But what I am saying is that there is still another 13” (or 14”) MacBook Pro chip to arrive which will probably be the M2 which will be quicker than the M1 with some sacrifice to battery life. I would say that would be the processor to compare to those AMDs.
His point is that comparing 15W against 15W chips. That M2 or whatever that comes will probably be in the 28W class (if the older 4TB MBP 13s are anything to go off of), at which point you'd have to compare the M2 against whatever 28W class CPU AMD is offering at that time (which will also likely be Zen 3 mobile CPUs, so add another 20% to performance, with significant single-core uplift if they go
In the anandtech review there are cases where the M1 is faster than AMD's flagship 5950x
And there are cases where its slower than AMD's 15W 4800U, so differences in architecture/use clearly come into play
Technical wise, Apple care less about "max potential performance", and more about "power efficiency" on laptop chips.
That may be true, but the point is that Cinebench R23 is drawing ~15W from the CPU for the M1, and compared to the 15W locked 4800U, the M1 wins in ST but loses in MT
So it's not about strictly max potential performance or power efficiency here - Apple is gunning for max performance in ST but seems to lose in MT at the 15W efficiency mark
M1 only has 4 performance core while AMD offerings have 8, this is a decision difference and this caused the "match" or "better than Apple" in the pro-AMD benchmarks(Like CineBench)
I don't see how Cinebench is "Pro-AMD" - M1 does better in ST in CB R23 and CB is based on a real world application
But M1 still has much higher ST performance in those benchmarks, and M1 actually wins AMD CPUs in MT performance in various benchmarks of similar TDP,
No, it wins some and loses some. See the CB R23 bench for MT against the 15W 4800U, for instance (9200 vs 7800)
even in the most trusted SPEC CPU Test. People usually argue that Apple is on 5nm and AMD is on 7nm so "AMD can be as good". But I ave to point out that Apple can cover the early production of an advanced node with hug amount of money, but AMD cannot, this is why Apple is using a more advanced node, and it is an advantage of Apple.
Both use TSMC. Apple is using TSMC's 5NM node for both its A and M chips, while AMD is using 7NM for Zen 2, 3, EPYC, and PS5 and the new XBOX. Oh and the new Big Navi GPUs
Business wise, using their own chips has higher margin than buying from a 3rd party. AMD also will likely to have a serious supply problem for their CPUs, I highly doubt of they could supply Apple with enough CPUs, because they are struggling to meet the demand even now.
Like I said, entirely different nodes.
And if your'e talking a hypothetical "What if Apple went with AMD for their CPUs" then Apple isn't buying as many 5nm nodes from TSMC and TSMC might have more capacity for 7NM (or AMD goes to 5NM earlier with vacant wafers) but that's a lot of "What ifs"
