Sidebar Sidebar
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

Doesn't mean much until there is an apples to apples comparison - a pro level desktop, likely the next Mac Pro. For now, it's all about mobile and power per watt. Either way, good for consumers all around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RalfTheDog
Keymaster said:
This is obviously the only choice for a comparison now, as Apple has not released the desktop version of their processors. But, even this comparison is embarrassing for Intel...their top of the line processor is only 1.5 times faster than Apple's first mobile processor, and the power difference between the two is massive, almost three times as much. Apple really has built an impressive architecture with the M processors, it's going to be very interesting when they release their desktop processor that can take advantage of more power, space, and cooling capacity allowed in a desktop case.

Honestly, I can't wait to see what a truly unleashed M processor can do, and what Apple plans to do for the second generation of the processors they are building, which are the most efficient out there, and have a shot at being the fastest overall.
Click to expand...
...it isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and rjohnstone
canadianreader said:
There's no mother earth it's a tiny microscopic speck of dust floating in the universe. But yeah Intel CPUs are not bad after all. Anyways competition is always good.
Click to expand...
It's the only tiny microscopic speck of dust we have.
DNichter said:
Doesn't mean much until there is an apples to apples comparison - a pro level desktop, likely the next Mac Pro. For now, it's all about mobile and power per watt. Either way, good for consumers all around.
Click to expand...
Don't they have a high end iMac coming out early next year? I suspect Intel hopes not.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: KeithBN, pianostar9, Unregistered 4U and 4 others
So let me get this straight, you're telling us that a desktop level chip which uses significantly more power draw and has 60% more cores(16 vs 10) or 2x as many power cores(16 vs 8) is faster than a laptop chip that uses maybe 50-100w total?

I have breaking news guys, water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot.

this is a dumb article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux, ddhhddhh2, Mescagnus and 13 others
satchmo said:
You know Intel will advertise the hell out of the fact that they're faster and conveniently leave out that key power efficiency stat.

And I suspect, it'll sell a lot of Alder Lake based laptops because of this.
Click to expand...
I don't know, most are smarter than you think, I bet AMD hasn't much to fear, neither does Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
241W is for Turbo only, running 5.2GHz. If you drop that down to base @3.2GHz it is 125W. M1 is also running at 3.2GHz. A more useful comparison would be to run benchmarks at same frequency and then make them power iso. Power goes up exponentially with clock speed and voltage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMBob
1.5 seems like a lot to me. i get we don't have much to compare right now, but when the imac rolls out, i doubt it will be much faster than the intel.
 
neekon said:
So let me get this straight, you're telling us that a desktop level chip which uses significantly more power draw and has 60% more cores(16 vs 10) or 2x as many power cores(16 vs 8) is faster than a laptop chip that uses maybe 50-100w total?

I have breaking news guys, water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot.

this is a dumb article.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Apple's a SoC that combines memory, gpu, cpu and others on the same package.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN, Mescagnus, BlindBandit and 3 others
RalfTheDog said:
It's the only tiny microscopic speck of dust we have.

Don't they have a high end iMac coming out early next year? I suspect Intel hopes not.
Click to expand...
Yea I believe that's the rumor right now. We'll have a better chance to compare at that point, but it still doesn't look great for Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.PT
High performance with staggeringly high energy consumption. I was considering building a mini-ITX PC with one of these but you'd need a really big air cooler or AIO water cooler to stand a chance with them.

I'll be interested to see how Intel manage to scale this for mobile devices? I was reading a few articles a couple of months ago stating they were struggling to get decent performance out of 12th gen mobile packages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlindBandit and Argoduck
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