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 Launches 'World's Fastest Mobile Processor' With 24 Cores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, but in reality, it doesn’t and it won’t (as it’s a mobile processor and Apple has FAR better solutions than this).
Luckily for Apple, there’s still billions of folks that don’t need to run multiple OS’s that they can target with their systems.
Honestly, my M1 Pro is fast as hell still. The fact my laptop doesn’t burn my legs is amazing.
For majority of users, I think battery life and thermals are more important as processor speed is already fast for most use cases.
For majority of users, I think battery life and thermals are more important as processor speed is already fast for most use cases.
Well, that was an easy prediction because, by some metrics, Intel and AMD have been shipping products that bests Apple in raw performance for the entire time. Here’s another one, Intel/AMD will ALWAYS be shipping some product that bests Apple in raw performance at any given time. If anyone wants peak raw performance, they’re not going to find it in any Apple system now or in the future.
Considering power draw I'd rather have Apple Silicon. But truth be told, nothing beats the Intel CPUs in single threaded performance.
Wow, Raptor Lake mobile - what looks to be a massive generational jump. I'd like to see thermals, perf/watt and battery usage on these 'mobile' machines.
No matter what - good for consumers. Now let's see Apple M2Pro/Max for comparison.
No matter what - good for consumers. Now let's see Apple M2Pro/Max for comparison.
I'm hoping Framework will offer 13th gen in their modular laptops.
They offered an upgrade from 11th gen to 12th gen... so I'm guessing they will continue with 13th gen.
They offered an upgrade from 11th gen to 12th gen... so I'm guessing they will continue with 13th gen.
What's the point if it'll run hot (and for 12 minutes on battery). Great for well-cooled gaming rigs and servers, but Intel needs to get their act together in the portable/mobile space. I love these YouTubers who run high end Intel benchmarks against Apple Silicon, but forget to run those same tests when both the PC and Mac laptops are unplugged, and gloss over the heat and noise coming from just the Intel machines. The truth is always in the context.
People said there's no difference between Mac or PC except the price for years, love that these new M chips have made such a stark difference between them now. Mac and PCs idea of a mobile experience is very different.
Battery life will not be long. Also future Apple silicon chips should be faster.
What metrics? I believe the M1 series was ahead of anything Intel or AMD were shipping at the time.
Give Apple’s sluggish update schedule, Intel has leapfrogged them already. Haven’t paid attention to AMD.
The first one at 867mhz was a scorcher. Had to sell it after a month because I couldn't handle it. The 1.33ghz and 1.5ghz were quite cool.
Those are some ridiculously powerful specs. Will be interesting to see it's power draw and fan loudness under load though.
As a laptop MacBook Pros still rock, not so much the new Air though with a paper thin piece of aluminium as a heatsink... not sure what Apple were thinking with that one?
As a laptop MacBook Pros still rock, not so much the new Air though with a paper thin piece of aluminium as a heatsink... not sure what Apple were thinking with that one?
You are both missing the point.
Intel's efficiency cores are not mainly for power efficiency but for area efficiency. Four of Intel's efficiency cores take up roughly the die space of one of their performance cores, but two efficiency cores are about as fast as a performance core.
So the 8 performance plus 16 efficiency cores of an Intel chip take up the space of 12 performance cores while delivering the performance of 16 performance cores.
Lightly threaded loads can run just on the performance cores getting very good speed, while massively parallel applications can make good use of the additional performance of a large flock of (area) efficiency cores.
There are bad things to be said about Intel processors (power consumption, cough cough), but their mix of performance and efficiency cores makes total sense.
I think the MacBook Air is great. The pricing on the M2 model is what sinks it for me.
The M1 Air was an incredible value when it was released. M2 with the giant price hike? Not so much.
Okay, sure it might be faster than the Apple MacBook Pro Max but.... let me ask you a question. We have two people head-to-head, sitting on an airplane editing 4K footage on a cross-country flight. Who will be able to edit longer unplunged? You better believe the person using a MacBook Pro Max. And if they can edit longer unplugged, wouldn't they get more work done? Wouldn't this be more important?
Nah tests have shown Apples cooling solution in it is pretty poor, it thermal throttles apparently when pushed hard. The same chip in the MacBook Pro with a fan performs better.
And Apple always gives price bumps when they change a devices design. M1 Air was a better design though and better value.
To be fair ever since apple left intel, m1 was much more efficient and performant than the mobile chips intel had at the time. But while apple still wins in efficiency, x86 now delivers superior performance. Albeit at worse efficiency but some will trade efficiency for more performance.
Also, on the x86 front, consider AMD’s zen4 mobile phoenix point and dragon range will be efficient parts (TSMC 5 nm designs). The question is, can apple keep up with x86? Don’t forget, Intel Meteor lake and arrow lake and amd strix point are coming and the upcoming generations look to blow raptor lake and dragon range out of the water. Can apple compete in terms of performance?
Even Apple’s own charts showed, via their curve, that there has always existed some high end part that was more performant at the very top end. Apple focuses on performance per watt which is where they lead and will continue to lead, but anyone looking for raw performance will have to look elsewhere, and that’s not likely to change.
There was no leapfrogging.
From the horse’s mouth:
In their Mac Studio introduction, Apple’s Mac Studio performance line ending below the chip they were comparing against. It was Apple saying, “You can find better raw performance, but not as efficient as ours”. In most of the presentations they’ve given related to Apple Silicon, they carefully choose what to show and it’s always focused on “more efficient” never “the most powerful ever”.
Last edited: