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.
Intel Alder Lake Chips for Desktops Faster Than M1 Max in Benchmarks, But Use Much More Power
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's not the point. The M1 Pro has that level of GPU built in, and the heat dissipation already factored in.
That M1 Pro GPU is useless in Desktop world. That's why new MP tower will have a lot more serious GPU.
If you want high power draw, look at the previous generation of Intel processors. Alder Lake is a huge improvement. It has a long way to go but Alder Lake is the first generation of Intel processors in years that are worth considering.
You're kind of arguing against a strawman here. I was only arguing that @mi7chy cherry-picked a result that made the 5700G look particularly good. Most results on Geekbench are significantly below those 1688/12045 figures. The averages on that first page are 1496/8728, or 13%/38% less. That's 15% worse/17% better than the M1. It doesn't really compete with the M1 Pro.
I don't doubt that Ryzen is impressive in its own way, or that x86 is doing OK.
We'll see.
I am late to the party on the fact these are desktop processors.
I am going to borrow this opinion from an Alder Lake review "this is Intel's Zen 1 moment". Intel finally had a new architecture and layout that performs. They just need to reign in the power consumption at load and optimize how operating systems distribute threads to the appropriate Performance and Efficiency cores.
I have seen the Windows 10 vs. 11 performance comparisons. Even if Windows 11 is more aware of the hybrid nature of Alder Lake it does not feel complete.
Good work Intel. If you are looking for an x86 processor the Core i5 and Core i7 Alder Lake processors are an option. Competition is back and AMD will have to respond.
I am going to borrow this opinion from an Alder Lake review "this is Intel's Zen 1 moment". Intel finally had a new architecture and layout that performs. They just need to reign in the power consumption at load and optimize how operating systems distribute threads to the appropriate Performance and Efficiency cores.
I have seen the Windows 10 vs. 11 performance comparisons. Even if Windows 11 is more aware of the hybrid nature of Alder Lake it does not feel complete.
Good work Intel. If you are looking for an x86 processor the Core i5 and Core i7 Alder Lake processors are an option. Competition is back and AMD will have to respond.
Then Intel has them pegged as suckers. Imagine if Apple released a device with a 10% increase while increasing power by 100 watts and heat to require water cooling to even function.
You joke, but my Intel server literally does keep my home office at a nice temperature without heating. It’s murder in the summer sometimes
Any progress Intel, AMD, Apple, Qualcomm, ARM (obviously), or anyone else makes is good for us all. Competition in the industry is what drives them all to make better components, the real winners in the end being us. So we shouldn’t complain, mock, or sneer at any progress, no matter who makes it.
Intel are still at a significant disadvantage having trouble getting to smaller die sizes, but they’ll get there eventually. By which time Apple and everyone else will have moved on to more efficient, more powerful silicon, and so the cycle continues.
I certainly won’t complain. Despite moving to Mac decades ago, I’ve still always had to keep a Windows system around for some things. I no longer need it to be cutting edge, in fact I could probably dispense with keeping my Windows server running and move it all to the M1 Mini server I have as a secondary one. But keep one of my old Windows laptops around for when I occasionally need it. Nonetheless, the ultimate goal of more efficient X64 processors will be a welcome one.
The real comparation here will be the iMac 27.
This would be desktop vs desktop conparation fair enough. And if apple uses same M1, no matter how many cores it will be have, single solo will be slower than Intel’s
This would be desktop vs desktop conparation fair enough. And if apple uses same M1, no matter how many cores it will be have, single solo will be slower than Intel’s
Does this means this chips alone consume same power as 3 MBP together including screen, SSD, RAM and GPU?
To see Earth that way you really needed to make yourself bigger than you’ll ever be.
Apple hasn't build a desktop processor yet, but will they really need too? Currently the two desktop models with Apple Silicon (Mac Mini and iMac) use the same M1 chips than the laptop counterparts. The Macbook Pro use the M1Pro and Max versions. They are already outperforming the M1. It would not surprise me that Apple will continue to design one chip (+ variations) that will be equally used in mobile and desktop computers rather than developing a dedicated desktop version, not sure they need to, but perhaps they will. We know they are already developing the next generation, and they could first find their ways in new desktops as they wil be powerful enough to replace the chips in the Mac Pro line, but if those will be exclusively desktop chips or not only the future will tell.
iMac and Mac mini are miniature desktops made of laptop hardware (same power dissipation).
I think the point is why on planet earth are they comparing a CPU that uses up to 200 watts more power and requires water cooling to not burst into flames to an Apple laptop processors as if it’s some great accomplishment. Are they going to compare this favorably to windows laptops ?
Exactly. I feel like if all Apple did was match Intel's power draw, they'd mop the floor with them so hard it'd make the entire x86 architecture look as terrible as it always was, we just didn't have a solid alternative to compare it against. I think it's safe to say that the desktop version of the M1 is well-positioned to destroy Intel, once the 27-inch iMac and the Mac Pro are updated.
Who is "they"?
The reason this has come up is that Alder Lake-S is out. Neither Intel nor MacRumors is under any illusion that this is a series of CPUs for laptops.
Yup. This puts the onus on Apple to release a faster chip for their upcoming 27" (30"?) iMac and Mac Pros releases...
I wouldn’t call professionals and hobbiest suckers, but I bet Apple would make an amazing liquid cooled device.
That’s exactly the point I was making above. This is not a simple cpu vs cpu debate. It’s desktop vs mobile and cpu vs SoC.
Also the iMac usually is closer to mobile hardware in a desktop than it is desktop hardware outright.
Finally I do think Apple is pushing for desktop level performance in a mobile styled chipset. The best of both worlds, desktop like power and mobile like efficiency. Apple is not there yet but M1 is well on the way to achieving this goal.
All right, first of all, hyperbole much On that power draw?
Yes, it is a desktop processor and meant for that kind of power budget. It isn’t even the worst offender in history, and there were plenty of us doing all kinds of crazy during the megahertz wars.
Next up, Intel hasn’t delivered a chip on time since the Early 90’s. I haven’t kept up with the Alder Lake line, but we’ll see if it actually shows up in a year. That was one of the reasons Apple moved on.
Comparing desktop to mobile is the only comparison available because Apple only has a mobile processor, and Apple started it.
Competition is good for all of us, so AMD, Apple, Intel, and your aunt Sue in her garage all working to make chips better whorls for all of us by increasing performance and decreasing costs.
More people than Apple make computers. If you can edit video faster on a Dell workstation than an Apple, which one do you think most production houses will turn to. Apple will have to work to stay in the fight.
But no, not terribly interested in getting one.
Yes, it is a desktop processor and meant for that kind of power budget. It isn’t even the worst offender in history, and there were plenty of us doing all kinds of crazy during the megahertz wars.
Next up, Intel hasn’t delivered a chip on time since the Early 90’s. I haven’t kept up with the Alder Lake line, but we’ll see if it actually shows up in a year. That was one of the reasons Apple moved on.
Comparing desktop to mobile is the only comparison available because Apple only has a mobile processor, and Apple started it.
Competition is good for all of us, so AMD, Apple, Intel, and your aunt Sue in her garage all working to make chips better whorls for all of us by increasing performance and decreasing costs.
More people than Apple make computers. If you can edit video faster on a Dell workstation than an Apple, which one do you think most production houses will turn to. Apple will have to work to stay in the fight.
But no, not terribly interested in getting one.
The thing is that Intel chips have traditionally been a poor fit for iMacs, because the all-in-one form factor makes for inefficient cooling that in turn results in throttling. Alder Lake would not fare well in the iMac form factor either way. We see how Apple leveraged on the M1 design to make the new iMac as slim as it is. You will not be able to achieve a similar form factor using intel chips.
My guess is that this is how Apple will continue to differentiate their products, by leveraging on the strengths of their custom silicon to enable PC form factors that simply isn't feasible for the competition to ape. And I remain optimistic that Apple will be able to scale the M1 chips to at least match Alder Lake in performance, while requiring less cooling.