I am talking about the demonstrated performance of the architecture, that is, what the CPU core is capable of. The baseline performance limit, if you want. Fastest currently shipping Intel or AMD cores are about on par with M1. There is no question that large multi core arrangements deliver more aggregated performance, but that is the question of scalability. There is nothing preventing Apple from building multi-core designs of their own. And frankly, I expect Apple to do even better here, because of their very low per-core energy consumption. They won’t need to downclock their cores as much, unlike Intel or AMD, retaining a larger relative performance advantage. In a large design, Intel can only deliver half the peak performance per core (2.4 GHz instead of 4.8 GHz for example), while Apple could deliver 80-90%. An 16-core Apple chip should be able to take on 28-core Xeons or 32-core EPYC for example.
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 Downplays Apple's M1 Chip With 'Carefully Crafted' Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am talking about the demonstrated performance of the architecture, that is, what the CPU core is capable of. The baseline performance limit, if you want. Fastest currently shipping Intel or AMD cores are about on par with M1. There is no question that large multi core arrangements deliver more aggregated performance, but that is the question of scalability. There is nothing preventing Apple from building multi-core designs of their own. And frankly, I expect Apple to do even better here, because of their very low per-core energy consumption. They won’t need to downclock their cores as much, unlike Intel or AMD, retaining a larger relative performance advantage. In a large design, Intel can only deliver half the peak performance per core (2.4 GHz instead of 4.8 GHz for example), while Apple could deliver 80-90%. An 16-core Apple chip should be able to take on 28-core Xeons or 32-core EPYC for example.
That sounds nice, but.....
Intel CPUs go from small handhelds to servers, from industrial application to gaming PCs, from Ultrabooks to workstations.
Sure in a way that is also true for Apple and it is to be seen if using the same core tech from iPhones to (low power) laptops and desktop can be scaled upwards to a MacPro .
Can't blame Intel for trying, but it does come off as very defensive. After all, they're not addressing several factors;
- M1 is a low-end chip, the i7 et all are higher-end.
- M1 has significantly lower thermal output, and is based on a 5nm die process.
- M1 is for Macs only, and the tests didn't/couldn't compare the same Macs running Intel's latest CPUs.
- Real world usage is more important than numbers. How would the Intel products cope under sustained pressure, compared to M1?...
- M1 is a low-end chip, the i7 et all are higher-end.
- M1 has significantly lower thermal output, and is based on a 5nm die process.
- M1 is for Macs only, and the tests didn't/couldn't compare the same Macs running Intel's latest CPUs.
- Real world usage is more important than numbers. How would the Intel products cope under sustained pressure, compared to M1?...
(And countless other similar quotes)
I guess it's a failure of Intel's marketing that so many seem to think that the i7 or i9 are the high end. They're the high end within a class.
For example, the 12-inch MacBook came with i7 options, but they wouldn't hold a candle against a Mac mini in an i3.
So, Intel using their priciest chips here is fine. (It's not like you get much choice on the Apple end.)
What's more interesting is the question whether they compared chips with similar thermal output, and it seems no, they did not; a fairer comparison would've been the much weaker 1180G7. (They're also pulling a sleight of hand here — when they get to the battery life comparison, they suddenly use a different CPU.)
Intel under this new leadership isn't heading off to a great start... they keep making the classic Apple-competitor mistake: Talking about Apple in their own material. It's amazing they really think this is a good idea.
By comparing itself to the M1, Intel does what Apple did 20 years ago with the Mac-PC guys ads: it puts the other in the position of the reference. This is rarely a successful communication strategy. Even less when it is done without a touch of humour.
Well, they go about comparing Acer with Mac... but i understand even when buying acer it's the ryzen processor version which is outselling intel versions.
I have an XPS but it’s not been a great experience. It gets hot (99-100 C under moderate load) and throttles like crazy until the jet fans cool it down (then they slow down, it heats up again, etc.). I even repasted the CPU but it still runs at 99C, which Dell acknowledged is hot but fits in specifications. To be fair, it’s a good computer and one I recommend if people don’t want a Mac but having owned multiple Dells (3+) and Macs (5+), I’ve had fewer issues with the Macs. This isn’t to mention the bad BIOS updates from Dell or the seriously degraded battery life within a couple years (with “great” battery health and proper battery management).
My main computer runs Windows but I built it so have no complaints. The Dell XPS is a secondary computer at this point.
I also have an M1 MacBook Air (family computer). It’s amazing. There’s little chance I’ll buy a Windows-based laptop when my Dell is ready for an upgrade.
Last edited:
As much as I hate not being able to upgrade ram, or the internal hard drive.
A paradigm shift I believe has taken place with the m1. And I see why that is so...
it will only come into focus completely when the next few higher end apple chips hit, this is apples first shot....
it is an impressive first shot
You can not deny that!
I do audio work, the fan noise issue, is the main reason I will be upgrading to m1, Mac mini, in a day or so, my old 5,1 Mac Pro ate yet another power supply, or did the backplane go out again? So done with all that.
And needs to be placed in another room, due to fan noise, that makes for a cable mess, and degrades video.
about $1200, with 16gigs of ram and a 1tb hard drive.
The 5,1 was umm a bit more than that, and yet the mini is faster.
Ya a paradigm shift....
Intel needs to start engineering again,
Not only because of m1, but amd as well, and less of this kind of stuff, or hiding code, and other dirty tricks intel has been up to lately.
A paradigm shift I believe has taken place with the m1. And I see why that is so...
it will only come into focus completely when the next few higher end apple chips hit, this is apples first shot....
it is an impressive first shot
You can not deny that!
I do audio work, the fan noise issue, is the main reason I will be upgrading to m1, Mac mini, in a day or so, my old 5,1 Mac Pro ate yet another power supply, or did the backplane go out again? So done with all that.
And needs to be placed in another room, due to fan noise, that makes for a cable mess, and degrades video.
about $1200, with 16gigs of ram and a 1tb hard drive.
The 5,1 was umm a bit more than that, and yet the mini is faster.
Ya a paradigm shift....
Intel needs to start engineering again,
Not only because of m1, but amd as well, and less of this kind of stuff, or hiding code, and other dirty tricks intel has been up to lately.
As always, the competition can only compete based on specs and benchmarks, while Apple ultimately focuses on the end user experience.
The M1 chip basically allows my MBA to be as thin and light as it is, while zooming for 9-10 hours and staying cool to the touch every step of the way. This is what ultimately matters - real-world performance for the end user.
Let me know when Intel is able to do the same.
They had their chance.
The M1 chip basically allows my MBA to be as thin and light as it is, while zooming for 9-10 hours and staying cool to the touch every step of the way. This is what ultimately matters - real-world performance for the end user.
Let me know when Intel is able to do the same.
They had their chance.
Stay hungry, stay foolish.
Maybe Intel has grown fat on their earnings and its members all retiring?
The sunsetting of a company is hard to watch, since a well cared for company can live and thrive for so much longer. Here’s hoping Apple continues to adapt and not only survive, but thrive in the next hundred years.
This strategy by Intel reeks of desperate lying, which is at this point starting to look like one step away from even worse news in attempts to sabotage Apple as they hemorrhage monetary worth and suffer an impressive amount of brain drain.
One hopes that Intel is under emergency red lights flashing mode and are spending huge amounts attempting to court engineers for R&D, they need to become relevant again fast.
Maybe Intel has grown fat on their earnings and its members all retiring?
The sunsetting of a company is hard to watch, since a well cared for company can live and thrive for so much longer. Here’s hoping Apple continues to adapt and not only survive, but thrive in the next hundred years.
This strategy by Intel reeks of desperate lying, which is at this point starting to look like one step away from even worse news in attempts to sabotage Apple as they hemorrhage monetary worth and suffer an impressive amount of brain drain.
One hopes that Intel is under emergency red lights flashing mode and are spending huge amounts attempting to court engineers for R&D, they need to become relevant again fast.
PowerPoint’s PDF export functionality is absolute trash. I took a 50MB presentation once and the PDF generated by PowerPoint was over 300MB, with broken transparency and other problems. I opened that exact presentation in Keynote and got a 25MB PDF without any rendering issues. It also took well under half the time, which would invalidate Intel’s “benchmark”. Maybe MS’s PowerPoint PDF export code is less of a dumpster fire on Windows.
Holly cow. Intel is scared s***less. They really should be held accountable to for the misrepresentation in the compilation and presentation of the information in those graphs. Really pathetic, but also very sad in a way. We need competition not people in glass houses throwing rocks.
Apple picking.
I have the MBA M1 and although I don't edit movies or use for DJ'ng, I have to say for programming on a middle scale it just work's.
A normal person does not use the notebook on his lap.
So no chance for you genitals to catch fire.
10 years is an eternity but you would need that sort of time to remove decades of x86 and replace it with ARM.
I won't speculate on what OEM's may or may not do but I highly doubt that they will follow Apple and start their own chips. This wasn't an overnight thing with Apple. It took Apple a decade starting with the A4 in 2010 to get where they are now. Apple keeping everything in-house was always the right step because they are their own ecosystem with their own software at the OS-level. We can't say the same for Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. because I can go with any of those OEM's which offer the same thing. They are not in the business to make their own hardware.
Microsoft would likely be the closest thing to Apple with the ARM-based Surface and I am not sure it's the success that Microsoft hoped it would be.
Intel should be worried, but not solely because Apple has the M1. It's a realization that not only has AMD pretty much surpassed them, but someone like Apple has an impressive alternative. Intel should be more focused with AMD because that is who is targeting the same users. Intel should still recognize Apple and Apple Silicon but if you're going to Apple you are likely doing so because you want in on their ecosystem, something Intel cannot control - you can only try to do what your OEM's want.
The typical consumer wouldn’t give those charts or claims the time of day. The knowledgeble consumer, for whom that data matters, sees it, and the “asterisks”, for the desperate slight of hand that it is.
Imagine how it feels like to be Intel. Being pushed against the wall by AMD and then getting stabbed in the back by your long-term associate.
I can't wait to see their face when the real high-end Mx SoCs arrive, like "yeah, it's four times faster than our best CPU but it can't run CP2077 because Macs are stupid at gaming stuff!"
seriously pathetic
I can't wait to see their face when the real high-end Mx SoCs arrive, like "yeah, it's four times faster than our best CPU but it can't run CP2077 because Macs are stupid at gaming stuff!"
seriously pathetic
Aren't they called LAP-tops? I suppose the use case plays a role where the laptop is used. Kids and game playing could definitely be on their laps (my kid uses a lap-desk to keep it on a flat surface to aid in cooling). Work use is more than likely on a tabletop.
Is the term laptop still used today? I know people might still refer to it as a laptop but I figured we moved on to the term notebook. Apple hasn't used the term laptop or notebook in some time - they refer to them as portables.