Would you say that the included 35W power adapter can be a contributing factor to faster battery degradation when the M3 MacBook Air is used to its full potential? The reason for this question is because I recently purchased a brand new M1 MacBook Air in late 2023 with a battery manufacture date of 2023. I use the machine with the Apple USB-C Multiport AV adapter which features pass through charging, however the hub takes 6W of power from the anemic 30W power adapter for itself leaving 24W for the MacBook Air. I use the machine both in docked mode with external display and on battery. After owning the machine for under 6 months, macOS claims the battery health to be 89%. When the battery is full, during intensive tasks up to 5W of power can be seen taken from the battery but this quickly goes down to 0W after a few minutes. I spoke to Apple Support and they said that the readings are completely normal and in spec.

9to5mac.com/2024/03/22/unpatchable-security-flaw-mac/
All M1-M3 processors have a security hole. The patch will inevitably slow down the system by 10-30%, especially with an SSD.

Love your reviews guys :)

Would love them even more if your scoring included some deeply importants things for laptops: price, upgradability, and i/o. It's a bit frustrating to see Apple devices always get the highest score with laptops where you can't even change the storage, have to pay literally 1000+ bucks upgrades for beefy machines, or have to carry adapters with you all the time to be able to use the machine.

I feel brands who lack on those things get rewarded a lot, while other brands that try to do things great on those points don't get any credit.

Hi,
Does it use temporal dithering?

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:46:28That's because they know how to enterpret the numbers, see the overall picture.

it's because apple silicon is powerful enough to push even through outdated tests.

i have my own ideas why they were/are picky about tests, and are always making it look like r23 is some kind of a primary benchmark (which it's not by a mile, it's cpu-only rendering, no one does that irl), and don't use the same becnhmark routine for every laptop, e.g. intel laptops tend to not have cb 2024 results in reviews:
www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-14-OLED-review-The-1-2-kg-subnotebook-with-120-Hz-OLED-and-Core-Ultra-7.805236.0.html#toc-5

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 23:41:39

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32notebookcheck used the wrong benchmark too, right?

are you surprised, they've even used R15 and R20 for M2 and M1 and are still using non-native games as 'gaming benchmarks'

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32Meterlake

meteorlake is x86 architecture, cinebench is based on intel's own opensource rendering library, so don't worry about that

And yet Nootbookcheck stillgives  MacBooks the highest scores in their reviews; and rightfully so.  They deserve those scores.  They are amazing machines.

That's because they know how to enterpret the numbers, see the overall picture.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32notebookcheck used the wrong benchmark too, right?

are you surprised, they've even used R15 and R20 for M2 and M1 and are still using non-native games as 'gaming benchmarks'

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 23:32:32Meterlake

meteorlake is x86 architecture, cinebench is based on intel's own opensource rendering library, so don't worry about that

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 22:50:05

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 22:10:01This is right from the article:

i mean i'm admitting wrong only to the fact that you've actually did use real consumption numbers. i was thinking you are picking them from the top off your head, because i got used to M3 having PL1 of 20W - forgot it's Air, not Pro.

the rest still stands - you used wrong benchmark, your conclusion has no causality.

So, notebookcheck used the wrong benchmark too, right?

PS, what software is optimized for Meterlake?  None of the Cinebenches are.

Is Windows even fully optimized yet?

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 22:10:01This is right from the article:

i mean i'm admitting wrong only to the fact that you've actually did use real consumption numbers. i was thinking you are picking them from the top off your head, because i got used to M3 having PL1 of 20W - forgot it's Air, not Pro.

the rest still stands - you used wrong benchmark, your conclusion has no causality.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 22:10:01This is right from the article:

yep i was wrong on this one

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 21:28:16

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Cinebench R23 does run Natively on Apple M Processors

'running natively' doesn't mean 'optimized'
it's right there on Cinebench homepage, support was added only in cinebench 2024

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Therefore, every score I gave in my post was based on SUSTAINED performance in R23 running in a loop

no, you've grabbed some random value called 'TDP', that is unrelated to power consumption and is actually there for thermal design - and started crunching unrelated numbers without any clue what real power consumption during that benchmark was. you need to divide score by ACTUAL power consumption during test.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Literally, EVERY Tech Reviewer uses this method

probably that's why people ignore many reviewers

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56In short, I'm correct in everything that I said.

i'm getting strong nikob vibes

This is right from the article:

"During the multi-core tests, the processor consumed ~21 watts for a short while, after which it steadily decreased and balanced out at 10.5 watts during 12 minutes of continuous load (R23 Multi: 8,237 points, so ~19 % less"

The same way notebook check got it's numbers is the same way I got my numbers. A Sustained score of 8,237 when consuming 10.5 watts.

If you don't understand this.... we'll, just tell notebookcheck they know nothing about computers.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Cinebench R23 does run Natively on Apple M Processors

'running natively' doesn't mean 'optimized'
it's right there on Cinebench homepage, support was added only in cinebench 2024

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Therefore, every score I gave in my post was based on SUSTAINED performance in R23 running in a loop

no, you've grabbed some random value called 'TDP', that is unrelated to power consumption and is actually there for thermal design - and started crunching unrelated numbers without any clue what real power consumption during that benchmark was. you need to divide score by ACTUAL power consumption during test.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56Literally, EVERY Tech Reviewer uses this method

probably that's why people ignore many reviewers

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 21:03:56In short, I'm correct in everything that I said.

i'm getting strong nikob vibes

Quote from: lmao on March 09, 2024, 18:27:21

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 18:02:06Cinebench R23

r23 and earlier ones can't be used to compare arm and x86, only 2024 got official apple silicon support

all your calculations are way off too because benchmark numbers weren't achieved at some 'TDP' wattage. they all have their specific power consumption numbers that is different from tdp by unknown amount, somewhere between 'idle' and 'full load'.

Quote from: DontFearTheFuture on March 09, 2024, 18:02:06what this shows (and proves), is the more energy that goes through a processor, the less efficient it is

there's a correlation but there's no causality

Actually, Cinebench R23 does run Natively on Apple M Processors.  Has been since the very first M1 Processor.  Anything Before R23 is not run Natively.

Regarding TDP:  Notice I state "SUSTAINED wattage". (AKA PL1 or Powerlimit 1, which is set by the manufacture of every laptop)

Therefore, every score I gave in my post was based on SUSTAINED performance in R23 running in a loop; and after either 10 to 15 minutes, the score of the last run, along with how many watts were be used during that run, are posted.

Literally, EVERY Tech Reviewer uses this method to conclude sustained performance.

Cinebench R24 is newer and is a longer test; and long enough of a test to where most laptops will have reached thermal limits in 1 run.

Notebookcheck does this same test I explained above using R15.  (though, R15 does not run Natively on Apple Silicon (maybe this was the Cinebench your thinking of))

In short, I'm correct in everything that I said.

PS, MacOS is known to be a lighter OS than Windows.  There is a really good chance that Apple gains a bit of efficiency due to such.

good news btw, base 256Gb models are coming with 2 nand ssd chips again, so no more halved ssd speeds for base M3s

Quote from: Neenyah on March 08, 2024, 22:10:06I will never understand that "better battery" argument

Longevity. 4-6 hrs might be enough in short term but after years of use when battery health goes down, you looking at only 2-3 hrs by then. Sure you could replace the battery but that costs additional money. Would be nice to have such good battery life to begin with that even after the cells deteriorate you're still getting at least 4 hrs even after 5+ years.