Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sorry, don't have time to read 32 pages, but did nobody stop to ask this question:

If this chip is truly faster and more efficient in day-to-day usage, why is Apple not selling it at a premium, above and beyond what the Intel equivalents cost? Surely a more efficient and powerful Mac is more valuable?

It is very unlike Apple to sell a product for less than what they could. In fact, their investors would/should scream bloody murder.
Actually, consistent base model pricing for updates of the same model, even if those updates offer significant improvement, is typical for Apple -- if they can maintain at least as much profit margin, which it's assumed is the case for these.

Plus, especially for these entry-level models, Apple doesn't want to reduce accessibility (and thus volume) by increasing price.

I suspect what they have in mind for these models is the opposite—to increase profits by using these as a vehicle to get more consumers to switch from PC to Mac. At least since 2003 (I can't speak to before that), these are the first computers Apple has offered that (assuming the preliminary benchmarks pan out) give significantly higher processing performance than their PC counterparts. This provides Apple with a type of product differentiation it has not (at least since 2003) had before, which might drive some to switch.

Up to this point the primary differentiator (and it's a powerful one) has been the OS. Secondary differentiators have been the form factor, build quality, design, support, reliability, screen quality, branding and, more recently, SSD speeds. Now they (potentially) have a new powerful differentiator, which is processing speed (and possibly battery life as well, but I don't know the battery life figures for the best PC laptops in that area).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Trips
Actually, consistent base model pricing for updates of the same model, even if those updates offer significant improvement, is typical for Apple -- if they can maintain at least as much profit margin, which it's assumed is the case for these.

Plus, especially for these entry-level models, Apple doesn't want to reduce accessibility (and thus volume) by increasing price.

I suspect what they have in mind for these models is the opposite—to increase profits by using these as a vehicle to get more consumers to switch from Mac to PC. At least since 2003 (I can't speak to before that), these are the first computers Apple has offered that (assuming the preliminary benchmarks pan out) give significantly higher processing performance than their PC counterparts. This provides Apple with a type of product differentiation it has not (at least since 2003) had before, which might drive some to switch. Previously, the primary differentiator (and it was a powerful one) was the OS. Secondary differentiators were the form factor, build quality, design, support, reliability, screen quality, branding and, more recently, SSD speeds. Now they (potentially) have a new powerful differentiator, which is processing speed.

One assumes you mean PC to Mac?! 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: theorist9
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?

The 2020 MacBook Air was the machine they are referring to as 3x faster - for the new m1 air.

Pay attention :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2Stepfan
It is surprising we have not yet seen real-world benchmarks...did Apple not send these out to reviewers? If non-synthetic performance is as good as what we see with Geekbench, I think this will cause shockwaves at Intel and Microsoft. At some point those guys have to cut the cord to the past.
 
The 5600x achieves a 10% faster multi score but uses about 5 times the power at 76w compared to 15-20w.
Actually the M1 is likely running inside of 5 watts in the MacBook Air to make do with no fan :)

And that's including a GPU - which the 5600x does not have.

We need to be comparing these against the AMD APUs (with onboard Vega graphics or whatever the next version has with Navi) to be fair. Not something that needs 65 watts for the processor and doesn't yet have any ability to do display out without a 30+ watt discrete GPU attached.
 
Won't it be impossible for Apple to ever get a great GPU into their silicon?

Now I know Apple have VERY talented chip designers, but look at something like a Nvidia RTX 3080 with 28 Billion transistors.
Apple's M1 chip has only 16 billion on whole chip.

It's never going to get anywhere close to a high end graphics card is it?
Probably not an equivalent to the top-end discrete GPU cards, but I would expect them to match the AMD APUs used in the PS5 and XBox X - which are roughly at RTX 2080 level.

A future Mac Pro may well use some kind of external GPU card - possibly combining multiple CPUs and GPUs on a PCIe card.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ani4ani and NetMage


Apple introduced the first MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac mini with M1 Apple Silicon chips yesterday, and as of today, the first benchmark of the new chip appears to be showing up on the Geekbench site.

macbook-air-m1-first-benchmark.jpg


The M1 chip, which belongs to a MacBook Air with 8GB RAM, features a single-core score of 1687 and a multi-core score of 7433. According to the benchmark, the M1 has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

When compared to existing devices, the M1 chip in the MacBook Air outperforms all iOS devices. For comparison's sake, the iPhone 12 Pro earned a single-core score of 1584 and a multi-core score of 3898, while the highest ranked iOS device on Geekbench's charts, the A14 iPad Air, earned a single-core score of 1585 and a multi-core score of 4647.

mba-single-core.jpg


Single Core benchmarks


In comparison to Macs, the single-core performance is better than any other available Mac, and the multi-core performance beats out all of the 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro models, including the 10th-generation high-end 2.4GHz Intel Core i9 model. That high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro earned a single-core score of 1096 and a multi-core score of 6870.


Though the M1 chip is outperforming the 16-inch MacBook Pro models when it comes to raw CPU benchmarks, the 16-inch MacBook Pro likely offers better performance in other areas such as the GPU as those models have high-power discrete GPUs.

mba-multicore.jpg


Multi Core benchmarks


It's worth noting that there are likely to be some performance differences between the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air even though they're using the same M1 chip because the MacBook Air has a fanless design and the MacBook Pro has an new Apple-designed cooling system. There's also a benchmark for the Mac mini, though, and it has about the same scores.

The Mac mini with M1 chip that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1682 and a multi-core score of 7067.

Update: There's also a benchmark for the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 chip and 16GB RAM that has a single-core score of 1714 and a multi-core score of 6802. Like the MacBook Air, it has a 3.2GHz base frequency. A few other MacBook Air benchmarks have surfaced too with similar scores, and the full list is available on Geekbench.

Article Link: Apple Silicon M1 Chip in MacBook Air Outperforms High-End 16-Inch MacBook Pro
Honestly, synthetic benchmarks need to be viewed with a grain of salt. They can be somewhat useful but actual application testing needs to be done to see how a machine truly performs. I neither love or hate Macs so I am looking at it from a very unbiased position. Apple has never actually realized the potential of most of Intels high end processor due to really ****** thermals. I have an M1 arriving in two weeks for testing and we will see how the fan-less design reacts to stress testing.
 
I saw a geekbench showing the macbook pro with a higher score than the mac mini.
Why would that be?
Given the mini is running of mains power, and has more space for cooling.
The mini should be the very fastest of all 3 at this moment in time shouldn't it?
You can't get an average from one test run. The most recent mac minis runs show a notably better multicore score than what we saw at first. GeekBench 2020 Mac Mini M1s
 
What does "win" mean?

Yeah, Apple is *really* hurting as a company... :p


View attachment 1661633

Hahaha if apple produce $200 laptop it would hurt its own brand value not stock value nor profit.

Lamborghini would never produce machine for other brand also it would never produce cheapest van to compete with toyota or daihatsu.

Likewise LV would not produce $20 bag.

Win over x86 that all apps, games, os would migrate to arm. It would never happen.
Its on different market.

You should ask apple to drop their low entry price to at least $400-$500 and that would be a game changer. I dont think they would do that
 
kind of seems like geekbench is not using the neural engine for the machine learning tests, but I could be wrong- the improvement looks small compared to intel MBPs.
 
kind of seems like geekbench is not using the neural engine for the machine learning tests, but I could be wrong- the improvement looks small compared to intel MBPs.
You are correct - Geekbench only tests the CPU portion - nothing else.

Apple M1 has many other accelerators not even considered in Geekbench.
 
Intel has the chip designs from Jim Keller in final staging now. The same Jim Keller who led the designs of AMD's Zen Project. The fruits of that labor will begin in Fall 2021.
Given how badly Intel has been floundering the past few years, I’ll believe it when I see it. They’ve lost a lot of credibility with respect to their ability to execute. I have far more trust & faith in Apple’s silicon design vs Intel’s.
 
Wow, can't wait to see benchmarks for Photoshop/AE/C4D on these silicon Macs.
Next year for sure I'll be either getting an MBP 16 or an iMac.

Apple seems to be killing the competition. Incredible.
 
the arm in the micro was not the primary cpu - i may have worded my comment poorly - it was a coprocessor option (there was other compatible coprocessors as well, including x86 and Motorola products). The coprocessor was rare, at least we had one out of a suite of bbcs.

Thanks for the info - didn't realise there was an adaptor for it. :)
 
So, what's the likely catch? I'm willing to believe this processor is exceptionally powerful per watt, and give Apple credit where credit is clearly due, but there must be a tradeoff somewhere. Intel, AMD, even IBM or Qualcomm, know a lot about CPU design and have been fighting over the best engineers for decades.

It strikes me as unlikely that Apple has simply beaten all of them in all use cases, with less power, on their first desktop class CPU. It's not that I'm calling BS, just that engineering doesn't usually work that way; there's usually a tradeoff made somewhere.
Not really. Intel had no reason to innovate, so didn't. There was no competition. Then AMD woke them up, and Zen 3 is out performing intel once again. Now Apple didn't do anything new here but expand on the A12z and A14 designs. The IPad pro is out performing some macs. This was the writing on the wall. Qualcomm has closed the gap on Apple with its Snapdragon 875. Expect a Qualcomm desktop processor in in 2021 as one is already in the works based off the Snapdragon soc. HP will likely be first, or Microsoft. I expect Qualcomm to over take Intel and AMD over the next five years as all PCs and Macs move to ARM silicon.
 
This one?
"It's the same as an iPad" is his argument at the start, but I stopped watching a min in.
Wow that guy and this video was a bag of annoying and cluelessness (parents, you need to tell your kids the truth about their abilities and intelligence)... he doesn't even deserve a participation trophy...

Aside: That voice sent me into a psychotic seizure... how does this dude get people to watch his stuff?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.