look at those bezels - of the 10 years old macbook pro display - really beautiful
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
Windows an Arm using Parallels is running much better as expected before.
But the masterpiece M1 MacMini is not able to use a hdmi - connected 4k display without blackouts (btw. same display with the same cabel is working without any flaw connected to a MacMini i7 2018)
'ARM architecture' could be a misleading term though. There is the 'ARM architecture' as in a "specification of a CPU execution environment', which is essentially just a normative document, and there are actual physical hardware implementation (microarchitecture) of the model described by that document. Both the execution model and the hardware implementation obviously impact the end result, but the implementation is much more important, as evident from the fact that Apple's implementation far outperform any other available implementation of the same execution model.
I also don't think its correct to say that ARM architecture is just couple of years younger than x86... AArch64 was introduced less then 10 yeas ago, and it is pretty much a clean slate design that is not backwards compatible with the older ARM ISAs, they took the opportunity to clean up and fix a lot of issues with their previous designs. On the other hand x86-64 was a straightforward minimal extension of the 35-years old IA-32, without any major changes to the ISA itself. Apple's implementation is also fairly new (all things considered), it's about a decade old and only now coming into its own, where Intel's current designs are still an evolution of the Pentium Pro, respective Pentium M which were introduced 25/20 years ago.
Sure, the next architecture jump will boost performance per core, but the next Apple laptops (and desktops) will have more performance cores for double/triple the multicore performance of the existing M1 Macs.
Intel Core i7 vs. Apple M1: Let's reality-check Intel's new claims | PCWorld
Sorry apple fans. The M1 is not the amazing jesuschip you think it is. It's really good, but not the be all end all apple marketing would have you think. 16 hrs of battery life (at 125nits)...I don't know about you, watching videos at that brightness (8 ticks from low) is downright unusable. Now, when intel does a FAIR test the results are MUCH closer. 6min close. egads. Our amaing mjesus chip is not capable of blowing away the intel in battery life? what gives.
Apple marketing.
Sorry apple fans. The M1 is not the amazing jesuschip you think it is. It's really good, but not the be all end all apple marketing would have you think. 16 hrs of battery life (at 125nits)...I don't know about you, watching videos at that brightness (8 ticks from low) is downright unusable. Now, when intel does a FAIR test the results are MUCH closer. 6min close. egads. Our amaing mjesus chip is not capable of blowing away the intel in battery life? what gives.
Apple marketing.
"We’d really need to run similar tests, but we don’t doubt the results."
What kind of journalistic failure is that? "Yeah, we could verify this claim, but maybe it's accurate?"
"What you can question is whether Intel picked tasks that favor its own CPU design."
You can indeed, and they did. Overall, the i7-1185G7 does worse at WebXPRT 3 than the M1:
"If we consider the WebXPRT 3, which is often used by Intel for comparisons, we can see that even the fast Core i7-1185G7 and also i7-10900K processors (desktop) are left behind. Ahead of the M1, we can only find the new Zen 3 based desktop CPUs with high clock speeds (such as the Ryzen 9 5950X)."
Yes, you are absolutely right.
What these websites are doing is reporting benchmarks produced by Apple and Intel and providing a "critical analysis" on them, which is, quite honestly, worth nothing. What these websites should be doing is providing their own bias-free benchmarks.
Apple's own benchmarks show the M1 destroying Intel processors. But they are comparing the just-released M1 with 10th gen Intel processors, released in 2019, and which equip Macs, and not the 11th gen.
Intel's own benchmarks show their processors beating M1 chips in carefully selected tasks.
None of them is truly honest. They both show part of the truth, and, during these strange times, it became very clear that it is very possible to lie by only telling the truth. I am yet to find a comprehensive benchmark test, from an independent vehicle, showing the most relevant tasks.
There are, of course, Geekbench tests, and, in terms of raw performance, the M1 seems to be clearly superior. However, nobody buys a computer to run Geekbench tests (or very few people do).
Intel's benchmarks show something interesting, which is that Microsoft Office may perform better on Windows running on its processors than on macOS running on M1 processors. Microsoft Office is much better on Windows than on macOS, and it is certainly not fair to compare them both in terms of performance. Still, many people use Microsoft Office and do not care how fast the processor is if it does not make up for inferior software. I have failed to see any other benchmark (including YouTube videos) showing a comparison between Microsoft Office on M1/macOS and on Intel/Windows.
It is a little disappointing to see these benchmarks coming from Intel.
When Intel's new CEO announced that the company should do better than a "lifestyle company in Cupertino", I thought they would be getting ready to develop new products capable of beating Apple.
And now, less than a month later, Intel releases these benchmarks. No matter how well Intel is pictured in these benchmarks, the performance of its processors is still the same, with zero improvements. Does Intel intend to beat Apple in real life or in PowerPoint presentations?
From this nonsense Intel seems to perfectly suited to making themselves look stupid with or without Apple.
Well, here where I live, we don't call these "things" laptops... to be honest, we call them "portables". Anyway, my point is: notebooks get very hot and is not recommended to use on your lap.
8th gen i7 (2+ years old). I bought it as a cheaper alternative to a MacBook Pro (with the sale I got, it was 1/2 the price of a comparable Mac). In hindsight, I might make the same choice but I miss having a Mac laptop and using macOS. Besides, a desktop fills my Windows and Linux needs (although the AMD Ryzen 5000 mobile processors keep me interested in non-Apple laptop alternatives).
Last edited:
I'm curious whether you've used an M1 Mac yet. My wife works for hours on Premiere for her YouTube channel, on battery, in bed... and the machine barely gets warm to the touch. They are genuinely game-changing. I have sold two of our Intel laptops since the M1 arrived and I'm looking forward to getting rid of the other Intel Macs as soon as suitable replacements are released.
Not my experience. I had a MBA 2020 intel - exchanged it to a MBA 2020 M1. The difference running Final Cut and Logic is night and day. For PRO apps, the M1 is the baby to get.
Wow Intel! Apple may cancel their chip manufacturing all together after this.
Yes, Apple compares against old Intel chips — in part out of disingenuousness, but also in part because it makes sense to compare to the immediate preceding Mac.
Once the M2 or M3 come out, they're gonna have to compare against contemporary machines.
I virtualize windows* on MacOS ... any ARM based OS as the host won't work ... even with MS releasing the interpolation binaries for Windows10 for ARM (surfaceX not M1), there's too many Win OS's that I virtualize for any ARM based host to be a solution
I need the intel 11th gen in a MBP 16" format please
I need the intel 11th gen in a MBP 16" format please
I'm curious if you actually read back through the thread? Because if you did you would've seen that I was replying to a post referring to Intel-based Macs, not M1.
Well, maybe this is Intels way of "real life" tests they accused AMD for not using when they beat the crap out of the I-10900
The problem is that Intel’s future is 10nm. TSMC’s present is 5nm. Unless Intel skips the 7nm node and come up quickly with a solid 5nm fab process, Intel will become a second tier processor manufacturer.
It's not disingenuous at all. They've been comparing new models to their predecessors for years. This has nothing to do with intel in particular, this is just to inform customer about the performance gains.
If Intel was really looking to compare and compete, then better comparison would be the entry Intel MBP (13" i5). against the M1 MBP. Then, when Intel lost that round, try the top 13" MBP configuration or even the top available MBP (i7 / i9 16" MBP). Would at least use the SAME software and SAME core OS.
Numbers, numbers, numbers . . . all I know is I'm still a bit salty that my son's new M1 MacBook Air performs as well as or better than my 16" MacBook Pro . . . and it doesn't wanna catch his lap on fire . . .
While I agree with most of the comments here about Intel getting beat for battery and performance, at the end of the day Macs only make up, at most, about 9% currently of the personal computer market. Historically, it's hovered around 5%. Now, I'm sure Intel would like to keep Apple as a customer, but losing Apple really isn't that big a deal when Apple is selling so few machines that require a CPU that Intel could provide. Also, remember that this isn't the first time Apple has stormed away from a chip provider for another provider.
Lastly, we don't have Apple's product roadmap for iOS and MacOS devices. It's quite possible that Apple was demanding too much from Intel (both pricing and re-architecting something such as cross platforming iOS and MacOS) and Intel said no.
For all you claiming that Intel is worried, what is Intel worried about? That a sea of Windows users are going to go buy Apple devices and learn a completely new environment to theoretically get a 20% performance gain on MS Office or web surfing or streaming? Oh, and while paying a lot more money for that Apple laptop or desktop. There may be some bragging rights and hurt pride down the road if Apple starts playing the CPU Metrics Game like all CPU vendors have been doing for 30+ years, but again, so what? Is Apple going to start selling the M1 to Dell and Toshiba? I doubt it. Are consumers going to complain to Wintel vendors that they demand the M1 and future Apple chips to be as an option on their devices (again, and likely paying a lot at checkout for that CPU)? Wintel already has Intel and AMD for consumers and pros...they're not going to add (or even get requests) a 3rd CPU at checkout.
What Mac users don't realize, however, is they are getting more locked-in than ever...Apple has complete design and control over the hardware, operating systems, app store, app approvals, developer pricing model, and now the CPU.
The walled garden just got a roof.
Lastly, we don't have Apple's product roadmap for iOS and MacOS devices. It's quite possible that Apple was demanding too much from Intel (both pricing and re-architecting something such as cross platforming iOS and MacOS) and Intel said no.
For all you claiming that Intel is worried, what is Intel worried about? That a sea of Windows users are going to go buy Apple devices and learn a completely new environment to theoretically get a 20% performance gain on MS Office or web surfing or streaming? Oh, and while paying a lot more money for that Apple laptop or desktop. There may be some bragging rights and hurt pride down the road if Apple starts playing the CPU Metrics Game like all CPU vendors have been doing for 30+ years, but again, so what? Is Apple going to start selling the M1 to Dell and Toshiba? I doubt it. Are consumers going to complain to Wintel vendors that they demand the M1 and future Apple chips to be as an option on their devices (again, and likely paying a lot at checkout for that CPU)? Wintel already has Intel and AMD for consumers and pros...they're not going to add (or even get requests) a 3rd CPU at checkout.
What Mac users don't realize, however, is they are getting more locked-in than ever...Apple has complete design and control over the hardware, operating systems, app store, app approvals, developer pricing model, and now the CPU.
The walled garden just got a roof.
Last edited: