Apple Silicon M1 Chip in MacBook Air Outperforms High-End 16-Inch MacBook Pro

[Stella]

I mean, if you can shove that $300 65w processor into a $1000 fanless laptop, sure that's great. Context matters, just like your signature.

The fact you and others had to quote the performance of a latest desktop processor with a much higher price tag and a power budget to downplay the performance of the M1 says a lot.

It's not really fair to compare a desktop to a laptop. The desktop can consume more energy and heat, the user doesn't care, unlike a laptop. So yes, context does matter.

I'm not downplaying the performance of an M1 at all. The geek benchmarks are good, but again, they aren't real world, which people forget. Desktop AMD 5600x should have never have been compared to a laptop M1 CPU, it's just not a fair comparision. A laptop is never going to outperform a desktop with the "same generation CPU"... put in quotes intentionally - again, not a fair comparison.

The M1 CPU does not spell 'the end of AMD or Intel', like some would wish.


Add: By the time the Mac desktops see the Apple silicon, the performance in the highest range should be comparable against the same Intel or AMD, and I'm sure it will be.

 

[Tech198]

For some reason i has to smile on the 16-inch models when it reminds me of my old 2012 design speaker grill either side..

 

[dburkhanaev]

they're typing something about power adapters or web cameras.

Because god forbid Apple gives us a great facetime camera like the one in iPhone. It's not like they're asking the same starting base price for computers with fewer parts, fewer traces on the board, and chips that will be pretty darn cheap for Apple as their R&D costs are recouped.

We could get a decent camera. Just saying.

 

[fertilized-egg]

Intel is clearly not what they used to be up until the early 2000s, I spent 17 years there, but, they have been working on the "chiplet approach" for years (Foveros, but you probably know that) and it appears that it is what the M1 is using and greatly helps with performance (can't wait to get the teardown/xrays ... ). But I don't have much hope for intel anymore as their desktop/laptop market is not going to grow and they are getting serious competition in the datacenter (Ampere, Nuvia etc), but that's getting off topic ...

I'm still waiting for them to either fully spin off or separate out their fab as a business profit center. It's shocking how they lost what was supposedly the moat of their business strategy so badly. Seeing GloFo languishing as a second tier fab, who knows if Intel decides to become yet another fabless maker, something that was unthinkable even just a few years ago.

But either way we should thank TSMC and even Samsung for getting so good in a relatively short period of time.

 

[KPOM]

Yeah, I'm also hoping for some of the features from the iPad Pro to make their way over too - higher refresh rate display and FaceID in particular.

And yes, I'm curious what the Air will be like under sustained load for a while and whether/how soon it might start to thermal throttle.

That’s why Apple also released a new base model 13” Pro with the M1. It can sustain those speeds for a lot longer.

 

[SteveJobsDidntWantThis]

this is actually really impressive

 

[Yojimbo007]

WOW^2

 

[jmgregory1]

While I will say I'm impressed by the new processor, I will say I'm not impressed by the obliviousness of the stupid people who live and breath Apple. Sure, Intel processors suck, but AMD does not. Here is a the CHEAPEST of AMDs newest processor, the Ryzen 5600x, which only has 6 cores compared to the M1 with 8 cores. It beats the M1 processor in both single core and multicore most of the time.
I'll admit that Intel is crap though. Here is there best consumer card and it doesn't come close to the M1 or the 5600x.
Anyways, don't be dumb and say something before you can prove it. Hate on Intel all you want, but you obviously don't know much about the CPU landscape.

Attachments​

I specifically noted I was talking about power per watt. AMD, as far as I know, does not have anything that would come close to the performance per watt that Apple’s M1 chip offer, I doubt there is anything in their pipeline either.

And when Apple focuses on desktop class chips, you can expect further increases in performance, as they won’t have to limit performance for energy saving reasons.

 

[FreeWoRLD83]

Compared to 832 single X 1725 multi score of my 2019 MacBook Air, this is so exciting!

 

[KPOM]

Compared to 832 single X 1725 multi score of my 2019 MacBook Air, this is so exciting!

