I said that Intel will put ARM architecture on its knees. 
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
Everyone is making the mistake of trying to make a direct comparison between Apple Silicon and the Intel chip. Granted a desktop chip running at full power compared to laptop focused processors is not very salient.
However, the bigger issue is the business case. Apple can make its own processors on a standard ARM architecture across their product line. That simplifies design, engineering, and software development. It also allows Apple not to be dependent on external timelines for chip development. For Mac desktops and their mobile devices - Apple Silicon will deliver all the performance necessary and still have power advantages.
Intel is looking across multiple customers and use cases to include servers, gaming, etc. its design and engineering priorities will be directed by that dynamic.
However, the bigger issue is the business case. Apple can make its own processors on a standard ARM architecture across their product line. That simplifies design, engineering, and software development. It also allows Apple not to be dependent on external timelines for chip development. For Mac desktops and their mobile devices - Apple Silicon will deliver all the performance necessary and still have power advantages.
Intel is looking across multiple customers and use cases to include servers, gaming, etc. its design and engineering priorities will be directed by that dynamic.
Towers are increasingly niche. Not that they've disappeared (we recently bought a few), but their use cases are far fewer than they were in the 1990s.
Clearly, Apple felt that they had offended too many customers with their radical 2013 Mac Pro, so they built another tower in 2019. I'm less sure if they will ever bother again.
The comparison between this desktop workstation and a laptop is ludicrous. If people are going to these ridiculous pissing contest extremes….why not throw in which one works better on a plane?
When tested with the same power use(30w), Intel had a higher score. Check ur facts before u post
T
If ur talking sustainabilityz apple is the biggest culprit. Unrepairable phones causes way more trash.
T
If ur talking sustainabilityz apple is the biggest culprit. Unrepairable phones causes way more trasha
AS I said, when both chips uses 30 watts, Intel actually leads in performance. Don't just assume ****.
stil, 4 times power drain than whole M1 Max CPU at fullest or twice the whole SOC at its fullest.
"Finally, stressing out both CPU and GPU at the same time, the SoC goes up to 92W package power and"
let's add a comparable GPU to the Alder to see the results
I just dont see the point even in that? Computation per watt is the only way to actually calculate the impact on the climate. I dont have a problem with Apples own architecture, but defending it for any price, as i have seen on this site is a problem and why our fanbase are often seen down on.
I expected this. They said the M1 Max is comparable to a high-end desktop CPU, and Intel is now making a faster one. Note the significantly worse single-core performance, though. That's what I care about more.
It's not ridiculous. People are considering this when deciding whether they need a dedicated desktop or just a laptop.
You're assuming they're going to put the current M1 chips into a future release of an iMac Pro.
It probably wouldn't be able to run at 5 GHz. The chips (which are based on the A-series) are designed for low frequencies because power efficiency was a primary design goal.
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
Even the iMac Pros were a no go for real pros as they still were very thermally limited, small psu and poor gfx card options
This is a truly strange thread. Apple, Intel, and AMD are going to be duking it out now. Good.
Apple’s advantage is the same as it’s always been, they’re a platform company. The integration of everything has always been their best attribute. Their hardware is great but their main focus is on their platform as a whole. Intel has a lot more going on that Apple’s platform.
In general each new generation is gonna too the competition’s current offerings. They’re also going to shamelessly copy each other. Awesome.
You don’t want anyone falling hopelessly behind here. That’s good for pretty much no one.
I don’t understand people getting defensive about processor benchmarks. It’s just weird.
Apple’s advantage is the same as it’s always been, they’re a platform company. The integration of everything has always been their best attribute. Their hardware is great but their main focus is on their platform as a whole. Intel has a lot more going on that Apple’s platform.
In general each new generation is gonna too the competition’s current offerings. They’re also going to shamelessly copy each other. Awesome.
You don’t want anyone falling hopelessly behind here. That’s good for pretty much no one.
I don’t understand people getting defensive about processor benchmarks. It’s just weird.
I never understood those machines. “Hold up people, we need 18+ months to reimagine a… tower.”
They were such a strange stopgap. And the Mac Pros, while very nice machines… what took 18 months? Or however long it was between “hey pros, we’re sorry, the trash can was a bad idea” and “we have rethought everything about pros and thus introduce a new… tower.”
I figured with all the time it was going to be something legitimately interesting. It wasn’t. Not a bad tool but good lord. It’s a tower, lol.
You do know that that 30w is power for EVERYTHING on the SOC and you are only comparing the Intel CPU power draw, right?
When you should be comparing CPU, SSD, GPU and RAM wattage.
I’m sure you’re right, but I can’t find this information in the original links: could you share your source please?
Your gripe is understandable, though the situation is not the exact same as the typical PC workstation, high-end gaming rig. Apple’s Power Macs (as of the G5) and Mac Pros use no liquid cooling, have a fair amount of tool less modularity, and intended to run as quiet as possible without sacrificing any performance.
Poor Intel. Your chips must not only be faster, but be more power efficient to count as being better. What's the use in being faster if it melts the whole computer.
I do think Intel deserves a little applause. Even though full load processing power consumption is still off the charts, Alder Lake does have significantly better efficiency than previous Intel generations at low and moderate loads. And if Intel Arc is anything near the rumored performance, maybe all three mainstream chip developers will make bigger steps gen. to gen. (One can hope.)
guess you're not paying attention to what Gelsinger has to say about that? btw, he's Intel's CEO ...
I could imagine a future where Apple continues to build Macs that use Intel processors as an option in its top-of-the line Pro Desktop systems. Third party developers are already producing Intel slices in their apps, I imagine Apple could just continue that stack. Intel would have to continue to deliver outstanding performance, and I think they'd have to get their power consumption down at least somewhat.
I don't see it as very likely, though. The company-wide ARM architecture offers too many advantages.