▲ 247 ▼ 8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple (www.macrumors.com) submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world 196 comments fedilink hide all child comments 8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple::Following the unveiling of new MacBook Pro models last week, Apple surprised some with the introduction of a base 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 chip,...
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago (1 child) More apple gaslighting. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) Since 1990. I remember their CPU cycles were "worth more". They also always cheapens out on stuff, even when they used "PC" hardware, CPU from 4 years ago etc and RAM & HDD/SSD were so small you basicallyhad to buy a "next tier" machine (much more expensive). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] superschurke@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I remember their CPU cycles were "worth more". But this exists... There's still differences amongst PC CPUs in per-cycle performance... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 3 points 2 years ago Sure, but their claim was just bullshit back then. They did optimise Photoshop wildly for Mac to try to show they were right IIRC. permalink fedilink source parent [–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago It is not theirs, it is IBM's. Or rather Freescale's, now bought out by NXP. Was true at the time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 16 points 2 years ago (2 children) Since 1990. I remember their CPU cycles were "worth more". They also always cheapens out on stuff, even when they used "PC" hardware, CPU from 4 years ago etc and RAM & HDD/SSD were so small you basicallyhad to buy a "next tier" machine (much more expensive). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] superschurke@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I remember their CPU cycles were "worth more". But this exists... There's still differences amongst PC CPUs in per-cycle performance... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 3 points 2 years ago Sure, but their claim was just bullshit back then. They did optimise Photoshop wildly for Mac to try to show they were right IIRC. permalink fedilink source parent [–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago It is not theirs, it is IBM's. Or rather Freescale's, now bought out by NXP. Was true at the time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] superschurke@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I remember their CPU cycles were "worth more". But this exists... There's still differences amongst PC CPUs in per-cycle performance... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 3 points 2 years ago Sure, but their claim was just bullshit back then. They did optimise Photoshop wildly for Mac to try to show they were right IIRC. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 3 points 2 years ago Sure, but their claim was just bullshit back then. They did optimise Photoshop wildly for Mac to try to show they were right IIRC. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago It is not theirs, it is IBM's. Or rather Freescale's, now bought out by NXP. Was true at the time. permalink fedilink source parent