Intel Downplays Apple's M1 Chip With 'Carefully Crafted' Benchmarks

[EdwardC]

So my 2 cents for what it's worth. I have an M1 and i3 Mini to compare to a HP Prodesk 8th generation i5 and as far as speed is concerned for everyday computing (office and 2D CAD work) the HP is faster than either of the Macs in opening applications to opening (native) pages or word documents. CAD applications are not even close when it comes to opening any size file. Albeit the power consumption of the HP is drawing at least twice as much power. The M1 as a laptop processor is probably a no brainer but so far as a desktop it's just OK in my opinion. With that said, MacOS still does a lot of things better thanks to Preview and the great integration of all the apps. I pretty much use the Mac M1 for any use except CAD and then switch over to the HP.

 

[yurc]

The only valid things I can agree on Intel slides is : Wacom pen display connectivity (please don't start iPad sidecar comparison, that's not mean for standalone pen display replacement). That's thing is unknown with M1.

Other than that it just Intel BS.

 

[verniesgarden]

Some of these tests demonstrate what we already knew: Certain aspects of Adobe apps run better on Windows.

I don’t know if focusing on one company’s apps tells the complete picture, but we do see that the intro spec M1 isn’t ready to replace a high end multimedia Adobe workflow yet. And AFAIK, nobody has said it is meant to do that.

the closest I've seen on that is the mention that optimized adobe apps will run close to the current mid-high end workstations, so just imagine when those beefier systems comet. We are gonna get into some amazing stuff.

 

[leman]

A normal person does not use the notebook on his lap.
So no chance for you genitals to catch fire.

I am literally having my 16" on my lap right now to type this...

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.

Apple calls them "notebooks". Here is Apple's M1 Macs press release: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/introducing-the-next-generation-of-mac/

By the way, Apple notebooks arguably are the only "real" laptops since Apple takes care to design their machines so that they can actually be used on a lap (or other sensitive surfaces like wooden desks). Most notebooks out there exhaust hot air through the bottom vents, resulting in very hot underside temperatures and risks of burns.

 

[radus]

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.

yes temperature is the problem - my 2018 i9 Macbook pro reaches 100 C to.
my M1 Mac mini runs between 38-45 C - the only problem are short blackouts using a hdmi connected 65" samsung monitor.

do you own the 11th Gen. i7 XPS or an older one ?

 

[leman]

yes temperature is the problem - my 2018 i9 Macbook pro reaches 100 C to.
my M1 Mac mini runs between 38-45 C - the only problem are short blackouts using a hdmi connected 65" samsung monitor.

M1 will also reach 100C under high load. CPU temperatures don't matter — Apple has been designing their cooling solution around the maximal safe operating temperature. What is relevant to the end user is chassis heat and noise under normal operating conditions. And Apple Silicon is an incredible improvement over any x86 chip in that department, especially when you consider the level of performance it offers.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

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.

Ummm...BestBuy seems to think "laptop" is still current:

 

[G4DPII]

Apple do it - you all lap it up like a bunch of sheep.

Intel do it and they are sad and desperate.

Says more about Apple fans than Intel.

 

[leman]

Apple do it - you all lap it up like a bunch of sheep.

What was a time in recent history when Apple did anything like this? Meaning, releasing cherry-picking misleading benchmarks deliberately designed to confuse and manipulate the customer?

Mind, technological superiority of Apple Silicon has been demonstrated by hundreds of third-party reviewers and analysts, many of which have been long-time Apple critics.

 

[SuperMatt]

Apple do it - you all lap it up like a bunch of sheep.

Intel do it and they are sad and desperate.

Says more about Apple fans than Intel.

Both-sides-ism is a disease. Symptoms include the creation of false equivalencies, ignorance of basic facts, and in some cases, increased trolling.

 

[jgrove]

So its an interesting publication but alas doesn't really do anything for Intel, as its clear numerous different chipset were used to obtain the figures they have.

I am unsure what has happened with Intel, but Apple had a blank canvas to work from, along with the years of development of the chips in the iPhone and iPads etc. Along with the problems they had to overcome with the Intel chips. So Apple did have an advantage and its clear the M1 and further generations will likely continue to outperform the Intel chipsets as Apple continues to tie the hardware and software down, creating a seamlessly efficient combination.

Intel on the other hand, have to create chips for all sorts of OS, I also got the feeling that they never really considered a different route, this is the classic Nokia and Blackberry issue, they sat on their laurels too long without innovation and were taken by surprise when consumers switched quickly.

Its unclear how far the road map will go with Apple, and I wonder how they can get equal performance in something like a MacPro with its Intel chips. But they might not need to if they develop the M1 series enough then the margins will be even bigger on those units.

I don't think this is anything more than a company wanting to develop its own bespoke chipset that they can tailor with its own OS. But it does leave the consumer trapped in the Apple Death Star beam, which has always been their goal to tie users in.

