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.
Benchmarks Confirm Intel's Latest Core i9 Chip Outperforms Apple's M1 Max With Several Caveats
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No it’s not.
I have seen 16 core AMD cpu inside a notebook a long time ago. That’s nothing special.
Even Apple M1 MAX hasn’t that much cores. Maybe they lost some between the production steps and decided to sell only 10 cores which aren’t enough for many users.
The M1 (and even the M1 Max/Pro) DO NOT COMPETE with i7..i9!
The M1 was an ultrabook chip. The M1 Max is an "enthusiast laptop" chip.
Neither are targeting the high-end desktop occupied by i7's and i9's -- as is obvious in the fact that neither an iMac Pro nor a Mac Pro have shipped with Apple Silicon. Yet...
If you want to see the nature of Apple vs Intel competition, compare like with like. Comparing Apple's midrange to Intel's top of the line (in the "Desktop" class; servers are a whole different game) and saying, well, Intel wins by 4%, is just idiotic. It may excite the smoothbrains, but it's not a useful comparison for the rest of us.
It's also unrealistic to claim that the M1 is "at a higher price point". It is true that Apple does not sell super-cheap Macs; it is not true that this is because of the cost of the M1. Apple could sell cheaper macs (lower quality screen, lower quality battery, plastic case) but they have decided that this is not a good direction. You can disagree with that, but they have more data than you.
Realistically the way the Apple market works (in iPhone or Macs) is if you have the money, you buy a new device; if you have slightly less, you buy refurb, if you have even less you buy a second hand device. Second-hand is somewhat like buying "lower quality, lower end", just with a somewhat different set of choices as to how the price reduction is achieved. Apple has operated this way for 20yrs or more, and it seems to be working out well for them...
That‘s a silly theory. You can’t “lose cores between production steps.” If cores were not successfully manufactured, you’d still be able to see them - cores are very easy to identify on the chip.
And nobody is complaining about not enough cores on the MBPs - let alone “many people.”
Stockfish is not my typical workflow.
I do C/C++/Obj-C/Swift for living.
Also, don't tell anyone, there is a secret setting in System Preferences -> Battery -> Energy mode, that you can set to "Low Power". At that point whole package CPU+GPU+RAM will consume max. 30W. I can tell you that it will not spin very fast in that mode and CPU will loose about 12% of performance.
The i9 at Intel's highest price point and TDP outperforms Apple's 1st generation/2nd iteration laptop CPU with a third/quarter of the TDP. I'm not sure why Intel is talking about this at all, except that they need a response because they got spanked by the M1 so badly.
In most of Intel's market Apple's chips are irrelevant; Apple will never license their CPUs, make big-RAM computing boxes, server-class equipment, or embedded SOCs.
The M1 does strike at the heart of the myth of Intel/x86_64's general superiority...but that myth has been eroded over time anyway.
In most of Intel's market Apple's chips are irrelevant; Apple will never license their CPUs, make big-RAM computing boxes, server-class equipment, or embedded SOCs.
The M1 does strike at the heart of the myth of Intel/x86_64's general superiority...but that myth has been eroded over time anyway.
That’s conjecture though. I believe the i5 is a less expensive part than the M1. We have 2 i5 windows 15” laptops and while not as polished as the M1 they aren’t junk either. And they cost less.
I also have a 16” M1 Pro 16/1 and it’s obviously better than those machines, but an i9 Dell XPS with 3.5k display, wifi6, etc at 16/1 including NVidia dGPU is many hundreds less.
Why do you believe the i5 is less expensive than the M1? Not sure which i5 you’re talking about, but I googled and found an i5 that is a couple square mm bigger than M1. Cost per die is typically tied to die area. And TSMC is cheaper than Intel as a contract fab.
Stockfish is not your typical workflow.
But for 200.000.000+ people Stockfish is a typical workflow♟️
For portable gaming check out using an iPad with Stadia, Steam, Amazon Luna, etc - you use a game controller (MFi or XBox/PS) and can play them off the cloud wherever you are.
200 million people mostly use their computer for stockfish?Stockfish is not your typical workflow.
But for 200.000.000+ people Stockfish is a typical workflow♟️
No.
