So Intel’s latest and greatest consumer desktop CPU is faster than the first pro laptop CPU from Apple? No concern here.
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
Ya know what is totally awesome about my new Macboook 16 compared to the 2018 15 Intel Macbook Pro?
No heat and no turbine fan blasting. I am ripping handbrake movies in 20-10 minutes where the Intel version would take an hour and the machine would get super hot and fans were supper loud.
Fan has not audibly come on once on the new M1 Pro machine.
Intel sucks.
I had a 2015 15 MBP with a 2.8 processor and I really could perceive no speed difference on the 2018 MBP.
It was like Intel was stuck for 5 years and really never delivered anything faster or more efficient.
It's no coincidence you are seeing all these Intel stories and high benchmark numbers, they are scared to death people will figure out that nothing is really moving forward in their product line.
No heat and no turbine fan blasting. I am ripping handbrake movies in 20-10 minutes where the Intel version would take an hour and the machine would get super hot and fans were supper loud.
Fan has not audibly come on once on the new M1 Pro machine.
Intel sucks.
I had a 2015 15 MBP with a 2.8 processor and I really could perceive no speed difference on the 2018 MBP.
It was like Intel was stuck for 5 years and really never delivered anything faster or more efficient.
It's no coincidence you are seeing all these Intel stories and high benchmark numbers, they are scared to death people will figure out that nothing is really moving forward in their product line.
I hope they step up their voltage game when it comes to desktop Mac chips.
It's shouldn't be limited to 30-40w like laptop version. Since battery longevity is out of the equation in this case.
While I agree competition is good, these chips fall flat. They use significantly more power than Apple's chips. Until Intel can lower power usage significantly, they are behind.
Intel has always been the undisputed champion of heating devices. A water cooler is an Intel owners best friend.
Those Intel chips are actually a lot more efficient than they appear, I've seen benchmarks where they're still competitive at 125 and 65 watt cap. Not quite Apple or AMD level, but a lot better than previous gen. It's promising, I think they'll come back eventually. Which is good, we need CPU manufacturers to stay competitive, so we don't end up with another stagnation.
Doesn’t the intel chips have built in video as well?? Anyways, I would think this is why its so much more energy efficient?? If the M1 had to use external ram, etc, wouldn’t it use more power?? You can’t upgrade/replace the RAM with the Apple Silicone... or even use other GPUs at the moment… there are always trade offs.
Last edited:
12900k is a great chip apple has its bonuses but gamers will love it
Did y’all miss the fact that this comparison is between desktop and laptop chips?
241 watts i power mode. Imagine that in a laptop…battery life would be 10 minutes and the fans full blast but still leaving burn marks on your legs.
I have heard they will put Pro, and Max in the desktop. Surely they should have more cores in, not the same as the mobile chips? If they just slap a Pro and Max in the iMac, people will complain about the crappy benchmarks compared to intel… 12, 14, and 16 CPU cores in the Pro chips please!
60% more cores and 600% more power, lol. Apple is shaking in their boots!
I hope Apple is working on a Desktop level version of the M series for the Mac Pro that does use a bit more power and does require some minimal fan cooling (ie similar to the trash can MacPro being very silent even at full load). I'm concerned that they are just going to stick an M1 Max in it and call it a day. That would be a mistake. On top of have the best efficiency per watt, they need a version that flexes some muscle with active cooling.
Yes, computers that’s I’m actually interested in buying. And the M1 and its derivatives are so fast and efficient, nothing else on the market really matters, because it won’t be used in an Apple product again.
Hang on, why is there a comparison between a 16 core desktop CPU to a 10 core laptop CPU??
Unless we’re looking at some other aspect in terms of functions you might as well be comparing a Bugatti to a Boeing 747 at this point.
Or maybe hold fire until Intel releases the laptop cpu, or the M1 max hits the mac pro?
Unless we’re looking at some other aspect in terms of functions you might as well be comparing a Bugatti to a Boeing 747 at this point.
Or maybe hold fire until Intel releases the laptop cpu, or the M1 max hits the mac pro?
Last edited:
They are supposedly working on a 40 core CPU for desktops, as well as 3nm chips by 2023.
Well at least Intel didn't fall asleep for too long. This is all good for everyone, no need to hate. Yes apple moved on and bloodied Intel's nose for a minute, but it seems they got back up and are on the right track again.
I'll probably spec out an i5 12500 for my next CAD workstation, very fast and not very expensive.
I think Apple is still going to have focus on cool and quiet. I seriously doubt that just throw more power at it.
Although I am not and never have been in the market for a Mac Pro, it’s the machine I am most curious to see in terms of what they’re doing with Apple Silicon.
wouldnt it be the opposite? If the M1 was a chip on its own, with no GPU or RAM it would less power not more. the external RAM and GPU would draw their own power separately from the processor.
The Intel i9 12900K is pulling nearly 241watts on its own, without any of the extra stuff
The chip alone is the cost of a base Mac mini - Core i9-12900K = $659.Yeah unplug the Intel Computer and then report the Geekbench numbers