Juts my thoughts,

 

[Madhatter32]

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.

I guess I'm old. It's a laptop to me and I think that the term "laptop" is the term most people use in regular parlance.

According to HP, which knows a little bit about such things, "laptops range greatly in size, featuring screen sizes measuring anywhere from 10 inches to 18 inches. Depending on the manufacturer brand, laptops can be either slim or bulky. And weighing between 3 to 10 lbs as a rule, laptop weight fluctuates per model. Like desktop computers, laptops can also be engineered toward certain industries and consumers."

"Notebook laptops, on the other hand, are generally manufactured to be sleeker, smaller computers with screen sizes of 15-inches or less. Typically weighing less than 5 lbs and measuring less than 3 inches thick, notebooks keep their supreme lightweight portability advantage over laptops. Their consistently small size ensures they fit into backpacks, briefcases, and large purses easily."

Key Differences Explained | HP® Tech Takes

Explore the distinctions between notebooks and laptops, including size, performance, and functionality. Find the perfect portable computer for your needs.

store.hp.com

 

[Spike1999]

The effort Intel put in with this, they could’ve built a better CPU.

 

[George Dawes]

You only criticise what you fear

Intel will be history in 5 years the way apple are going

 

[Icelus]

Must be the first time they used

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.

The term "Laptop" described a mobile computer in the early 1980s. The term "Notebook" appeared 10 years later but by the late 1990s the terms were interchangeable. I still call them notebooks, but "laptop" is the default term used by companies and most people.

 

[Madhatter32]

You only criticise what you fear

Intel will be history in 5 years the way apple are going

I remember when people were giving Apple 5 months before it would become "history" too. I am glad I do not come to MacRumors for investment advice.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

Intel is already catching up to Apple under the leadership of their new CEO. Incredible.

***Extreme Sarcasm***

 

[iLog.Genius]

Intel on the other hand, have to create chips for all sorts of OS, I also got the feeling that they never really considered a different route, this is the classic Nokia and Blackberry issue, they sat on their laurels too long without innovation and were taken by surprise when consumers switched quickly.

Not excusing Nokia and BlackBerry's lack of vision, but it is infinitely easier to switch phones when most people have it subsidized by their carrier of choice. Switching laptops is difficult from a pricing standpoint because Apple doesn't really have cheaper than $1,299 CAD - this eventually turns into Windows vs. Mac where Mac will "lose" to the majority who cannot afford a $1,299 laptop. No Apple Silicon chip, regardless of performance, is going to get the majority to switch over to Apple when budget is significant factor.

Like you said, Intel does not make software - they can only provide chips to OEM's. As long as OEM's require/demand x86, whether it is from AMD or Intel, both companies should be ok. Many here are making this out to Intel vs. Apple Inc. when really, it's Intel vs. Apple Silicon which we can make comparisons but does not really matter because it's going to come down to what it always has been, price. If you can afford a Mac, you're going to get one. To the majority, they're going to stick with "budget" Windows PC/notebooks.

 

[SuperMatt]

I remember when people were giving Apple 5 months before it would become "history" too. I am glad I do not come to MacRumors for investment advice.

I do wonder what the future holds for Intel. They well and truly missed the boat on mobile processors. Apple came to them before launching the iPhone and they took a pass. They certainly have a lot of smart people working there, but their leadership seems wedded to an out-of-date business model: the Wintel system. Windows for ARM already exists, no mobile phones have “Intel inside” other than perhaps a sub-processor of some kind.

Cell phones way outsell Wintel PCs, and Intel STILL doesn’t appear to have any entry into the processor market for phones, 14 years after the iPhone was launched. They’ve been asleep at the wheel so long the car ran off the road, into the woods, and kept going until it ran out of gas.

 

[panjandrum]

Apple do it - you all lap it up like a bunch of sheep.

Intel do it and they are sad and desperate.

Says more about Apple fans than Intel.

This is because hypocrisy is a term that can only apply to non-Apple users, didn't you know that 😂 😂 😂

But yes, from what I'm reading this Intel chip is very good, and does look like it legitimately beats the M1 and AMD in certain areas, sometimes by considerable amounts, sometimes by small amounts. But this was guaranteed to happen at some point, and it's going to be good for consumers, in general, for more chip-makers to go to war and have to really push what they can do again, in terms of both computing-power and reduced power-consumption.

Where it remains to be seen, and where the risk is for Mac users is particular is if Apple ends up being unable to keep up with Intel and AMD once they really get going again. Obviously we all HOPE Apple can keep up. That's the ideal scenario. But it's not guaranteed and there is certainly the possibility that we end up switching to Intel or AMD (or even something else) again in the future. Apple was basically forced away from PPC because it got to the point where the PPC systems were clearly and dramatically failing to complete and the gap was widening. It was going to be very hard to sell Macs when you could buy a Wintel machine that was literally 2X as fast (or more) for less money. Let's all hope that scenario never happens again and that Apple's chips, at the very least, keep-pace. If they outperform the competition that's fantastic, and it's what we want, but ultimately what they have to do at a minimim is keep-pace.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Aren't you supposed to never name your competitors in marketing unless everyone knows you're the underdog and you're aiming to establish yourself as #2 in a crowded field?

So... Intel is really putting this out to establish them as #2 behind Apple, and to try saying all the other players in ARM are far inferior to them?

 

[iLog.Genius]

This is because hypocrisy is a term that can only apply to non-Apple users, didn't you know that 😂 😂 😂

But yes, from what I'm reading this Intel chip is very good, and does look like it legitimately beats the M1 and AMD in certain areas, sometimes by considerable amounts, sometimes by small amounts. But this was guaranteed to happen at some point, and it's going to be good for consumers, in general, for more chip-makers to go to war and have to really push what they can do again, in terms of both computing-power and reduced power-consumption.

Where it remains to be seen, and where the risk is for Mac users is particular is if Apple ends up being unable to keep up with Intel and AMD once they really get going again. Obviously we all HOPE Apple can keep up. That's the ideal scenario. But it's not guaranteed and there is certainly the possibility that we end up switching to Intel or AMD (or even some else) again in the future. Apple was basically forced away from PPC because it got to the point where the PPC systems were clearly and dramatically failing to complete and the gap was widening. It was going to be very hard to sell Macs when you could buy a Wintel machine that was literally 2X as fast (or more) for less money. Let's all hope that scenario never happens again and that Apple's chips, at the very least, keep-pace. If they outperform the competition that's fantastic, and it's what we want, but ultimately what they have to do at a minimim is keep-pace.

To be honest, I do not think keeping up with Intel/AMD matters any more to where Apple will have to consider any significant changes. Apple has finally got to where they wanted to be all along - they are now largely independent with everything done in-house. Apple has the significant advantage of controlling both hardware and software where they can pretty much do anything they want. This is going to mimic what the iPhone has been able to do in the phone market - other OEM's might have the hardware/specs on paper, but iPhone wins due to optimization.

I'm sure Intel/AMD will eventually engineer and manufacture something competitive but to Apple, it's not going to matter. They are their own software, hardware and service company. You want Apple, you are going to buy Apple. This is how Apple wanted it and now they can fully realize this without relying on a 3rd party.

 

[MacBird]

If Intel is so far ahead, I guess they can stop innovating.

 

[leman]

I am unsure what has happened with Intel, but Apple had a blank canvas to work from, along with the years of development of the chips in the iPhone and iPads etc. Along with the problems they had to overcome with the Intel chips. So Apple did have an advantage and its clear the M1 and further generations will likely continue to outperform the Intel chipsets as Apple continues to tie the hardware and software down, creating a seamlessly efficient combination.

I think you are perfectly spot on when you mention Apple's clean slate start. People familiar with the matter say that 64-bit ARM ISA was heavily influenced by ARM customers, Apple being one of the most prominent ones. And of course, let us not forget that Apple was one of ARM's co-founders. Looking at the things from today's perspective, it seems likely that Apple engineers have envisioned a massive scalable out-of-order execution platform, and they have ensure that the ISA it executes fits the intended design.

And of course, there are other factors. Like the fact that Apple has been aggressively hiring some of the best chip designers in the industry, including former Intel people. Or the fact that Apple's focus from the start was to develop a energy efficient system that would be capable of high performance (this is in stark contrast with Intel's approach, who have been trying to make their high performance system be more energy efficient or ARM itself who were focusing on energy-efficiency first and foremost). Or Apple's investment in PowerVR technology that gave them access to unique rendering energy-efficient architecture, allowing them to build GPUs with incredible performance-per-watt figures.

Intel instead has been largely relying on the CPU architecture they have developed twenty five years ago (P6) and largely relying on process improvements to drive the performance and efficiency increases. Once scalability started to hurt, they have introduced Turbo Boost, which was a great thing at first, but turned into somewhat of a curse these days, as CPU frequency and power consumption would swing wildly and the computer behavior became unpredictable. An Intel or AMD CPU that is sold as a 15 watts part can use over 30 watts in single-core turbo mode, or more then 50 watts under multi-core turbo, which is not intuitive and, frankly, just dishonest marketing. Apple's hardware is really a fresh breeze of air in this age of competing marketing BS — it performs exactly as advertised, and it's extremely predictable. No extreme clock swings, no strange power usage restrictions based on the instructions you run, no awkward coating of GPU "shading units" (looking at you Nvidia). Just honest, high performing, energy efficient silicon, like what one wants.

 

[jeanlain]

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.

I was curious and I also did a pdf export from powerpoint. I was surprised to see that, in my case, ppt was as fast as Keynote. I didn't compare the quality and size of the pdfs though.
Anyway, it took like 4 seconds to export 60 slides, so it's hardly a task were your CPU speed matters a lot.