Sidebar Sidebar
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

The Phazer said:
Intel have a good gaming chip here.

Which the M1 isn't, because ultimately it has no software support.
Click to expand...
Well the M1 is still pretty new and I would think most gamers are going to buy
a console anyway? But sure if you want the most powerful laptop and are ok spending 4k$.
For me I'd rather have that money for 2 or 3 really good computers rather than just 1.
Different strokes.
 
Last edited:
ddtmm said:
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.
Click to expand...
The nm definitely makes a difference but my understanding was it comes down to X86 VS ARM architecture.
 
And what about sustained performance?
And performance in battery?
I bet Apple is waaaay ahead there- in the areas that are actually important in a laptop.

The real question is the Mac Pro. In a desktop tower like that it’s all about raw power, not efficiency. So Apple has to go all out and beat Intel/AMD/NVIDIA on performance outright, not just PPW.
 
It’s a good thing intel pushed the performance. Apple will need to up M2 on the next release.

Either way these are synthetic benchmarks.
Real world use I am more interested in - although power consumption is something where Apple still wins.
Future looks exciting in terms of CPU is the world doesn’t go into a WW3 scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Argoduck
I bought an M1 Pro and I don’t regret it. But I have consistently made the assertion that Apple is stuck because the improvement in the Pro/Max was cores, not speed. After a full year, no speed improvement.

It’s fine for a laptop or a mini, but not for a desktop Pro machine or even a large iMac where power draw isn’t the biggest concern.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: pdoherty, fahlman and Alpa7000
Ok so M1 mac still more efficient in power compsumtion, but this is no man on Earth cares when talking about iMac 27.

Imac 27 poweres with M1 max would be a one year old computer already at sale
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: pdoherty and fahlman
Wow Intel, you squeaked out a 4% advantage by disregarding power draw.

It’s slightly faster. On the whole it’s worse.
 
Rigby said:
Actually in Cinebench R23 (which was used to measure the power consumption) the Intel CPU is considerably faster than just 4% (around 16,000 vs 12,000 on the M1 Max).

Also, the 140W quoted by Macrumors is only a brief spike (which isn't surprising since the all-core clock rate that applies in sustained multi-threaded loads is lower than the single core boost clock).

From the PCWorld article:

"We then simultaneously measured the power each drew from the wall while running the CPU-only Cinebench R23 test. Under an all-core load you can see the 12th-gen Core i9 spike up to 140 watts, but it soon drops with power consumption actually below that of the Ryzen 9 and 11th-gen Core i9.
[...]
We can see the purple line dropping first, which means the Core i9-12900HK finished the test first. We can also count the sags and see that the 12th-gen Core i9 rendered 12 scenes in less time than the Ryzen 9, which completed 10 renders."
Click to expand...
Yes and it is running against the 5000 series Ryzen which are very soon being replaced by the 6000 that is considerably faster and more power efficient. In short, leap frogging each other every 12-18 months.
 
So the scorecard is...

CPU Performance: Virtual Tie
Power Use: M1 MAX
Weight and Form Factor: M1 MAX
GPU Performance: M1 MAX
Machine Learning Acceleration: M1 MAX
Video Encoding / Decoding: M1 MAX
RAM Performance: M1 MAX
SSD controller performance: M1 MAX
 
Rigby said:
Actually in Cinebench R23 (which was used to measure the power consumption) the Intel CPU is considerably faster than just 4% (around 16,000 vs 12,000 on the M1 Max).
Click to expand...
Cinebench isn't really a great cross-architecture benchmark, being that the Intel Embree library it uses doesn't have a proper optimized codepath for ARM NEON. I mean, if you use Cinema 4D professionally, it's totally relevant, but as a general purpose benchmark, it's not so much. Apple apparently has actually done some work to improve this, but I can't imagine it will be on equal footing with SSE codepaths anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genkakuzai
What is quite significative here s apple is saving hundreds of dollars with every m1max
And lucky customers have 30USD cheaper laptops
 
MacRumors said:


Benchmark results have started to surface for MSI's new GE76 Raider, one of the first laptops to be powered by Intel's new 12th-generation Core i9 processor.

intel-vs-m1-max-chip-purple.jpg

Intel previously said that its new high-end Core i9 processor is faster than Apple's M1 Max chip in the 16-inch MacBook Pro and, as noted by Macworld, early Geekbench 5 results do appear to confirm this claim, but there are several caveats as usual.

