Quote from: winston95 on November 15, 2024, 19:12:11Thanks ChatGPT. [...] output from the world's most ubiquitous LLM

Applefan (you) advertising for Apple by personally attacking others (me, by calling me a bot).

Quote from: Toortle on November 15, 2024, 19:26:41Ask Apple Intelligence to sum it up for you. Funny how you say it was ChatGPT but you claim you didn't read any of it. True iSheep at their finest.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize lazy prompt output from the world's most ubiquitous LLM. Five words is all it took. Not surprising someone so willfully ignorant wouldn't be able to, though.

Quote from: winston95 on November 15, 2024, 19:12:11Thanks ChatGPT. Not reading that. Next time you feel the need to wield your oddly curved Apple hate-boner, maybe consider writing it yourself? Lmfao...

Ask Apple Intelligence to sum it up for you. Funny how you say it was ChatGPT but you claim you didn't read any of it. True iSheep at their finest.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on November 15, 2024, 08:49:37

Quote from: winston95 on November 15, 2024, 05:34:18

Quote from: Toortle on November 14, 2024, 17:44:29I love it how you conveniently "forget" to put Max Load  under Battery Runtime, but then you praise battery life to be superb.

QuoteWe measured around 75-85 watts when gaming, and a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test...

Let's ignore high 138W power consumption, and let's use 124W instead; with its 99.6 Wh battery here we can expect a whopping 48 minutes under max load. Very impressive, and to quote the author, "enormous battery life"... except not.

And it's not even quiet, quite the contrary; with  33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category. So it lasts less than gaming laptops, it's louder than gaming laptops, it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops, all while being ~400 grams lighter on average.

But true iFans will call this "all day heavy workload battery life", "nothing is as quiet as a MacBook", "fans are always off even when rendering 6K 60 fps video in FCP", and other nonsense.

Oh yeah, it also has a very slow screen. Truly remarkable laptop 🙃

This post had so much willful ignorance

Let us check whether that post had "so much willful ignorance" or represents facts.

The post mentions the missing "Max Load under Battery Runtime". The review does miss Max Load under battery runtime.

The post mentions the high of 138W power consumption. The review does write: "a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test".

The post is generous to ignore this worst case of power consumption and instead only considers the stabilised case.

The post refers to 124W power consumption in stress test. The review does write: "Power consumption [...] in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test"

The post writes "99.6 Wh battery". The review does write: "Battery
99.6 Wh"

For the 124W power consumption in stress test and the 99.6 Wh battery, the post proclaims: "48 minutes under max load" Let us verify whether this is correct as follows. The 99.6 Wh battery means that the notebooks can provide a power consumption of 99.6W for 1h. The 124W power consumption in stress test is a higher power consumption so it inverse-proportional to the 99.6W for 1h. Accordingly, one must calculate the time of battery duration in stress test as ( 99.6W / 124W ) * 1h ~= 0.803 * 1h ~= 0.803 * 60' ~= 48'. Therefore, the post's statement "48 minutes under max load" is correct.

The post writes: "with 33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category". So it is. Gaming notebooks tend to be not as silent as good office notebooks in Idle with their up to ~24dB. Gaming notebooks tend to be loud under full load in high performance modes and often are in the mid 50s dB then. Hence, their noise is as the post describes.

The post claims: "it lasts less than gaming laptops". Now, this is an exaggeration. Most gaming laptops under full load tend to have battery durations about 45' to 1h 30'. So the post should write more accurately: "its battery duration under full load is at the lower end of the range of gaming notebooks"

The post claims: "it's louder than gaming laptops" Here, the post is wrong. As discussed above, it would be fair to say: "it is as loud as current average gaming notebooks" Some have less, some have more noise.

The post claims: "it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops" This statement makes no sense as gaming notebooks come with various configurations, such as 4060 Laptop (weaker or about equal) or 4090 Laptop (clearly much stronger).

The post claims: "all while being ~400 grams lighter on average" I lack information to verify or refute this.

The post states: "it also has a very slow screen" The review writes: "Display [...] 120 Hz [...] Display Response Times [...] 41.2ms [...] 43ms" The display response times, albeit not as terrible as some earlier MBPs, are very slow and, in particular, are much slower than the 16.7ms necessary to perceive at least the easily human-recognisable 60Hz of classic TV display refresh rate (explanation: 16.7ms = 16.7s / 1000 ~= 1s / 60, which is 60Hz). Now to the other value of display speed, the manufacturer-declared refresh rate 120 Hz. Let us assume that it has this. However, the display response times 41.2ms or 43ms, respectively, are a limit of the speed the display can actually show. 120 Hz is declared but the display can actually show only ~42ms. We have 120 Hz = 120/s = 120 / 1000ms, which converts to the time ~8.3ms (We can verify: this is half of the earlier considered 16.7ms for 60Hz). Thus, the manufacturer claims the display speed 8.3ms but the display actually has the much slower speed ~42ms. It may refresh 120 times per second but what it can actually show as response time is ~42ms ~= 42s / 1000 ~= 24Hz, that is, 24 times per second. All this confirms that post's statement "it also has a very slow screen".

***

Now back to your opinion "This post had so much willful ignorance" as an Apple fan. Your opinion is contrary to the post whenever it refers to numbers:

QuoteThe post mentions the missing "Max Load under Battery Runtime". The review does miss Max Load under battery runtime.

The post mentions the high of 138W power consumption. The review does write: "a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test".

The post is generous to ignore this worst case of power consumption and instead only considers the stabilised case.

The post refers to 124W power consumption in stress test. The review does write: "Power consumption [...] in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test"

The post writes "99.6 Wh battery". The review does write: "Battery
99.6 Wh"

For the 124W power consumption in stress test and the 99.6 Wh battery, the post proclaims: "48 minutes under max load" Let us verify whether this is correct as follows. The 99.6 Wh battery means that the notebooks can provide a power consumption of 99.6W for 1h. The 124W power consumption in stress test is a higher power consumption so it inverse-proportional to the 99.6W for 1h. Accordingly, one must calculate the time of battery duration in stress test as ( 99.6W / 124W ) * 1h ~= 0.803 * 1h ~= 0.803 * 60' ~= 48'. Therefore, the post's statement "48 minutes under max load" is correct.

The post writes: "with 33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category". So it is. Gaming notebooks tend to be not as silent as good office notebooks in Idle with their up to ~24dB. Gaming notebooks tend to be loud under full load in high performance modes and often are in the mid 50s dB then. Hence, their noise is as the post describes.

The post states: "it also has a very slow screen" The review writes: "Display [...] 120 Hz [...] Display Response Times [...] 41.2ms [...] 43ms" The display response times, albeit not as terrible as some earlier MBPs, are very slow and, in particular, are much slower than the 16.7ms necessary to perceive at least the easily human-recognisable 60Hz of classic TV display refresh rate (explanation: 16.7ms = 16.7s / 1000 ~= 1s / 60, which is 60Hz). Now to the other value of display speed, the manufacturer-declared refresh rate 120 Hz. Let us assume that it has this. However, the display response times 41.2ms or 43ms, respectively, are a limit of the speed the display can actually show. 120 Hz is declared but the display can actually show only ~42ms. We have 120 Hz = 120/s = 120 / 1000ms, which converts to the time ~8.3ms (We can verify: this is half of the earlier considered 16.7ms for 60Hz). Thus, the manufacturer claims the display speed 8.3ms but the display actually has the much slower speed ~42ms. It may refresh 120 times per second but what it can actually show as response time is ~42ms ~= 42s / 1000 ~= 24Hz, that is, 24 times per second. All this confirms that post's statement "it also has a very slow screen".

Your opinion is reasonable only where the post exaggerates:

QuoteThe post claims: "it lasts less than gaming laptops". Now, this is an exaggeration. Most gaming laptops under full load tend to have battery durations about 45' to 1h 30'. So the post should write more accurately: "its battery duration under full load is at the lower end of the range of gaming notebooks"

The post claims: "it's louder than gaming laptops" Here, the post is wrong. As discussed above, it would be fair to say: "it is as loud as current average gaming notebooks" Some have less, some have more noise.

The post claims: "it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops" This statement makes no sense as gaming notebooks come with various configurations, such as 4060 Laptop (weaker or about equal) or 4090 Laptop (clearly much stronger).

The post claims: "all while being ~400 grams lighter on average" I lack information to verify or refute this.

Thanks ChatGPT. Not reading that. Next time you feel the need to wield your oddly curved Apple hate-boner, maybe consider writing it yourself? Lmfao...

Quote from: RealityCheck on November 15, 2024, 01:21:13LOL it destroys every other laptop made in actual work performance, and in real world battery life. Go find any laptop with anywhere this level of performance that can last longer on battery topped out at max performance. You can't find one and anything with an AMD or Intel CPU will burn your lap well before you finish the test..

I can't help by wonder why is on the actual field outside of content creation and YouTubers, finding a MacBook equal to finding a unicorn. For example each Grand Prix weekend in Formula 1, not a single MacBook around in garages or pit walls, but there is plenty of Lenovo ThinkPads and HP ZBooks. Check this from two weeks ago, following the 2024 Mexican Grand Prix, literally only ThinkPad P-series everywhere around: What Happens On The Pit Wall At An F1 Race? | Behind The Charge

No one in the Formula 1, the highest tier of motorsports racing and technology, with hundreds of millions (and oftentimes billions) of US$ invested each year into R&D of new technology for the future season(s), somehow can't look at benchmarks from reviews to figure out how good and fast those MacBooks are, intriguing. Or, perhaps, there is actual heavy-duty work with complex analysis and endless simulations to run, that can't be benchmarked with Geekbench and other silly synthetic benchmarks where Apple is indeed the fastest one?

Being a fan of some brand is nothing wrong, far from it. But being blinded by it to the point of getting angry because someone is daring to say any negative critical thing about your dearest brand is pretty funny. Those big brands don't even know that you exist, but loyal e-soldiers will always ignore what they see and keep defending their brand at any opportunity.

And like I said initially in my previous comment here, this 16" M4 MBP is a damn fine machine, I wouldn't mind having one because it fits exactly into what I need for my everyday work. Yet it really can't be found anywhere on the field, I'm yet to see one with my own eyes at least. Be it Formula 1, railroads, cargo shipping across oceans, NASA even (only HP ZBooks), automotive in general... None outside of the entertainment industry. Yet loyal fans will always look at benchmarks and try to push a laptop from their brand down to everyone's throats. Horses for courses does not apply to them and it's equally annoying and funny to read.

Quote from: winston95 on November 15, 2024, 05:34:18

Quote from: Toortle on November 14, 2024, 17:44:29I love it how you conveniently "forget" to put Max Load  under Battery Runtime, but then you praise battery life to be superb.

QuoteWe measured around 75-85 watts when gaming, and a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test...

Let's ignore high 138W power consumption, and let's use 124W instead; with its 99.6 Wh battery here we can expect a whopping 48 minutes under max load. Very impressive, and to quote the author, "enormous battery life"... except not.

And it's not even quiet, quite the contrary; with  33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category. So it lasts less than gaming laptops, it's louder than gaming laptops, it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops, all while being ~400 grams lighter on average.

But true iFans will call this "all day heavy workload battery life", "nothing is as quiet as a MacBook", "fans are always off even when rendering 6K 60 fps video in FCP", and other nonsense.

Oh yeah, it also has a very slow screen. Truly remarkable laptop 🙃

This post had so much willful ignorance

Let us check whether that post had "so much willful ignorance" or represents facts.

The post mentions the missing "Max Load under Battery Runtime". The review does miss Max Load under battery runtime.

The post mentions the high of 138W power consumption. The review does write: "a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test".

The post is generous to ignore this worst case of power consumption and instead only considers the stabilised case.

The post refers to 124W power consumption in stress test. The review does write: "Power consumption [...] in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test"

The post writes "99.6 Wh battery". The review does write: "Battery
99.6 Wh"

For the 124W power consumption in stress test and the 99.6 Wh battery, the post proclaims: "48 minutes under max load" Let us verify whether this is correct as follows. The 99.6 Wh battery means that the notebooks can provide a power consumption of 99.6W for 1h. The 124W power consumption in stress test is a higher power consumption so it inverse-proportional to the 99.6W for 1h. Accordingly, one must calculate the time of battery duration in stress test as ( 99.6W / 124W ) * 1h ~= 0.803 * 1h ~= 0.803 * 60' ~= 48'. Therefore, the post's statement "48 minutes under max load" is correct.

The post writes: "with 33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category". So it is. Gaming notebooks tend to be not as silent as good office notebooks in Idle with their up to ~24dB. Gaming notebooks tend to be loud under full load in high performance modes and often are in the mid 50s dB then. Hence, their noise is as the post describes.

The post claims: "it lasts less than gaming laptops". Now, this is an exaggeration. Most gaming laptops under full load tend to have battery durations about 45' to 1h 30'. So the post should write more accurately: "its battery duration under full load is at the lower end of the range of gaming notebooks"

The post claims: "it's louder than gaming laptops" Here, the post is wrong. As discussed above, it would be fair to say: "it is as loud as current average gaming notebooks" Some have less, some have more noise.

The post claims: "it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops" This statement makes no sense as gaming notebooks come with various configurations, such as 4060 Laptop (weaker or about equal) or 4090 Laptop (clearly much stronger).

The post claims: "all while being ~400 grams lighter on average" I lack information to verify or refute this.

The post states: "it also has a very slow screen" The review writes: "Display [...] 120 Hz [...] Display Response Times [...] 41.2ms [...] 43ms" The display response times, albeit not as terrible as some earlier MBPs, are very slow and, in particular, are much slower than the 16.7ms necessary to perceive at least the easily human-recognisable 60Hz of classic TV display refresh rate (explanation: 16.7ms = 16.7s / 1000 ~= 1s / 60, which is 60Hz). Now to the other value of display speed, the manufacturer-declared refresh rate 120 Hz. Let us assume that it has this. However, the display response times 41.2ms or 43ms, respectively, are a limit of the speed the display can actually show. 120 Hz is declared but the display can actually show only ~42ms. We have 120 Hz = 120/s = 120 / 1000ms, which converts to the time ~8.3ms (We can verify: this is half of the earlier considered 16.7ms for 60Hz). Thus, the manufacturer claims the display speed 8.3ms but the display actually has the much slower speed ~42ms. It may refresh 120 times per second but what it can actually show as response time is ~42ms ~= 42s / 1000 ~= 24Hz, that is, 24 times per second. All this confirms that post's statement "it also has a very slow screen".

***

Now back to your opinion "This post had so much willful ignorance" as an Apple fan. Your opinion is contrary to the post whenever it refers to numbers:

QuoteThe post mentions the missing "Max Load under Battery Runtime". The review does miss Max Load under battery runtime.

The post mentions the high of 138W power consumption. The review does write: "a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test".

The post is generous to ignore this worst case of power consumption and instead only considers the stabilised case.

The post refers to 124W power consumption in stress test. The review does write: "Power consumption [...] in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test"

The post writes "99.6 Wh battery". The review does write: "Battery
99.6 Wh"

For the 124W power consumption in stress test and the 99.6 Wh battery, the post proclaims: "48 minutes under max load" Let us verify whether this is correct as follows. The 99.6 Wh battery means that the notebooks can provide a power consumption of 99.6W for 1h. The 124W power consumption in stress test is a higher power consumption so it inverse-proportional to the 99.6W for 1h. Accordingly, one must calculate the time of battery duration in stress test as ( 99.6W / 124W ) * 1h ~= 0.803 * 1h ~= 0.803 * 60' ~= 48'. Therefore, the post's statement "48 minutes under max load" is correct.

