Compute is not bad....results of the Apple Silicon MBP vs my 2019 Quad Core I7
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.
Apple Silicon M1 Chip in MacBook Air Outperforms High-End 16-Inch MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
With prolonged use on intensive apps, iPad Pro can still thermal throttle.
I agree that with new processor it would be harder to thermal throttle.
However thermal throttling is still possible and that is reason Apple still put fans in MacBook Pro 13in M1.
As for MacBook Air, it is aimed for lighter use anyway. Fanless for lighter usage I guess that's the way Apple envisioned their lineup.
Those are desktop processors - and I will also bet most of those entries are from enthusiasts that have overclocked their CPUs. Nomimal TDP is 65W but overclocked would be north of 100W compared to 10W or so in the fanless macbook air.
So given none of these benchmarks are not even twice as fast as any Intel Mac, which PC were they referencing that meant the Air was “more than three times faster” than the best selling PC in its class?
Thins sounds amazing, however, how was Geekbench run? under emulation or natively? And given that is it functioning as expected and comparable?
This is making my iMac 2020 cry
So you wouldn't buy a base level machine, such as those announced yesterday then? Gotcha
i7-1185G7 ( 4-Core )
up to
Single-Core 1610
Multi-Core 6113
Thunderbolt 4, PCIE 4,
up to
Single-Core 1610
Multi-Core 6113
Thunderbolt 4, PCIE 4,
Very much this. When people were kicking around theories for what the first machines would be, I kept saying they’re likely do do the low-end machines first, like the Air, and either deliver crazy battery life, or substantially better performance out of a “low-end” machine (all the while working in the background to perfect their more advanced chips for the more complicated target of high-end GPUs and GPUs). I didn't really expect them to so thoroughly do both.
This will play very well in the coming weeks and months when people realize just how powerful these “low end” machines are. I expect this also isn’t anything like the upper reach of what they have on the roadmap.
And, since it’s all in-house (except for the fans), and they have more money than most small nations, they can throw resources at it to get whatever amount of performance they feel fits their needs. They no longer er have to go ask Intel to please consider their requests. If the machine designers want some special feature, they now only have to convince Tim to ask the chip designers to work on it.
You're totally right, this may show Apple to be way ahead of either x86 or competing ARM architectures, but I feel like Qualcomm could more easily ramp up higher wattage ARM processors than Intel can get out of its current rut.
and neither is the Air ditto:
MacBookAir10,1 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a MacBookAir10,1 with an Apple Silicon processor.
browser.geekbench.com
comparison between the 10W/15W/28W TDP laptop CPUs, not comparing with the Desktop CPUs
At this point: software.
I sure hope the transition is easier on that front this time around.
Still looks like a device designed for users who want to consume content rather than producing. And in that case, why don’t you just buy an iPad which is more portable, lighter, has a stylus etc etc
No.
I heard a tale once of someone that tried to build a rig to run Crysis. One hundred fibre linked machines, each liquid nitrogen cooled, directly hooked up to the main electricity distribution grid. When they turned it on it plunged the city of Chicago into darkness, which was strange because they didn’t live in Chicago. It still wasn’t enough to run Crysis. Though I did hear they managed to sustain 10 chrome tabs without too much trouble.
How is it that in the benchmarks shown, the air is faster than the pro which has a fan? The air was like 7433 and the pro was less at 6433 with 16Gb
I understand that, but Apple claimed the Air was more than 3x faster than the best selling pc laptop in the Air’s class. I would guess that would be a Dell XPS or similar?
anyone else who are skeptical like me with Geekbench, Good news for us.
Maxon has released Cinebench 23 with M1 support. We would finally be able to see the real-world performance comparison between Apple silicon & x86
https://www.maxon.net/en-us/products/cinebench-r20-overview/
Maxon has released Cinebench 23 with M1 support. We would finally be able to see the real-world performance comparison between Apple silicon & x86
https://www.maxon.net/en-us/products/cinebench-r20-overview/
Exactly! Raw power matters but without applications that utilizes, it is useless. Hopefully it has better apps compared to chromebooks that uses ARM based processors like M1.
It will be interesting to watch how enterprise customers adopt to this new chip. Since Intel chip options are available they maybe okay for a while.
As a developer I would be looking for good virtualization support like Intel's in M1. It may be okay for normal house hold use!
My guess is Nvidia is eying the server market with the arm purchase, selling gpu's into servers is already their biggest business. Selling the whole server rather than just the gpu's in north of 10 thousands of dollars may be their main goal, not Windows portables with tiny margins.
Even if when running intel apps it is same perf (vs. a 2020 intel machine) +/- 10% with no fan noise (at $200 less for equivalent spec vs. what I bought in March/April), it is plenty good enough to be better than anything they could get out of intel. I fully expect much better than that, and I do believe it WILL generate far better performance than that on intel binaries but... even looking at it as pessimistic as that - it is plenty good enough.
Don't lose sight of that.