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
I did not, to me the comparison makes the most sense against the platform they are relevant on, which is PC, and they seem to compete well with Ryzen again, after a few years of stagnation.
Only good things ahead with more level competition.
Besides, Apple is likely to use these very same chips in the iMacs very soon, so that's a desktop
Gotta remember a lot of Apple blinders on in these parts. No one else makes smartphones or headphones either.
I saw in reviews those hit very high temps - even higher than Ryzen and require high end cooling.
Well, I won’t be surprised if Intel is able to take the single thread performance crown on desktop, at least for a while. But I have no doubt whatever Apple puts in the Mac Pro will thrash Intel’s best (AL and Xeons alike) in multithread. I’m not convinced Apple can just jam more power into their existing cores and get meaningful single thread gains.
Not without a core redesign, so possibly M3 Pro/Max.
I’m sure Intel will be able to throw laptops out there that beat M1 Max in ST and MT. PC people will scream “Apple iz Ded!!1!1one” as they always have.
But, obviously there is so much more to laptops than raw performance, otherwise we would all be carrying around 10kg of mini-pc with 500Wh of battery and an external monitor.
Apple have always focussed on performance, battery life, noise, heat, weight, form factor, display and build quality. Always done the best they can, while at least managing to keep prices sane. They will always be beaten by others in one or two areas, when others focus exclusively in one or two areas.
TLDR: I’m not cancelling my M1 Max order.
Not without a core redesign, so possibly M3 Pro/Max.
I’m sure Intel will be able to throw laptops out there that beat M1 Max in ST and MT. PC people will scream “Apple iz Ded!!1!1one” as they always have.
But, obviously there is so much more to laptops than raw performance, otherwise we would all be carrying around 10kg of mini-pc with 500Wh of battery and an external monitor.
Apple have always focussed on performance, battery life, noise, heat, weight, form factor, display and build quality. Always done the best they can, while at least managing to keep prices sane. They will always be beaten by others in one or two areas, when others focus exclusively in one or two areas.
TLDR: I’m not cancelling my M1 Max order.
Why would it be the opposite? If the M1 didn’t have its own ram, or GPU as is right now, it would be worthless since it is currently incapable of using external ram and GPUs.
Like I said, these Intel CPU’s also have GPUs in them, but can also work with external GPUs. The Ram is external. That requires more power to communicate to these external pieces.
Basically what everyone is saying is true… we can’t really compare these, as least based on power use. Intel’s chips are not all in one SOCs, and Apple’s chips are.
Last edited:
Last time I checked they released some surface laptops with a Qualcomm chip, and Win11 supports Arm, so, they have plans of their own too…
Good points. Please excuse the snark.I did not, to me the comparison makes the most sense against the platform they are relevant on, which is PC, and they seem to compete well with Ryzen again, after a few years of stagnation.
Only good things ahead with more level competition.
Besides, Apple is likely to use these very same chips in the iMacs very soon, so that's a desktop
The kicker is that the CPUs can be capped at 150W power consumption and barely lose performance compared to the full 241W:
Seems like squeezing out the last 10% of performance takes a disproportional amount of power. The all-core boost frequency of the i9-12900K (4.9 GHz, even over prolonged periods) is just insane.
I think the real star among the new CPUs is actually the i5. Less than $300, lower power, and still beats the M1 Max in both single- and multi-thread Geekbench.
The M1-series is truly brilliant. However, one thing that annoys me is all the Intel hate that talks about fan noise. When the M1Max is on high enough load to turn the fans up to max speed, the fans are still quiet, but the Apple Intel models have fans that are loud. Intel didn't get to choose the fans, or design the cooling, Apple did. There are massive design differences in the chassis and cooling system of the two Apple machines. I'd be willing to bet that if you put an Intel chip in the current 16" M1Max laptop, it wouldn't be annoyingly loud. Yep sure, the fans would be on a LOT more, but it still wouldn't be annoyingly loud. If Apple had just done that, instead of putting their own chips in, then Apple fans would be raving about the wonderful quiet fans and cooling design of these machines.
Don't get me wrong, the M1 is truly brilliant, and I will be rocking a new 16" M1Pro MBP very soon. I just don't like the Intel hate that misses that a huge chunk of the heat problems were Apple's poor cooling design, which Apple didn't bother to fix until they put their own chips in, and really really wanted them to be a spectacular hit.
The M1 put a rocket in the pants of Intel, and they replaced a chunk of their management team, starting at the CEO, for a fresh start. I applaud them for their efforts so far, and will be curiously watching to see if their planned road map for the next 5 years actually does pan out as well as they are aiming for. And not just Intel, the M1 has launched serious ARM development in several companies, including notably, MicroSoft. I'll also be watching with great curiosity to see how Windows ARM develops.
Argument could be made for gaming? Apple probably doesn't care much about complex gaming on their macos products because they probably can't make as much money since people aren't locked into their App store on macs.
These only have Intel UHD Graphics, not Intel Xe. The GPU is basically worthless compared to that of an M1 Pro.
I don't follow. Right now, we're comparing the power draw of just the Intel CPU (and a poor integrated GPU) against an Apple SoC that includes CPU, good GPU, and RAM.
Yes, but that's neither here nor there. If you're going to compare power draw, you have to add the power draw of an adequate GPU and the entire RAM.
It’s like that ex-boyfriend who keeps posting jacked images of himself; ripped and looking better than before but all from juicing.
Looks like a great chip, might get one of these. The high power consumption is only under full load, which it totally fine. For checking mails and browsing the web it should be very efficient. Might grab one of these.
It's also not a MacPro competitor, this is a consumer level chip. Whatever the MacPro will get, will have to stand against Xeon Platinum + Nvidia GPUs (RTX x000).
It's also not a MacPro competitor, this is a consumer level chip. Whatever the MacPro will get, will have to stand against Xeon Platinum + Nvidia GPUs (RTX x000).
That's not an apples for apples comparison. The i9-12900K isn't a professional, workstation-grade CPU. It's aimed at the consumer market but is still good for the prosumer market. When they release one of their X chips, then we can compare them with the Mac Pro. The i9-12900K could be compared to the standard iMac M1.
By the time Intel's chip is available to buy, Apple will have released it's M3 processor and further increase the gap in performance. They have long lost the race and I haven't even looked into what AMD has up it sleeves for next year.
It would be the opposite because the M1 Pro/M1 Max whole package is drawing 50-100w total with the CPU,GPU and RAM. If the M1Pro/M1 Max were to not have those components, or have external components(if it were possible) then they would naturally draw less power.
The Intel i9 12900k draws 125-241w of power for the processor and gpu(which uses a max of 15w so not really pulling a lot of power) alone. The GPU in the i9 is also irrelevant to this comparison as it only uses 15 w of power, and is likely to be turned off for most/all users.
Also the power the external RAM and external GPU use is pulled from the computers power supply, not the processor, the processor alone is drawing the upto 241w of power.
I’m just happy to see competition and noticeable improvements in speed on chips all the way around. The 2010s were really bleak for chip improvements, mainly because of Intel getting way too comfortable and not innovating and the entire computer industry’s reliance on them. With AMD and Apple bringing some fierce competition, it’s nice to see Intel’s kicked themselves into gear and are not completely just SOL.
The whole processor war is just about bragging rights. To most people, any computer made in the last 4-5 years will not seem any slower than the current crop.
240W...LOL. Does Intel rhyme with fail?
That's a desktop chip. It's not meant for laptops.