The post writes: "with 33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category". So it is. Gaming notebooks tend to be not as silent as good office notebooks in Idle with their up to ~24dB. Gaming notebooks tend to be loud under full load in high performance modes and often are in the mid 50s dB then. Hence, their noise is as the post describes.

The post states: "it also has a very slow screen" The review writes: "Display [...] 120 Hz [...] Display Response Times [...] 41.2ms [...] 43ms" The display response times, albeit not as terrible as some earlier MBPs, are very slow and, in particular, are much slower than the 16.7ms necessary to perceive at least the easily human-recognisable 60Hz of classic TV display refresh rate (explanation: 16.7ms = 16.7s / 1000 ~= 1s / 60, which is 60Hz). Now to the other value of display speed, the manufacturer-declared refresh rate 120 Hz. Let us assume that it has this. However, the display response times 41.2ms or 43ms, respectively, are a limit of the speed the display can actually show. 120 Hz is declared but the display can actually show only ~42ms. We have 120 Hz = 120/s = 120 / 1000ms, which converts to the time ~8.3ms (We can verify: this is half of the earlier considered 16.7ms for 60Hz). Thus, the manufacturer claims the display speed 8.3ms but the display actually has the much slower speed ~42ms. It may refresh 120 times per second but what it can actually show as response time is ~42ms ~= 42s / 1000 ~= 24Hz, that is, 24 times per second. All this confirms that post's statement "it also has a very slow screen".

Your opinion is reasonable only where the post exaggerates:

QuoteThe post claims: "it lasts less than gaming laptops". Now, this is an exaggeration. Most gaming laptops under full load tend to have battery durations about 45' to 1h 30'. So the post should write more accurately: "its battery duration under full load is at the lower end of the range of gaming notebooks"

The post claims: "it's louder than gaming laptops" Here, the post is wrong. As discussed above, it would be fair to say: "it is as loud as current average gaming notebooks" Some have less, some have more noise.

The post claims: "it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops" This statement makes no sense as gaming notebooks come with various configurations, such as 4060 Laptop (weaker or about equal) or 4090 Laptop (clearly much stronger).

The post claims: "all while being ~400 grams lighter on average" I lack information to verify or refute this.

Quote from: Toortle on November 14, 2024, 17:44:29I love it how you conveniently "forget" to put Max Load  under Battery Runtime, but then you praise battery life to be superb.

QuoteWe measured around 75-85 watts when gaming, and a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test...

Let's ignore high 138W power consumption, and let's use 124W instead; with its 99.6 Wh battery here we can expect a whopping 48 minutes under max load. Very impressive, and to quote the author, "enormous battery life"... except not.

And it's not even quiet, quite the contrary; with  33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category. So it lasts less than gaming laptops, it's louder than gaming laptops, it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops, all while being ~400 grams lighter on average.

But true iFans will call this "all day heavy workload battery life", "nothing is as quiet as a MacBook", "fans are always off even when rendering 6K 60 fps video in FCP", and other nonsense.

Oh yeah, it also has a very slow screen. Truly remarkable laptop 🙃

This post had so much willful ignorance that it knocked my brain back to 1999 and I am now concerned about Y2K.

Quote from: Toortle on November 14, 2024, 17:44:29I love it how you conveniently "forget" to put Max Load  under Battery Runtime, but then you praise battery life to be superb.

QuoteWe measured around 75-85 watts when gaming, and a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test...

Let's ignore high 138W power consumption, and let's use 124W instead; with its 99.6 Wh battery here we can expect a whopping 48 minutes under max load. Very impressive, and to quote the author, "enormous battery life"... except not.

