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
Let's sort out the things you wrote because most of them are not accurate.
Running WIN 11 in a VM is a performance joke no match for bootcamp at all and I didn't take into account windows professional App. Conclusion This is not a solution and a replacement for native windows on the hardware.
Games on a console do not compare at all to the gaming capabilities that a PC has to offer, it's a different world that I won't go into now. What is really disturbing is your thinking that gaming is a hobby for 14 year olds. I didn't know that to play a flight simulator I had to be 14 years old.
As for 4%, it's really not accurate. This is the 12th generation of Intel, not the 13th generation, which are 30-40% faster than the 12th generation.
As for the beauty of the MacBook, it's a matter of taste, I'm not enthusiastic about Apple's designs, especially the Mac Studio that looks like a metal shoebox, Apple has computers that look like kitchen utensils for scraping cheese, but that's a matter of personal taste.
In my opinion, Apple's biggest problem in the GPU field is that they are not powerful enough, have you thought why, for example, in Apple's presentation, the Mac Studio runs at 100W when the Mac Studio that is sold is limited to 80W? I wonder if Apple is hiding something...
I didn't know that a professional and pleasant discussion is trolling now.
All in all, I am a former Mac user who switched to a PC, to my surprise I found out that everything Mac users think about the PC is completely wrong and accurate.
It looks like we will have sooner or later a second and third version, so you can decide to buy a 16 or 18 or 20 inch MacBook Pro. Much bigger iPad Pros then we have now will be ready too.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.
If you want efficiency(less performance and less watt) you can use 32 cores instead or 64 cores.
It's a laptop CPU, so performance matters.
I use my MacBook Pro M1 MAX mostly plugged in or it will be empty within 1 hour, when I use only the CPU!
= It would be much better if it would have the double performance and double watt usage and be theoretically empty within 30 minutes.
But this new version would be even better if it would have again the double performance and double watt usage and be empty within let's say 15 minutes. So plugged in it can be used without limits. If I need more battery to be mobil I can decrease the performance.
Note that everybody can use always less cpu cores or buy less cpu cores if he/she believes that more cores aren't needed. Or decrease power usage or use efficiency mode or decrease the core performance.
But you can never buy a CPU or GPU with more cores, when you have a MacBook Pro 16-inch M1 MAX all-in version!!
Note also that in this forum, it was already proved that a MacBook Pro 16-inch can handle a Threadripper 3990X CPU and of course you don't need to use the GPU at the limit in the same time.
For the most people it isn't possible to run both at the limit in the same time.
The MacBook can also, in a worst case scenario, decrease his performance to produce less heat, when running special software and CPU+GPU+the other things at the limit in the same time.
I'm running my MacBook Pro M1 MAX CPU 24 hours per day and this 365 days per year and my MacBook is still cold.
= No heat problem
And before you ask: Note also that in this forum, it was already proved that a MacBook Pro 16-inch can handle the heat of a Threadripper 3990X without any problems!
Heavier... are you made of butter?
No one must buy a MacBook Pro with M1 ULTRA or M1 MAX. The people can decide what they want to buy and a lot people want to buy a MacBook Pro with M1 ULTRA (= the power of 2x M1 MAX inside),
instead of buying every 2 years a new MAX chip which is only 5% to 20% faster, depends on what you are doing, because that means: You will need to wait 10 to 40 years, depends on what you are doing, to buy a MAX chip which is as fast as the M1 ULTRA chip that you can buy now!!
=The options are to wait all the time or probably die while waiting or better take a slightly heavier MacBook.
That sounds like a very difficult decision.
Louder... Apple can build a better case, better fans, you can control the fan speed, you can use less cpu cores to get less heat and you will have a very quiet MacBook, use efficiency mode, decrease watt usage, decrease core speed...
And again:
You don't need to buy a MacBook Pro 16-inch M1 ULTRA.
The other people can decide what they want to buy.
Best joke of the year 2022🤣🤣🤣
I didn't know that you are connected to Tim Cook and that he is telling you Apples secret interest.
Probably every business people on earth knows that Apple is interested in every market segment which can be handled on a computer.
That's up to you. Other people other decisions.
What do you mean by 4% less performance???
lol
It's obviously slower than native, but not by that much.
It's absolutely a solution. I do professional Windows software development on this, as do others.
Yes, but I don't care, and millions of people buy computers without gaming on them.
That isn't what I said.
That's great. This thread is about the 12th generation. And Raptor Lake-H hasn't shipped yet anyway.
I haven't, because I don't care about the GPU.
Are you arguing that AAA gaming is a field of Apple's interest? That seems surprising to me, since they clearly aren't trying hard.
Apple M1 MAX vs:
i9-12900 is much faster
i9-13900 is much much faster
i9-14900 is much much much much faster
Intel Core i9-14900K (Black Friday & Cyber Monday Deals) - CPU-Rumors
The Intel Core i9-14900K desktop processor features a hybrid core architecture with 8 performance cores and 16 efficient cores to deliver smooth multitasking and gameplay. With up to 6GHz max turbo frequency, 36MB cache, PCIe 5.0 support, Intel Thread Director technology, Thermal Velocity Boost...
www.cpu-rumor.com
MSI shows off the first ever Intel Meteor Lake laptop
The next Prestige 16 Studio looks like it'll be powered by a 14th-gen chip, despite none of the upcoming CPUs having been announced yet
www.techadvisor.com
It's not just performance and efficiency, there are other things in Mac that made me switch to PC, this man explains exactly the problems I personally encountered.
I fully understand, and that’s why I am pretty much all in with Apple. Because their decisions have largely been in line with my computing needs. From my iPad mirroring to my Apple TV, to my Apple devices airdropping files to each other easily, to being able to share app purchases across all devices. What Apple offers is a streamlined experience across the board.
In contrast, I may be able to do more with windows PCs on paper, but it’s not more of what I need. Windows still comes with a fair amount of functionality missing out of the box (like why do I have to open a pdf document in Edge just to be able to annotate on it?). Intel chips continue to lag behind in terms of performance and battery life. Windows tablets are still a subpar experience.
That’s the irony of having “more” choice. When it doesn’t give you more of what you want, but instead saddles you with more problems to contend with.
I don't have a problem with the fact that you prefer the Apple ecosystem, it's fine, everyone has their own preferences. My problem is thinking like a fanboy who always thinks his is better. Windows has a lot of solutions for almost everything. Just because you don't know enough doesn't mean it's like that. The disadvantages of the Mac platform probably do not concern you directly, but there are many other users in the world who need functionality that is missing from the Mac. For example, the professionals who need expansions and third-party PCI cards, currently have no solution beyond an Intel-based Mac Pro, which is considered a dead computer from Apple's point of view.
The reason I left the Mac is not only the disadvantages of the platform, part of the decision stems from the reason that Apple simply does what is best for it and not for the consumer, I need a Windows solution alongside my Mac, the solution of Windows on a VM is really not good for me, that's why I purchased my Mac Pro based on That I have the ability to work on windows at the hardware level and not VM.
I spent a lot of money on my Mac! Plug-in packages that no longer work on Apple Silicon, 32-bit software and games that also no longer work on the new Macs.
You get my point of view, that's all.
By the way, I think both Intel and AMD considering the fact that the X86 platform has to maintain backwards compatibility is an amazing achievement that their processors are still faster than anything Apple has to offer. It is true that Apple's efficiency is better, but it has the expense of losing backward compatibility.
I’m going to build my own nuclear power plant for that sweet, sweet 4%…
The most equipped Mac Studio M1 Ultra vs 13th generation Intel PC with Adobe After Effects software.
Mac Studio:
1313 points.
The PC:
1722 points.
The simple calculation is that the PC is faster than the Mac Studio M1 Ultra by 27% percent, this is much more significant than 4%.
I chose After because it is the software I work on a lot.
PugetBench for Creators
PugetBench for Creators is designed to test professional workloads in the most popular video editing, photography, VFX, and motion graphics applications.
benchmarks.pugetsystems.com
Adobe Creative Cloud Performance: Intel 6th Gen to 13th Gen
Modern content creation workstations are incredibly powerful, but just how much faster is a system today versus one 2, 4, 6, or even 7 years ago?
www.pugetsystems.com
Attachments
The processor alone also uses more power than the entire Mac Studio M1 Ultra. It would be quite disappointing if it didn't perform any better. Competition is great for all.The most equipped Mac Studio M1 Ultra vs 13th generation Intel PC with Adobe After Effects software.