View attachment 1660279

Exactly. The new MacBook Air is a BIG DEAL for the average user.

 

[trifid]

Has anyone seen this article at The Verge?

There’s a question mark hanging over Apple’s Arm Macs​

Looks like I'm not alone in pointing out the hollow marketing, "we’re currently taking Apple’s word that existing Mac apps will work well when they don’t run natively. Yesterday’s was the second presentation in a row where we saw canned demos and unlabeled graphs instead of actual benchmarks and performance comparisons."

"We know what we’re getting with Intel. With Arm, we don’t. And while there are good reasons to think Apple has figured it out, history hasn’t always been kind to other manufacturers who have tried Arm-based computers."

The Verge made a comparison with Windows RT and pointed this out as well "But while Windows itself was well-optimized for Arm, many apps were slower than they would be on an Intel computer and some didn’t work at all."

 

[anshuvorty]

Exactly. The new MacBook Air is a BIG DEAL for the average user.

I can't wait to get my hands on mine!!

 

[swifty168]

Sorry if this is a silly question but would it make any sense to just stick M1 chips in one of the subsequent higher end MBPs?
Or would the 4 Icestorm cores be redundant on the second M1 chip and they should do like an M1X that has 8 Forestorm cores and clocked at a higher clockspeed. That way they can ramp up and use the appropriate cores for the tasks.
Perhaps an enclosure design change is necessary for multiple M CPU implementations hence we’ll only see it next year.

Another question, I know the A series chips utilise memory differently so I’d expect the M1 to be equally efficient but what’s the reason for the 16GB RAM limitation? Would using multiple chips bypass that or is it something else?

I’m convinced enough that my next laptop should be an Apple Silicon one but waiting for the appropriate software to arrive and seeing how they perform.

 

[Jaekae]

Would bought the 13 mbp if it had 4 tb/usb4 ports 😝

 

[Ethosik]

Yawn. 99.9% of people don't need anything faster than what was available 5 years ago. This is all fascinating from an academic perspective but means very little from a practical perspective. So I can land the space shuttle from a mac book air. Awesome. Will I? no.

Heck my 2010 Mac Pro is still fine exporting my 1080p videos. The only reason I upgraded was to get HEVC support just for the file size benefits. Compressing the file with my 2019 i9 iMac compared to my 2010 Mac Pro is the same speed.

 

[Gerlandano]

The title of this article could be a little misleading since it seems to only take into account processor scores. I know that the integrated GPU is 3 to 5 times as fast as previous integrated GPUs, but those integrated GPUs that are being compared to are far slower than dedicated GPUs. I have a 16 inch MacBook Pro and I tested the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8 GB vs the Intel UHD Graphics 630 1536 MB with Geekbench 5. The AMD was 6.8 times faster. Also, the 3 to 5X advertising on Apple's marketing does not make clear if that is over the Intel UHD Graphics 630 1536 MB or integrated graphics that are in the lower-priced MacBooks and Air. I assume the latter. Additionally, most of the pro apps like DaVinci Resolve, Adobe CC, and Auto Desk apps have been coded for years for discreet graphics cards. Iv'e been using Apple products since 1988. I have had almost every high-end machine from then to now. Every time Apple makes claims that its newest system will be faster than PCs, it never has turned out to be the case in a broad-based way. Maybe some particular thing is faster, but not most things can be faster on a much less expensive PC. The most recent example is their super expensive Mac Pros released less than a year ago. I hope this turns out to be different. I strongly prefer to use a Mac and have paid more to use them over the years, but I would like for once for them to actually be faster than the PCs

I think the M1 is a great path for the future and will be awesome, but imagine it will be a while before all apps perform on it as well as they do on systems with discreet GPUs. Thoughts?

 

[Frank Philips]

What?!?!? The latest game consoles support ray tracing, 120Hz at 4K, and 60Hz at 8K, as well as adaptive sync technologies.

I said gaming consoles, I didn't say which ones

Besides, it's more Apple's problem than mine. After all, I'm not the one gloating about the gaming performances of computers that run very few games.
Just like I wasn't the one comparing their monitor to a Sony reference broadcast monitor (that was indeed 5 times for expensive, but also leagues ahead in terms of quality).

We also don't know what's cooking in the kitchen on the GPU side of things. Future releases will surely improve the performance.

Though, I'd still argue that a Mac Mini in its current state, with good games ported to/developed on that hardware, could at the very least be a concurrent to the Nintendo Switch.

I mean, at that point, I'm still lost in the technical jungle. I know about the Compute Units, but how will that translate in real-life / real-gaming use?

 

[Christian 5G]

Time to upgrade from my 2018 I guess

 

[FelixDerKater]

Once it runs Windows, there may be interest.

 

[PhilTheLuv]

All I'm going to say is this is a wow! moment

 

[jdawgnoonan]

You can’t differentiate unless you own the whole stack. iPhone would be where mac is if they hadn’t put in all this hard work.

iPHone is marginally better than other phones at best. My previous phone was an iPhone 11 Pro, now I have a Samsung Note 20 Ultra. My iPhone 11 Pro had a faster processor based on published benchmarks, however my Note 20 does not feel any slower at all. I will believe that these chips are faster when I see reviews running normal apps from professionals who state that they see a real-world gain. Processors impact battery life, however they are not the performance bottlenecks for any mid to high end system. Apple states that these new processers are faster than 98% of machines, however, remember, 98% of machines are low end. Apple is comparing 900 dollar computers to computers that cost less than 500 bucks, so if you are someone who buys decent computers rather than cheap ass computers, who cares? Plugging in does not bother me. Battery life really isn't that important if you don't travel with your computer.

 

[rmariboe]

Right now Parallels is working on code to run VMs on this architecture. https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-apple-silicon-mac/

Well if that and this comes into fruition: “Parallels is also amazed by the news from Microsoft about adding support of x64 applications in Windows on ARM.”
There are not many excuses left to stick with x86 hardware 😅

Let me bootcamp and game freely on my M series, and I’m yours 🥳

 

[SuperCachetes]

Because god forbid Apple gives us a great facetime camera like the one in iPhone. It's not like they're asking the same starting base price for computers with fewer parts, fewer traces on the board, and chips that will be pretty darn cheap for Apple as their R&D costs are recouped.

We could get a decent camera. Just saying.

The iPhone is orders of magnitude thicker than the displays/lids of MacBooks of any flavor. It's almost as if physical depth is a concern when it comes to camera modules...

 

[mxrider88]

Sitting here on a newly purchased 2019 MBP 16" and wondering if I should return it and get the MBP 13" now

I would. Different machine maybe, yes. But the 16” Intel machine will be worthless in a year time. No sane person would buy it off you ever. Maybe in 20 years time a collector..
I got rid of my retina MacBook two weeks ago waiting for this announcement. No one should buy an Intel machine right now in my opinion. They say they will be supported for a long time but we all know it isn’t true. Companies will shift their development on the new platform very quickly and Intel machines will become obsolete very soon.

I base my buys on future sale prices usually. I try to get the best value when I buy and the best value when I sell to minimise the gap.
I used to get every first generation iPhone and skip the S, now I upgrade based on the new three years cycle. Had a 7, then a X, skipped the XS got the 11 pro, now on 12 pro, will probably skip next year incremental upgrade and so on.
Holding onto an Intel Mac right now is a waste of money pretty much.
professionals have different needs I believe and maybe think differently.
Just my personal thoughts and my personal advice.

 

[stevegalle]

While I will say I'm impressed by the new processor, I will say I'm not impressed by the obliviousness of the stupid people who live and breath Apple. Sure, Intel processors suck, but AMD does not. Here is a the CHEAPEST of AMDs newest processor, the Ryzen 5600x, which only has 6 cores compared to the M1 with 8 cores. It beats the M1 processor in both single core and multicore most of the time.
I'll admit that Intel is crap though. Here is there best consumer card and it doesn't come close to the M1 or the 5600x.
Anyways, don't be dumb and say something before you can prove it. Hate on Intel all you want, but you obviously don't know much about the CPU landscape.

Attachments​

At what, about 120 watts or so?