People are going to criticize cherry picked statistics. The trade off is 4% more performance for 2.5x more power use. 4% is within the margin of error and 250% is not within the margin of error.
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
thats mostly down to tsmc 5nm and lack of complex x86 platform, if the m1 is based on x86, arm itself is build on energy efficiency.
Intel: “Benchmarks show the new Core i9 is over 3 times as powerful as the Apple M1 Max.”
Everything has context. You are missing half the point if you do that, (as I suspected would happen on an Apple forum). In this instance the performance deficit is small.
In other tests what if you need X action completed in Y time?
How useful is having something consume less resource while not actually being able to do the job?
How about, "Speed per watt per decibel is an additional metric I want to see used from now on".??
All things considered they are pretty even. The power difference can be almost completely attributed to the 10nm vs 5nm tech. If the i9 was on 5nm tech it would be more comparable.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
Can’t wait to see what Intel comes up with. I’m sure some sort of a commercial is in works.
Why not include the Cinebench R23 numbers when mentioning it and just GB5 that's favorable to M1? It's whopping 50% more multicore R23 full power and still 35% more in 70W balanced mode. Sure, on battery it's still much less efficient, no one expects miracles, but lot of people use laptops plugged in almost all the time, especially when the most power is needed, regardless of consumption and performance per watt.
We should be all glad Intel finally pushes back regardless of preferred platform (and if one is locked in Apple or Windows then the comparison is meaningless anyway
We should be all glad Intel finally pushes back regardless of preferred platform (and if one is locked in Apple or Windows then the comparison is meaningless anyway
Yep. I have an M1 Air and Lenovo Legion w/a 3070. It's blazing and amazing with games/crypto, but will literally heat a 600 square foot room to tropical levels, not to mention the tinnitus (lol) causing fans. The wife banned me using it in the bed due to the fan noise. ?
And the context here is a processor in a portable machine, where battery and heat matters. I don't do large computations on my laptop. I do that on my 40-core Linux machine with Intel Xeons.
The M1 is currently the only ARM-based CPU that can achieve this kind of power efficiency. The Cortex-based designs aren't even close to either the M1 or recent x86 CPUs. So I'm not so sure that the ARM ISA has much to do with it.
Ah yes, I can't wait for a Microsoft Word job to take 11ms instead of 13ms. Totally worth burning my lap over for that time savings.
And so it goes, an endless cat & mouse processors game. M2 could well catch up or outperform it. The important thing for Apple when switching over to their own chips was that they are now able to control their own release schedules.
Intel have a good gaming chip here.
Which the M1 isn't, because ultimately it has no software support.
Which the M1 isn't, because ultimately it has no software support.
This is a example of picking your priorities. For a laptop the improvements the M1 Max brings with battery life is amazing during normal portable usage. But with a desktop/workstation power consumption is not a priority in larger chassis’s. However given the thought of multiple ARM processing in future Mac workstations it could make the size of chassis smaller comparably and that would be exciting for Mac Pro designs.
Exactly. Apple also could probably make the M1 uarch run faster than Alder Lake, too, if they wanted, and it would likely run a little hotter and draw more power, too. Increasing clock speed to hit a raw performance target isn’t all that impressive. As you said, the performance per watt is what is impressive because Apple is pretty much alone in this market with the kind of perf to watt ratio they have achieved in their products.
Where are these numbers coming from? I don’t see them in any of the articles linked…. Granted I only looked at the pictures…
And shouldn’t the size and weight comparisons be against the 14” which performed equally well?
This is a nonissue and nonstarter for me... This chip was designed to compete with the M1 series... It'll bake your balls and cook your Weiner while you're simply watching youtube lol... I'd like to see the thermal on a laptop employing this chip.
I’ll take the battery life option. Only 4% faster with 60% or more power usage that’s not a good sign intel. ?
Last edited: