really needed to ask a simple question to anyone here that speeks spanish, i managed to get enough money to buy a new pc and even ended up with a bit more to spare, so my question is that would this pc,
Looking at the CPUs, it's mostly a wash performance wise. They are very similar in CPU power.
Both systems only have an integrated GPU, though, so it may make more sense to buy the cheaper one and later upgrade to a dedicated graphics card if you got more money and deem it a worthy investment.
Be careful when using these CPU comparison databases. Cpubenchmark.net seems to base it all on "PassMark - CPU Mark". Based on that the Apple M1 should be the fastest single thread CPU on the market. While it certainly is one of the contenders for that title, it is hard to make a proper comparison as comparing Windows results with macOS results is tricky at best. In high end there are 5 threadripper CPUs that beat my 5950X - but trust me, you'd rather have my CPU than the threadrippers for gaming for example (ideally you'd want the 5900X for gaming). Not only that, based on those scores, the 5950X is only 40% higher scoring than my old threadripper 2990WX. In reality however my new 5950X often have more than twice the frame rate compared to the 2990WX.
Userbenchmark.com is even worse, always claiming Intel CPU's are best. Yet, strangely enough, all reviews I can find that have actual numbers in applications and games disagree with their results for most things based on Zen 3.
If you really want to know how good a CPU is compared to another one there's unfortunately no shortcut. You will have to google reviews of each CPU and find numbers like the frame rate or other results from the types of applications or games you want to use it for. Then compare those numbers to get to the truth.
dpJudas wrote: Based on that the Apple M1 should be the fastest single thread CPU on the market. While it certainly is one of the contenders for that title, it is hard to make a proper comparison as comparing Windows results with macOS results is tricky at best.
There's something else here: All Macs are build by Apple so the likelihood of a poorly set up system dragging the results down is far lower.
That's just one of the things. x64 binaries are typically optimized (by the compiler) against SSE2 instead of AVX2. Brand new Apple ARM64 binaries are optimized against the M1's latest SIMD instruction set, because that's the new baseline for that version of macOS. So even the same application running on Windows vs Mac, or Intel Mac vs M1 Mac will inevitably indicate the M1 CPU is faster simply because the compiler most likely built a faster executable.
That is because next to nobody outside Apple has dared to ship CPUs with ARMv8.3 and higher due to backwards compatibility being of high importance to them. The competition only has implemented a subset of ARMv8.3+ instructions at best.
I'm not thinking of any of the ARM instructions specifically as I don't know ARM well enough to comment on that. But I know that in x64 the SSE2 instruction set lacks a lot of the SIMD instructions an autovectorizer needs that was introduced later (SSE3, SSE4, AVX and AVX2 in particular). If the compiler manages to vectorize a critical loop for the M1 but can't on the x64 due to an executable only targeting SSE2, well, that easily gives the M1 chip a huge advantage.
