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
But its not just a laptop chip, is it? It's the fastest chip they make. It's even faster than their top-end desktop.
So why are people specifically comparing against a Laptop? Just last year, people were saying there’s no way a phone processor could compete against the might of Intel who have been in the CPU business forever. They were comparing AMD to Intel back then.
Just one year later, those same people are comparing high end desktop CPU’s from Intel against a laptop SOC from Apple. Hilarious.
Just for info, many people here who are purchasing the M1 MAX, myself included, have more than enough cash to build a fully loaded desktop machine from Intel/ AMD/ Windows. We choose not to because they don’t fit our workflow. Arguing that an Intel desktop is more performant is an absolute waste of time because I’m not interested in a Windows based desktop. If I want to play games, I’d buy a console. If I want to render, I’d buy a suitable rendering machine.
I don’t do either….I am mobile and for my workflow, the M1 MAX is a paradigm shift. Right tool for the job and all that.
You mean faster than their top end desktop… that has an Intel chip. Go figure.
And it IS a laptop chip. Mac Minis and iMacs use laptop chips. You haven’t even seen their SOC yet for their desktop machines. As they haven’t released it yet.
Not to mention they are now on their second year ever of releasing their own computer SOCs… and Intel fanbois like you are already shaking in their boots going crazy trying to compare 12th GEN! chips to Apple 1st gen SOCs lol.
Not really. Most next-gen memory is slower at launch than the previous generation. Since Apple doesn't include that information on their customer-facing spec sheets it's pretty easy to assume.
Their MBP A1 MAX is their flagship chip. So it gets compared to other companies flagship chips. It's Apple's fault for not launching a performance CPU before they launched a power efficient one because now we have to compare the laptop chip to desktop ones.
Can I take that machine on site to a client and export a 8K ProRES video before heading to my next meeting? You are completely missing the point. People aren’t buying an M1 MAX because it beats a desktop at anything. They’re buying it because it is the best laptop for their workflow. Comparing the options that fit our workflow, there is nothing in the laptop space that gives the same performance as M1 MAX with the same battery life.
It’s their flagship chip…. FOR A LAPTOP. Why is this so hard for you to understand lol. You haven’t even seen what they will release in their Mac Pro.
Did you also compare the M1 last year to the Xeon series chips?
All of this is fine. Because when Intel is cranking out the same die over and over for multiple years, cranking up the watts, doing no innovation, and is stagnant as they have ever been. 3 years from now apple will have leap frogged them in the span of 5 years. Starting with the M1. Before the M1 I loved AMD and before the last few years of AMD I loved Intel. It’s not hard to see Apple has created something that obviously makes you very uncomfortable.
All with Intel sitting on top for 50 years doing nothing. IMO that is why you are here, you are scared and have to justify to yourself why you like your desktop machine.
When 3 years from now apples high end chips can be in a laptop OR their Mac Pro, while Intels has to be under water in a desktop sucking 800 watts and heating your room… don’t come crying to me.
Last edited:
Yes, really. 2666 is a middle-of-the-road speed even for DDR4.
It's "pretty easy to assume" that they wouldn't tout a memory bandwidth of 400 GiB/s and then proceed to put modules from 2011 in.
They do though. How are you even on this site if you don’t read any of it? Just look for meaningless fights?
This is coming from someone who has a 9900k clocked to 5.1 on all cores under water and a 2080 ti overclocked and under water also. Makes a great heater. Love that computer. That computer is light years away from what Apple has just started unveiling.
Last edited:
And add a hefty graphics card of the current generation to that and the power consumption under load will be about 400-500W more = almost 750W at full load for CPU and GPU.
That's pretty much. ?
No - I am comparing the best Apple has to offer with the newest chip. Putting the chip in a laptop is irrelevant. The M1 Max is the fastest chip Apple offers. It wouldn't make much sense to compare it to a slower chip just because of the form factor of the device apple used. Especially when Apple puts the same laptop chips in their desktops.
You have to put aside that it's a laptop. It's just a computer. Computer vs computer in raw performance. That's all that matters were comparing a chip's ability to perform. Power is important for battery-powered devices, but right now that's not how the MBP is being assessed. It's just another computer.
I always compare flagships. I have seen what they released for their Mac Pro, it was an intel chip released years ago. The M1 Max is faster. Heat and power are far less important than raw performance.
They don't tout the speed of the memory on the spec sheet.
I said Apple doesn't share that details with customers, and they don't. I am not going to rely on some rumor site for specs of hardware. I am going to use Apple's spec sheets.
Also, it's not really fair to compare irrelevant points of a really old CPU and an old GPU with newer tech. Heat is only important if thermal throttling occurs. Otherwise, as long as it's under 90 C the chip is going to run. Battery life doesn't matter either because even a hard render on a MBP is going to occur with the support of a power brick. The 9900k was amazing three years ago and the 2000 series GPUs were unimpressive tech demos. I mean, they are fine hardware but they aren't exactly relevant anymore.
Last edited:
It’s a bit of a stretch, but not entirely wrong. In 2021, getting a computer where the CPU alone draws more than 200 Watts (to say nothing of the GPU) is a bit gross.
You can compare all you want but you are wasting your time doing it here. I’m going to hazard a guess that everybody who has purchased an M1 MAX is doing so exactly because it is mobile and offers the best performance in that form factor.
I am not in the market for a desktop, I never was. I am not in the market to run Windows because my workflow is on Mac. I’m not in the market for anything that plays games because there’s better and cheaper options out there. I’m in the market that helps me get my work done in the easiest way possible.
And yes, GPU encoding was enabled on the RTX3090….it was confirmed in the comments.
Performance wise Intel still takes the cherry I guess, gap is quite bigger then first reported. But mid to long-term, Apple has a much better platform to build on with these efficient chips and I think with future updates, Apple silicon has a bright future. This battle is only good for us consumers 
Actually, there are a lot of people on these forums discussing the use of an A1 Max MBP as a server.
If Apple chooses to not make desktops that is on them, but their products are still going to be compared to one. Apple knows they can't compete, at least with released products, against desktop chips. As a result, they will likely not release a new pro desktop just to save face. Until they have a pro desktop we have to compare their MBP to the desktop because it's the only option they provide.
I do like your conflicting statements, however. There are better and cheaper options for gaming? Surely you don't mean to imply that there is a single product that is both better and cheaper than PC gaming. Because that's fundamentally false. XBone and PS5 are nowhere near as good as PC gaming. So what product might you be referring to? The Switch? the Quest? Some Tiger handheld?
Also, why did you share this uncomfortable YT?
In another few years at the rate Apple’s going, Intel will be comparing their desktop chips against the Apple Watch, proud that they finish 3% ahead of the Apple Watch while consuming 500W.
The thing is, the minute apple puts the same processor in the iMac, it is no longer a mobile CPU.
Earth will take care of itself, no doubt about that. We've been destroying its surface for quite some time and now like a person that swats mosquitos off its arm, now with hurricanes, floods, major fires (burning our largest creator of oxygen btw) ... earth IS actually taking care of itself. I prefer to think of global warming as real and we're just trying to slow and stop the need for earth taking care of herself by smacking every living area into a wasteland.
There is likely no desktop version of the M1 chips. If last year was indicative of what apple will do, we will see an M1 Pro and M1 Pro Max version of an iMac.
Maybe Apple will release a tower based desktop with some sort of over the top M1 chip with 32 high performance cores or something crazy, however last year they could have released the M1 Pro as a "iMac Pro" running an M1 chip and did not.
Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die (16 and 32 perf cores, respectively) have yet to make an appearance (the M1 Max is Jade C-Die, and the M1 Pro is Jade C-Chop). They may not end up in the iMac Pro and only in the Mac Pro, but still.