Yeah. Our as yet unreleased chip is faster/more efficient than one the competition has had out ages. I've no doubt the 2024 intel chips will be faster still.
Don't they build Mac Pros in their own factory in USA?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Claims New Laptop Chip Is 30% Faster Than M1 Pro, Promises Up to 30 Hours of Battery Life
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Given this chip is for their ultra thin portable notebooks as they call them, it’s fairly reasonable and perhaps even generous to compare to M1 Pro, and not M1 or M2. Will be interesting to see them in the wild. I highly doubt Apple is snoozing, though. And what else do AMD have to compare to? The M1 Pro is still Apples latest chip at that level.
Yep, the whole macOS platform is kind of useless, except for video editing (encoding), iOS/macOS dev and daily consumer tasks. 3D Software on macOS runs very unstable, Maya crashes all the time, Blender is not optimized, 3DMax does not even exist. No decent CAD Apps like Solidworks, ProE, CATIA, etc. exists.
Audio wise it’s s also a deception, FL Studio and Ableton runs worse than on Windows, many nice VST plugs does not exist for Apple Silicon or runs bad, etc.
I hope this AMD news is true, because the only advantage Apple Silicon has is the Speed to Power consumption/runtime ratio.
And I don’t even want to get into Gaming or other graphical features (shaders) where macOS and Apple Silicon just sucks.
So they are comparing future products to old base M1 Pro instead of M1 Max
The AMD Ryzen 7040 series of chips are "ultrathin" processors based on the 4nm process, and the highest-end chip part of the family is the Ryzen 9 7940HS. The Ryzen 9 7940HS has eight cores, 16 threads, and 5.2GHz boost speeds. Announcing the new chip, AMD CEO Lisa Su made bold claims about its performance, saying it's up to 30% faster than Apple's M1 Pro chip. In specific tasks, AMD claims the chip is 34% faster in multiprocessing workloads than the M1 Pro and 20% faster than the M2 in AI tasks.
It's annoying to have comparisons of such different TDPs.
The 1280P has a TDP of 28-64. The M2 measures at about 21W. The 7940HS of 35-54W.
So the 7940HS is on the upper end there. Something from Intel's H series might be a fairer comparison than the P series.
(Also, the 1280P is last year's model…)
Unclear if they're using the 8-core or 10-core M1 Pro. The 8-core has a typical draw of 25W, the 10-core of 31W. So both are below the 7940HS, and probably well below what the 7940HS actually drew during these benchmarks.
I see it differently. AMD used Apple as a reference (good impression #1 for Apple) and AMD did not refer to the strongest chips in the Apple existing product line (good impression #2 for Apple).
But as the end, nobody decided between MacOS or Windows (or Linux) for a difference of efficiency of 20%. These systems remain quite different with various advantages and drawbacks. AMD continues to fight against Intel.
Blender is open source. If it is not possible to optimize software with a reasonable amount of effort, that doesn't look good for the platform either.
Amazing. Although I sued apple laptops when you could run boot camp, (probably owned 4 different MacBook/MacBook Pro) I have no interest in apple OS only as my life must have windows as part of the picture.
M2 performance in a windows machine even if marginal, will suit me great.
M2 performance in a windows machine even if marginal, will suit me great.
Well, AMD cites a significantly higher TDP than has been measured for the M1 Pro, so by that measure, you can either make the laptop significantly thicker or have the fan go on more. Simple as that.
Yep as unproductive consumer it’s totally okay to laugh.
Or to spend time writing comment on this thread...
Exactly. First they were almost twice as fast. Then only by a small margin. Then they had to add a second processor to stay competitive... then had to dump the platform.
Just on the couch chilling, with my cat on the lap.
One day I will be so elite and productive that macOS becomes completely useless to me. Right now it’s working for me though.
everyone is playing his own game when posting benchmarks, Apple Included. That's how "tecno-marketing" always worked
I was under the impression that Geekbench is not great as well when trying an Apples to Apples comparison across different architectures, is it any better now?
If these chips indeed perform that well with that level of energy efficiency, then that's great--competition is good all around. They're not comparing to the top-of-line for either Apple or Intel, but if this is a midrange/mid-power chip then it's fair enough. The fact that there are Apple chips sitting between AMD and Intel says a lot about how far Intel has fallen, though--they're Intel's direct competition, but when it comes to comparing to the leader, it ain't Intel.
That said, some of these comparisons aren't particularly strong for bragging rights as a CPU maker.
