This sums it up perfectly. A company as big as Intel that needs to be cherry picking their own benchmark is really both sad and hilarious.
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
This sums it up perfectly. A company as big as Intel that needs to be cherry picking their own benchmark is really both sad and hilarious.
Those were hard facts that Apple posted. Not carefully crafted tests. Furthermore Apple didn't have an axe to grind with Intel. Intel is salty that they have lost Apple's business and after years of experience making laptop processors Apple is making Intel look dumb.
what exactly is the point though? apple will obviously be using their own chips moving forward, but aren't planning on selling them to there companies(unless i missed something). so is intel trying to convince apple to come back to them, or are they just bitter?..
It's pretty pathetic that some members here are digging up old Apple comparisons to Intel from over 20 years ago. SMH. Try harder and more recent. 🙄.
Yeah... pretty much everything you do in Adobe apps between the time you launch the app until the time you quit it.
I just fail to see what the point of the comparisons are to begin with. It doesn't really matter if the Windows/Intel PC is 100X faster... it doesn't run macOS, and that's the part that matters to most people who buy Macs.
Ah.. umm.. Ah.. *holds head* This is really embarrassing Intel. Give it up. Start making ARM based CPU's and then you can come to the adult table.
That you must be familiar with hot air.
HAH!
All of the chip companies 'cook' their data to deliberately make their chips look better.
I remember someone commenting that 'more cores mean more horsepower', implying that the chip with the most 'cores' was going to always win the 'great processor race'.
Ahh, but there was a peculiar issue with core counts and chip performance. In some tests the number of cores literally destroyed the competition, but in other tests, the core count had a direct, and negative effect on processing 'on certain tasks'.
But I used to follow dirt bikes races, and the 'fastest' bike often didn't win. Why? Torque played a HUGE role in what 'bike' won. You can't win a dirt bike race on speed alone. Hills take a lot of torque. If you can't handle the brute force climbs, and often slightly raised, but massively long segments, the straightaways are NOT going to save you.
So, Intel cooks their numbers, AMD cooks their numbers, Apple cooks their numbers. Who has the 'engine' that has a future. Go with that one. For now. Who knows who will win the future? Who knows if there is a future.
CISC was the way of the world. RISC was supposed to rule the world. The world is a complicated system of incredible complexity.
All of the chip companies 'cook' their data to deliberately make their chips look better.
I remember someone commenting that 'more cores mean more horsepower', implying that the chip with the most 'cores' was going to always win the 'great processor race'.
Ahh, but there was a peculiar issue with core counts and chip performance. In some tests the number of cores literally destroyed the competition, but in other tests, the core count had a direct, and negative effect on processing 'on certain tasks'.
But I used to follow dirt bikes races, and the 'fastest' bike often didn't win. Why? Torque played a HUGE role in what 'bike' won. You can't win a dirt bike race on speed alone. Hills take a lot of torque. If you can't handle the brute force climbs, and often slightly raised, but massively long segments, the straightaways are NOT going to save you.
So, Intel cooks their numbers, AMD cooks their numbers, Apple cooks their numbers. Who has the 'engine' that has a future. Go with that one. For now. Who knows who will win the future? Who knows if there is a future.
CISC was the way of the world. RISC was supposed to rule the world. The world is a complicated system of incredible complexity.
My company was an IPD, (Intel Processor dealer).
Intel can quote mind blowing specs all day about how their silicon decimates the competition, but there are details in their data that can show where they prioritized certain functions.
They lived to stoke the x86 team. x86 has no future.
Imagine the automobile industry tied to the Ford Model T. Why 'rock the boat' and decimate their whole reason for existing? It's lazy, and someone at Intel knows that, but they continue to cling to the bloated and dead x86 constraints.
History is what it was. Windows will have to 'kill it's father' eventually. Apple pissed of users by killing earlier versions of their OS. Microsoft is chained to their popularity. It's a curse. *shrug*
It's embarrassing enough Intel but "me think's he doth protest too loudly".
Shut up and go back to being innovative in processor design, not innovative in marketing BS.
Shut up and go back to being innovative in processor design, not innovative in marketing BS.
I’m not one to give Apple an easy time on many of their decisions, but it’s clear Apple Silicone is a massive success so far.
Intel is sweating.
Intel is sweating.
Panic is often pointless.
Apple proven the ability of ARM SoC designs to outperform x86-64 in Laptop/Desktop. Which is really bad for Intel. Their low-power laptop chips aren't going to survive OEMs moving to ARMs.
They're trying to brush off the M1s, but its really AMD and Nvidia that scares them. Both are now positioned to do what Apple has done with the M1.
Apple: U MAD BRO?
Intel: s!**^%$#-+$%#@*$!!! M1--low-end chip--#&!()**5$#&%##+%$!!!😡😡😡
Intel: s!**^%$#-+$%#@*$!!! M1--low-end chip--#&!()**5$#&%##+%$!!!😡😡😡
The M1 is really an 8th-Gen chip, with the first being the Register-Rich Dual 64-bit A7 in the 5s.
The M2 will probably offer a 15-20% Perf Boost, similar to what AAPL offers now with each new A-series chip.
The M1 & A14 are very-likely both Offspring of the A13.
BTW, picked-up an M1 MacBook Air earlier today, which enables me to evaluate its Performance via a custom Real World Test that I've had in-mind for some time.
Will post a chart of Intel vs M1 Mac when done.
The M2 will probably offer a 15-20% Perf Boost, similar to what AAPL offers now with each new A-series chip.
The M1 & A14 are very-likely both Offspring of the A13.
BTW, picked-up an M1 MacBook Air earlier today, which enables me to evaluate its Performance via a custom Real World Test that I've had in-mind for some time.
Will post a chart of Intel vs M1 Mac when done.
I pay a lot more attention to what everyone else is saying about the M1, including Intel internally, than this. And like it says, this is an entry-level ARM against a top end x86. Wait til the M1X drops.
Last edited:
With the performance shown by Intel in those charts of course the processor alone costs more than the entry level M1 MacBook Pro.
You get what you pay for, so you must be getting more with Intel. Am I right?
They are trying to convince their OTHER OEM customers not to jump to ARM, too.
Apparently, Intel is also sending out free M1 Macs to Windows journalists to get their opinion on M1 Macs. Paul Thurrot was on TWIT talking about it recently.
When I was at AMD we never cooked our numbers. We reported it like it was, and competed on dollars per MIPS, or, in the case of Opteron/athlon 64, on massively better 64-bit performance.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you people understand how important extracting powerpoint presentations to PDF is
Competition is healthy. For most of my life, Intel had a monopoly. I'm glad those days are over.
For most of my life, Intel had a monopoly. I'm glad those days are over.
Trying to calm their Board and stock holders, maybe?