Mac Studio:
1313 points.
The PC:
1722 points.
The simple calculation is that the PC is faster than the Mac Studio M1 Ultra by 27% percent, this is much more significant than 4%.
I chose After because it is the software I work on a lot.
PugetBench for Creators
PugetBench for Creators is designed to test professional workloads in the most popular video editing, photography, VFX, and motion graphics applications.Adobe Creative Cloud Performance: Intel 6th Gen to 13th Gen
Modern content creation workstations are incredibly powerful, but just how much faster is a system today versus one 2, 4, 6, or even 7 years ago?
I think there is an easy solution:
Apple should sell a MacBook Pro 16-inch or 18-inch or 20-inch with an M2 EXTREME chip too.
Everybody who need more performance can buy it.
Everybody who doesn't need that much performance can still buy a MacBook Pro 16-inch M2 MAX.
Is one able to fit that 4090 chip into a chassis the size of the Mac Studio, much less cool it adequately?
I guess for many of us, a small box-like form factor that we can fit under an external display is the main draw here. It’s also why I particularly love the imac design (slim and compact), and it’s a shame there currently isn’t a 5k equivalent.
Personally, I think a lot of professionals would like to utilise HW such as the 4090 in a Mac, equally not going to happen as Apple is far too controlling these days. It's always been the way, but far worse now. The constant nickel & diming is irritating, but if you want to run a Mac is what it is...
New 5K iMac will come in time with M2/M3 and will be a far faster machine versus the Intel models. Be far better for the users if Apple buried the hatchet with Nvidia, that said both companies are very egotistic and diametrically opposed so very unlikely to happen.
Apple silicon really excels in the portable realm, however it very much limits the desktop. To me you spec a desktop to your need, now your either in or your out with Apple...
Q-6
Do you guys forget that the Mac Pro is coming? Might not be 100% like the 2019 Mac Pro but I expect it to be similar. Otherwise we would have seen it now if they weren't working on PCIe slots and expandability etc.
And why does every single thread on this turn in to AAA gaming? You mean the gaming industry that is failing so hard lately (Pokemon, Saints Row, Cyberpunk, Warcraft 3 Reforged, Diablo Immortal, Battlefield etc)? You mean the AAA industry that is more interested in DLC, loot boxes, season passes than actual better gameplay mechanics? You mean those ultra popular games like Elden Ring can STILL RUN on my GTX 1080 which the M1 can beat? You mean those games that JUST RELEASED that still work fine on my 1080?
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 just released - AAA game BTW. Recommended specs are:
RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows® 10 64 Bit (latest update) or Windows® 11 64 Bit (latest update)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-6600K / Core™ i7-4770 or AMD Ryzen™ 5 1400
Memory: 12 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1060 or AMD Radeon™ RX 580 - DirectX 12.0 compatible system
DirectX: Version 12
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Storage: 125 GB available space
I THINK the M1 can beat an i5 6600k. I THINK M1 Ultra and Max can beat a 1060.
But no OMG I NEEED NEED NEED a 4090 to play games!!!!!!
LOL my 1080 is struggling. Gaming on the Mac is just an arse kicking contest. It's been like that for years. Move on and enjoy, I don't love W10/W11 but for gaming it's a way better experience...
Q-6
A computer based on SoC cannot be a professional computer! How much will it cost Apple to create a shared memory of 1.5 tera ram? More than your house. don't be ridiculous
Cyberpunk in 1080P resolution with high settings will not reach 60FPS on your 1080, without RAY TRACIN technology that does not even exist on Mac, so please don't reinvent the wheel.
COD MW2 is a competitive online FPS game, to get the best experience in this game you need a fast GPU with a monitor that runs at 144-165HZ I don't see it happening without NVIDIA's 2000 or 3000 RTX series.
It's good that you didn't also include a 286 processor, a 1060 card in the list? We are already in the generation of 4000 cards...
If you can afford it, then what's the problem with enjoying the best 4K gaming experience. Furthermore, 4090 is the best card for 3D content creators especially on the UNREAL 5 engine. It's amazing what you can buy for the price of Mac Studio...
And by the way, this is the best time to be on PC gaming when the biggest gaming companies Sony and Microsoft develop their exclusive games for PC as well.