Maybe things have changed in the last few months, but when I was doing some benchmarks on an M1 Max, Blender performance was awful relative to every other benchmark I ran. Given that the M1 Max was equaling or significantly outperforming the CPUs and GPUs I was comparing it to in every other test I ran, it was obvious that Blender optimization for Apple Silicon was bad.
If Blender is what matters most to you, then sure, it doesn't matter if the bad performance is due to lack of optimization, all that counts is which is faster, but using a badly optimized app for your CPU comparison doesn't really show off your prowess, it shows off the prowess of someone else's software optimization skills (or lack thereof).
Likewise leaving Apple Silicon entirely off the gaming benchmark--its certainly fair in that Apple isn't competing in that space and there isn't much compatible to benchmark with, but it leaves you wondering how the M1 Pro (or Max) would stand up on the handful of games it is compatible with.
It's kind of like when Intel was trying to dunk on Apple Silicon by bragging about all the software that's only compatible with Windows--they were making a case for Windows, not their own chipmaking prowess or the absolute quality of their silicon.
That said, some of these comparisons aren't particularly strong for bragging rights as a CPU maker.
Maybe things have changed in the last few months, but when I was doing some benchmarks on an M1 Max, Blender performance was awful relative to every other benchmark I ran. Given that the M1 Max was equaling or significantly outperforming the CPUs and GPUs I was comparing it to in every other test I ran, it was obvious that Blender optimization for Apple Silicon was bad.
If Blender is what matters most to you, then sure, it doesn't matter if the bad performance is due to lack of optimization, all that counts is which is faster, but using a badly optimized app for your CPU comparison doesn't really show off your prowess, it shows off the prowess of someone else's software optimization skills (or lack thereof).
Likewise leaving Apple Silicon entirely off the gaming benchmark--its certainly fair in that Apple isn't competing in that space and there isn't much compatible to benchmark with, but it leaves you wondering how the M1 Pro (or Max) would stand up on the handful of games it is compatible with.
It's kind of like when Intel was trying to dunk on Apple Silicon by bragging about all the software that's only compatible with Windows--they were making a case for Windows, not their own chipmaking prowess or the absolute quality of their silicon.
Anyone see that power cable? 🤣 and They didn't run it, against the M1 Max, because it wouldn't beat it, even though it's over a year old, any way, no doubt we'll see it's draw backs when it's launched 🤣
At CES this week, AMD announced a suite of new chips for notebooks and desktop computers, with one notable announcement being the company's new AMD Ryzen 7040 series of processors for ultrathin notebooks that will compete with Apple's M1 Pro and M2 chips.
The AMD Ryzen 7040 series of chips are "ultrathin" processors based on the 4nm process, and the highest-end chip part of the family is the Ryzen 9 7940HS. The Ryzen 9 7940HS has eight cores, 16 threads, and 5.2GHz boost speeds. Announcing the new chip, AMD CEO Lisa Su made bold claims about its performance, saying it's up to 30% faster than Apple's M1 Pro chip. In specific tasks, AMD claims the chip is 34% faster in multiprocessing workloads than the M1 Pro and 20% faster than the M2 in AI tasks.
One cornerstone of Apple silicon is energy efficiency, and in that area, AMD claims the new AMD Ryzen 7040 series will offer 30+ hours of video playback in ultrathin notebooks. Built directly into the series of chips is Ryzen AI, a dedicated AI engine embedded in the processor. AMD chips configured with Ryzen AI are 20% faster in AI tasks than Apple's M2 chip while being 50% more energy efficient, according to the company.
To showcase the new chip's performance, AMD compared the performance of a high-end Intel chip, the M1 Pro, and its new Ryzen 9 7940HS processor rendering an object in the popular application Blender. In the time-lapsed video shown on stage, the M1 Pro lags behind the Ryzen 9 7940HS in rendering the object.
AMD says it made its performance claims against a MacBook Pro with M1 Pro, 32GB of unified memory, and 1TB of SSD storage running macOS Monterey. The M1 Pro is not Apple's highest-end and most powerful chip for laptops, which is the M1 Max, and AMD did not compare its chip to the M1 Max.
It's worth noting that the M1 Pro is over one year old, while AMD's Ryzen 7040 series will start becoming available in commercial laptops in March 2023. In the coming months, rumors suggest Apple will announce its next generation of high-end chips, the M2 Pro and M2 Max, which will build on the performance of the M1 Pro and M1 Max for updated 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models.
Article Link: AMD Claims New Laptop Chip Is 30% Faster Than M1 Pro, Promises Up to 30 Hours of Battery Life