And it's not even quiet, quite the contrary; with  33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category. So it lasts less than gaming laptops, it's louder than gaming laptops, it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops, all while being ~400 grams lighter on average.

But true iFans will call this "all day heavy workload battery life", "nothing is as quiet as a MacBook", "fans are always off even when rendering 6K 60 fps video in FCP", and other nonsense.

Oh yeah, it also has a very slow screen. Truly remarkable laptop 🙃

LOL it destroys every other laptop made in actual work performance, and in real world battery life. Go find any laptop with anywhere this level of performance that can last longer on battery topped out at max performance. You can't find one and anything with an AMD or Intel CPU will burn your lap well before you finish the test.. .

The screen response and flickering immediately render this an 80% score full stop. The extreme criminal rip-off pricing of upgrades and pathetic warranty render it a 65% at best. Not even on a cold day in hell would I pay this sort of money for such woeful limitations.

I wonder why they didn't add a snapdragon x elite laptop to compare with this laptop i was quiet curious.

The screen response is terrible! Imagine you play a game where you have a bright spaceship against a dark space background.

The maximum frame per second FPS you can play the game without ghorting/shades is: 1000 msec / 43 msec = 23 FPS!!! Anything more you notice ghosting!

The Macbook 14 M4 Pro is even worse: 1000 msec / 77 msec = 13 FPS !!!!

No thanks!

I love it how you conveniently "forget" to put Max Load  under Battery Runtime, but then you praise battery life to be superb.

QuoteWe measured around 75-85 watts when gaming, and a maximum of up to 138 watts in the stress test. This value then stabilized at 124 watts during the test...

Let's ignore high 138W power consumption, and let's use 124W instead; with its 99.6 Wh battery here we can expect a whopping 48 minutes under max load. Very impressive, and to quote the author, "enormous battery life"... except not.

And it's not even quiet, quite the contrary; with  33.9 dB(A) to 55.6 dB(A) that's now basically in a gaming laptop category. So it lasts less than gaming laptops, it's louder than gaming laptops, it's also weaker in performance than gaming laptops, all while being ~400 grams lighter on average.

But true iFans will call this "all day heavy workload battery life", "nothing is as quiet as a MacBook", "fans are always off even when rendering 6K 60 fps video in FCP", and other nonsense.

Oh yeah, it also has a very slow screen. Truly remarkable laptop 🙃

I know very little about displays, but the interesting thing about the NBC response time data is its variance over time.

I can't post the links but you can check the 14" 2021 M1 Pro laptop review: 40.4/58.4ms

14" M2 Pro laptop review: 26.4/35.2ms

14" M3 Max laptop review: 78.8/80.8ms

The M3 Pro 14" is even worse than the M4 Max 14" but otherwise the M1 and M2 models have much better response times and we have this 16" M4 display panel which looks more like the M1/M2 14" in response times. As far as I know, the fundamental display tech isn't supposed to have changed much (I believe the M4 display has an improvement in SDR brightness and obviously the matte option but that *shouldn't* matter). I think Apple also has multiple display providers. So while typically Apple is known for exercising tight controls over its component suppliers maybe less so on display response time? and rather than a temporal change this represents a difference between suppliers? Finally, maybe the test measurements on these panels is flawed. The article mentions the difficulty in accurately measuring response times given Apple's high PWM flickering and perhaps all the measured response times are simply inaccurate. Maybe someone else has other ideas or knows how or why the variance is so huge.

Still calling high-frequency electrical noise PWM & still measuring ProMotion displays at their idle/low-power refresh rate...

Internet's largest collection of worthless data right here!

Quoteconstant PWM flickering & slow response times

Thanks for pointing that out in this one! Unlike as with the review of the 14" variant... At least 41.2 ms and 43 ms is manageable though and it's almost twice faster than that 14" tragedy. Still slow here but it's usable. Other than that, it's a damn nice machine!