Geekbench 5 results show that the GE76 Raider with the Core i9-12900HK processor has an average multi-core score of 12,707, while the 16-inch MacBook Pro with the M1 Max chip has an average multi-core score of 12,244. This means the Core i9 processor is around 4% faster than the M1 Max chip in this particular comparison.

One of the biggest caveats is power efficiency. PCWorld measured the new GE76 Raider's power draw from the wall while running a CPU-only Cinebench R23 benchmark and found the Core i9 was consistently in the 100-watts range, and even briefly spiked to 140 watts. By comparison, when running the same Cinebench R23 benchmark on the 16-inch MacBook Pro, AnandTech found the M1 Max chip's power draw from the wall to be around 40 watts.

With the Core i9 consuming much more power, battery life takes a considerable hit, with PCWorld finding the new GE76 Raider achieved nearly six hours of offline video playback. Apple advertises the latest 16-inch MacBook Pro as getting up to 21 hours of battery life for offline video playback. Even with potential differences in display brightness and other factors, the 16-inch MacBook Pro clearly runs longer on battery.

Design is also a factor, with the GE76 Raider being a 17-inch gaming laptop that is just over an inch thick and weighs nearly 6.5 pounds. By comparison, the new 16-inch MacBook Pro is 0.66 inches thick and weighs 4.8 pounds.

All in all, it appears that Intel's claim that its new Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max chip holds up, but Apple likely has no regrets with switching to its own power-efficient chips for thin-and-light notebooks like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. And with the M2 chip expected later this year, Apple is only just getting started.

Article Link: Benchmarks Confirm Intel's Latest Core i9 Chip Outperforms Apple's M1 Max With Several Caveats
Click to expand...

See what happens when you light a fire under Intel’s butt!!?? Just like Apple torching their bunny 2 decades ago it seems M1 placed a major push on them.

With a 60W wall outlet efficiency difference and o ly COU multi core performance hit of 463 which is negligible, along with 1.3” thickness reduction, and better looking laptop, sorry Dave2D I’ll put my money on Apple!

Most importantly which is not discussed is battery health! When charging or using your laptop from the wall power is still routed through the battery first - on windows laptops. You’ll see this when a laptop doesn’t power on even when plugged into the wall. You have to disconnect the battery, connect laptop to wall power on, then off then disconnect abs reconnect the battery for it to work normally again. I’ve done this supporting Dell, HP and Lenovo laptops for over a decade - model doesn’t matter this just happens from time to time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
This is nothing for Intel to be proud of at all. Imagine a muscle car that consumes three times the gas but only produces 4% more horsepower. In addition, it requires expensive cooling and needs to be filled with gas every 100 miles. That's a lot of tradeoffs for almost no gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Argoduck, Romain_H, DeepIn2U and 2 others
For some reason I’m thinking of that scene from Iron Man 2, where Black Widow runs into the villain’s stronghold, and Happy Hogan runs in after her and starts fighting a guy, and five minutes later finally knocks the guy out and triumphantly yells, “I got him!” … and then looks down the hallway to see nearly a dozen incapacitated bad guys that she’s long since subdued on her way to the boss bad guy.

Well congratulations Intel, you got him!
 
  • Love
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Argoduck, DeepIn2U and jetrois
Again Intel blahblahblah, yes its true the new i9 chip is faster than Apple M1Max, 4%, nut what about specint2006? But there is a catch, the M1Max uses 40 watts against 100/140 watts from the i9 in Cinebench23 So the efficiency is much better from the Apple chip aka 250% better. And the performance per watt of the M1Max is awesome. Personally I love the M1 in my MacBook Air 16Gb RAM 1TB SSD, it has 20 hours battery life, the way I use it. It is in many ways better than most windows laptops, build quality, screen quality, great battery, and overall is a beautiful package with no blingbling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
dwsolberg said:
This is nothing for Intel to be proud of at all. Imagine a muscle car that consumes three times the gas but only produces 4% more horsepower. In addition, it requires expensive cooling and needs to be filled with gas every 100 miles. That's a lot of tradeoffs for almost no gain.
Click to expand...

Indeed. All the tradeoffs required for Intel to beat Apple by 4% goes to show just how good Apple Silicon really is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back