But if they do, good thing the new branch with M1 optimizations kicks ass.
I've always been a Windows/Intel guy. Microsoft finally made an OS so bad (Win 11) I immediately shut off my laptop and ordered a MPB. I really like this one. I splurged and got a 16" MBP M1 Max 32GB RAM. It's pretty awesome.
That Intel Alder Lake is fast...but at what power consumption? The fact that it only wins by a few percentage points yet consumes over double the power is ludicrous. Apple could've put TWO M1 Max on one silicon die and it still wouldn't consume as much power and would smoke the Alder Lake. And the 32 Core GPU seems to be pretty even with the 3080ti at 45W vs 175W!!! That is what is impressive. Its the performance per Watt. Intel with X86 will NEVER be able to touch that.
That Intel Alder Lake is fast...but at what power consumption? The fact that it only wins by a few percentage points yet consumes over double the power is ludicrous. Apple could've put TWO M1 Max on one silicon die and it still wouldn't consume as much power and would smoke the Alder Lake. And the 32 Core GPU seems to be pretty even with the 3080ti at 45W vs 175W!!! That is what is impressive. Its the performance per Watt. Intel with X86 will NEVER be able to touch that.
Last edited:
There many different types of i5 some cheaper and some more expensive. Some slower and some fadter.
What exactly is amazing about the M1 when the competitor is faster.
I buy a processor for performance, efficiency is less interesting to me.
That's right but don't forget it also depends on the software you are running.
The software can have good and very fast code for Intel CPU but the opposite for M1 MAX CPU.
Theoretically if the software has "slow" code, then there are a lot of parts which can be improved.
Even only 1 change can lead to a +10% speed improvement:
But it's still better to have a 2, 3, 4 times faster CPU and hope for some improvements sooner or later.
Use the search function here in the forum and search for Stockfish or LC0 or chess engines and you will see that the M1 is extrem slow.
I'm comparing the M1 MAX GPU 32 cores to an RTX 4090 Ti.
Mac users can only dream about the 4090, it's an area that no Mac user will understand.I'm comparing the M1 MAX GPU 32 cores to an RTX 4090 Ti.
Well, this is a laptop CPU, so efficiency matters. Even if you mostly use it plugged in, it still matters due to heat.
The laptop tested looks like this:
I for one am not going to use such a monstrosity at work, and it is noteworthy that this much thicker, heavier, louder thing is… barely faster.
The MSI GE76 Raider computer is designed for gamers, who do not care about efficiency and noise. There are laptops that are more suitable for work and comfort.Well, this is a laptop CPU, so efficiency matters. Even if you mostly use it plugged in, it still matters due to heat.
The laptop tested looks like this:
I for one am not going to use such a monstrosity at work, and it is noteworthy that this much thicker, heavier, louder thing is… barely faster.
Take into account that M1 GPU does not support RAY TRACING at all, today it is also mandatory for content creators especially in the VFX industry not only gaming.
So what? Apple isn't interested in that market segment.
"Look at this race car, it's much faster than this truck."
You understand that you are buying a product that Apple decides for you...
In what field to work with the Mac, what peripherals can you connect to your Mac, what software can you use, who can repair your Mac, upgrade your Mac.
The reason I had a Mac was only because of the bootcamp support, now Apple has stopped the support and caused a lot of people to lose their Mac investment.
I buy a PC because I can do everything on it, without worrying anymore that something won't work or connect. It's amazing that in Windows 11 I can still run software from the 90s.
No, that flips the causality. I got an MBP because it was a good laptop, and I tend to buy from Apple because they make good products (though I think their ca. 2016-19 laptops weren't, so I skipped those).
I can run Windows 11 in a VM, lots of stuff in Docker, old x86 Windows versions in an emulator, and so much more, in a machine that's thinner, lighter, quieter, and better-looking than the MSI.
But yes, I wouldn't use it for AAA games. If I wanted to game, I'd get a console. I'm not 14 any more and don't need the dopamine from overclocking and watercooling.
If you don't think it's a technical feat that Apple can reach just 4% less performance at 2.5-3.5 times less power draw, that's fine. I do.