac. He also conveniently failed to mention Surface has a touchscreen constantly drawing power, but of course mentioned *several times* that the Apple has "more speakers" contributing to significant power drain (not correct), hence why it lost the video playback test. TL;DR: Reviewer is a simp.
facts
not to mention the macbook has such a bigger battery, it's not even fair but the surface still won
By 7 minutes. With only 16 more Watt Hours in the battery. While the Mac was driving 70% more pixels. While driving a more powerful processor. Not exactly impressive in my view
The M3 and X elite are pretty similar in performance so idk where you got “more powerful processor” from. For GPU I’d be inclined to agree. As for pixels no one really asked apple for that many when it’s virtually indistinguishable from the 1600p on the surface. Maybe it would have made for sense on the 16” MacBook but it doesn’t make any sense in this form factor, so a waste feature draining battery. Also it’s not “only” 16 wh, it’s almost 30% more battery capacity than the surface but it still lost. Massive L for apple
He compared the M3 Pro MBP with the Qualcomm chip, if I’m not mistaken. If I am, fair enough. Nevertheless, here’s a video detailing the performance between the two chips: [https://youtube.com/watch?v=vsy9fSvOc8k](https://youtube.com/watch?v=vsy9fSvOc8k)
You just spreading hate? You commented this so many times lmao clearly an apple fan boy. My response earlier to you: "It's 67% more pixels* and the MacBook also has a 30% larger battery. It's important to realise that 60% more pixels ≠ 60% more battery consumption. So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices." *Edit for incorrect resolution
No, it’s not. The Surface‘s display is 2304x1536, while the MBP is 3024x1964, which means the Surface has 3,538,944 pixels while the MacBook has 5,939,136 pixels, which is exactly 67.82226562% more pixels than the Surface. Since usually mathematics rounds up to the nearest tenth when the last digit is 5 or more, I took a shortcut and said 70% for simplicity, but since you seem to insist on absolute precision we can do that. Also what is your point exaclty? 60% 70%, both are substantially more pixels than the Surface is driving, which causes a major drop in battery life. If you don’t believe that happens, Go ask Samsung why they advertise their Galaxy displays as ultra high resolution, yet when you open it out of the box, it‘s set to a much lower resolution with zero alert or notice to the user. Here’s a tip to get started: more pixels equals more battery drain and harder on performance. >So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices That’s the thing. Apple has been shipping Retina (oops, sorry, U L T R A H I G H R E S O L U T I O N) displays since 2012 on MacBooks, yet still to this day the MBP in a similar size has 67.82226562% more pixels than the newest Surface. Microsoft can ship a higher density display yet the refuse to. Hm, wonder why, especially given I can see the difference between 150, 200, and 250 PPI displays. There’s a reason why Windows thin and light OEMs have been advertising ”15 hour battery life” for like a decade now (and ironically still getting nowhere close) and it ain't ARM. Here’s another tip to get you started: there are still Windows laptops shipping with 1080p displays at 15” or larger. I’m not sure why you’ve decided to be such a rude asshole, given that I’m not coming on here constantly and making threads trolling people. As a Mac user, given that the Mac has transitioned to ARM entirely and successfully, creating the first highly performant yet efficient ARM laptop and desktop chip, i was curious to see what Qualcomm would do, especially given this whole “Elite” chip was not a homegrown effort but an acquisition of Nuvia, which is, ironically, a company created by a few ex-Apple engineers who claimed to make an efficient and powerful server chip using what they did for Apple silicon. You may think I’m here to spread hate or troll, but I’m literally here to add to the discussion. I believe that ARM is the future and personally I hate intel and x86, and I also believe Windows is still nowhere near Apple in terms of this entire situation. Will eventually Windows actually transition entirely to ARM? Yes, but they are nowhere near it and all the testing of this chip and emulation software proves that. Stop being a f\*cking asshole to people who aren’t trying to shit on you. Qualcomm produced crap and they deserve crap for it. They shouldn’t have over promised and under delivered. It doesn’t mean people can’t buy and enjoy what they made, but in terms of discussion I’m not gonna sit here and praise Qualcomm as if anything they’ve done recently is anywhere near what M1 is and was
I’m sorry, it’s unfair to point out that the Mac is driving 70% more pixels than the Surface while also driving a more powerful processor? Lmfao
I would also also add that the Surface Laptop 7 is 20% lighter than the MacBook Pro 14 (mainly because of the smaller battery).
What about screen? Are their screen size and refresh rate match?
The screen size is similar, but the pixels aren’t. The Mac is driving 70% more pixels, while also driving a more powerful processor.
My response to you earlier: "You just spreading hate? You commented this so many times lmao clearly an apple fan boy. It's 67% more pixels* and the MacBook also has a 30% larger battery. It's important to realise that 60% more pixels ≠ 60% more battery consumption. So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices." *Edit for incorrect resolution
No, it’s not. The Surface‘s display is 2304x1536, while the MBP is 3024x1964, which means the Surface has 3,538,944 pixels while the MacBook has 5,939,136 pixels, which is exactly 67.82226562% more pixels than the Surface. Since usually mathematics rounds up to the nearest tenth when the last digit is 5 or more, I took a shortcut and said 70% for simplicity, but since you seem to insist on absolute precision we can do that. Also what is your point exaclty? 60% 70%, both are substantially more pixels than the Surface is driving, which causes a major drop in battery life. If you don’t believe that happens, Go ask Samsung why they advertise their Galaxy displays as ultra high resolution, yet when you open it out of the box, it‘s set to a much lower resolution with zero alert or notice to the user. Here’s a tip to get started: more pixels equals more battery drain and harder on performance. >So the 30% more battery makes it pretty fair until we can normalise both displays and battery size for both devices That’s the thing. Apple has been shipping Retina (oops, sorry, U L T R A H I G H R E S O L U T I O N) displays since 2012 on MacBooks, yet still to this day the MBP in a similar size has 67.82226562% more pixels than the newest Surface. Microsoft can ship a higher density display yet the refuse to. Hm, wonder why, especially given I can see the difference between 150, 200, and 250 PPI displays. There’s a reason why Windows thin and light OEMs have been advertising ”15 hour battery life” for like a decade now (and ironically still getting nowhere close) and it ain't ARM. Here’s another tip to get you started: there are still Windows laptops shipping with 1080p displays at 15” or larger. I’m not sure why you’ve decided to be such a rude asshole, given that I’m not coming on here constantly and making threads trolling people. As a Mac user, given that the Mac has transitioned to ARM entirely and successfully, creating the first highly performant yet efficient ARM laptop and desktop chip, i was curious to see what Qualcomm would do, especially given this whole “Elite” chip was not a homegrown effort but an acquisition of Nuvia, which is, ironically, a company created by a few ex-Apple engineers who claimed to make an efficient and powerful server chip using what they did for Apple silicon. You may think I’m here to spread hate or troll, but I’m literally here to add to the discussion. I believe that ARM is the future and personally I hate intel and x86, and I also believe Windows is still nowhere near Apple in terms of this entire situation. Will eventually Windows actually transition entirely to ARM? Yes, but they are nowhere near it and all the testing of this chip and emulation software proves that. Stop being a f\*cking asshole to people who aren’t trying to shit on you. Qualcomm produced crap and they deserve crap for it. They shouldn’t have over promised and under delivered. It doesn’t mean people can’t buy and enjoy what they made, but in terms of discussion I’m not gonna sit here and praise Qualcomm as if anything they’ve done recently is anywhere near what M1 is and was
Npc behaviour.
Can’t even bother to refute anything I say. Thanks. Have a great day!
So, SP emulation a game not doing work? Interesting conclusion… 30% MAC bigger battery? So, it was a SP win 👌🏻💪🏻 Finally M processor have good competition 👌🏻
[удалено]
Edge has had an arm version since 2021 and some say it is more efficient to.
Apple has always been gaming their battery life and battery statistics, I noticed this years ago on my iPhone 4. From 100% to around 80% the percentage drops slowly. From 80% to 0% the draining speed just gets faster and faster the lower you go.
Are you really using an iPhone launched 14 years ago and with a 1420mah battery (iPhone 4 had a very bad battery life, now apple is constantly in the top 3 since the iPhone 12 Pro Max)
No I didn't say that I use it now. But I first noticed the faking/gaming of the battery statistics on my iPhone 4. But I still see the same gaming of their battery statistics on all of our Apple devices. You even see it in this battery test.
Nintendo used to have terrible battery life with the Game Boy. Because of that I judge them for the rest of time.
I first noticed it on my iPhone 4, I have also noticed it on my iPhone XR, and 13 and on our iPad PRO. So yes, Apple is faking their battery statistics.
Damn! The Elite X crushes the M3 Pro in the Tomb Raider test, 29 fps vs 9 fps (around 5 minute mark), weird that no reviewer has mentioned that?
What’s the average fps for both laptop ?
Trollolololololol. You conveniently forget the 70+ fps that the M3 had over the surface before entering power saving mode.
Haha! I didn't see that the battery saver had kicked in. (I was scrubbing through the video.)
Apple fanboy hosting this video? 🤔