Actually it was because Intel produced a buggy mess (No Man's Skylake?
) and AMD didn't have the means to supply the chips Apple needed.
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 Says New Core i9 Processor for Laptops is Faster Than Apple's M1 Max Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
) and AMD didn't have the means to supply the chips Apple needed.
If Intel had wanted to succeed they would have not lost so much market to AMD before Apple came along and made the M1 in response to the Skylake CPU which should have came with a free can of Raid.
The reality is the world is moving more and more to mobile and that means ARM which in the form of XScale Intel sold off in 2006 to Marvel. Heck, even AMD is hedging their bets with an ARM CPU (Opteron). Apple shows that if you write a good translator (opposed to using emulation) X86 code can run reasonably on a ARM CPU.
Intel might make its comeback considering how infrequently M-series chips are being updated(once every 2 years) compared to annual updates from intel. Not saying that Apple Silicon is bad since it early isn't but every company has it's down falls and rises and maybe* intel would've just started rising. Either way this is really good since compared to PC competitors apple doesn't prioritise performance that much, for example their cooling systems. This overly competitive new face from Intel would really push apple to produce far better chips and a few years we'll be gawking over how far the entire chip industry has moved.
I wonder who'll win...
I wonder who'll win...
But remember, Apple didn’t just suddenly release the M1 overnight. Performance per watt, they had left everyone behind long ago, and so had zero competition in the smartphone space. And, with no competition other than their own prior chips, they STILL continued to produce better performing processors.Actually it was because Intel produced a buggy mess (No Man's Skylake?
They didn’t start designing the chip that would beat Intel AFTER Skylake, they had an Intel beater for a LONG time before that. If anything, it’s because Apple went to Intel for a chip to go in the iPod and Intel said, “Not interested.” That decision led to where we are today.
I think the most interesting thing is they actually represented the M1 Max on their own graphs being higher than the current-generation chips at that 35W draw; that's being overtly honest (albeit in a marketing-centric chart).
Given the 12th Gen chip is a "next generation" part, we'll see where a "next generation" M2 Max (or equivalent) falls. It would be interesting to see how the M1-generation architecture would scale if they fed it "up to 115 watts" like the Intel chip. Granted, it would probably turn into a super volcano.
Competition is good for all of us. These new big.LITTLE-style chip designs match computer usage far better for most users, as long as the schedulers can intelligently route the workload.
Given the 12th Gen chip is a "next generation" part, we'll see where a "next generation" M2 Max (or equivalent) falls. It would be interesting to see how the M1-generation architecture would scale if they fed it "up to 115 watts" like the Intel chip. Granted, it would probably turn into a super volcano.
Competition is good for all of us. These new big.LITTLE-style chip designs match computer usage far better for most users, as long as the schedulers can intelligently route the workload.
If what Intel is saying is true, then only a matter of time before the next generation of Apple silicon overtakes it.
Besides, battery life of laptops with the new intel chips will probably be bad.
Besides, battery life of laptops with the new intel chips will probably be bad.
"We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want to view it. And the world would have been a lot different if we'd done it," Otellini told me in a two-hour conversation during his last month at Intel. "The thing you have to remember is that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought." - Paul Otellini's Intel: Can the Company That Built the Future Survive It?
The fact that everyone and his brother went to ARM for their smartphone it can't have just been Apple who had issues with Intel. BTW the iPhone came out June 29, 2007 with the iPad came out April 3, 2010.
One thing people forget is that from 2002 to 2006 Intel had its own ARM chip - the XScale. For all we know the chip Apple was interested wasn't an xX86 chip but the XScale. Think about it, Intel had to have an excellent grasp of what X86 development cost was so how could they mess up that badly? Unless it was with something Intel only had a limited experience with ie ARM.
Last edited:
a lot of intel haters and M1 fanboys here that haven't even tested the chip or device, but can list all the flaws that exist....plz. Competition is good.
Why would you have a RTX video card in a corporate laptop???? Waste of money and you do not anything more than Integrated graphics for Windows and Office type apps.
Unlikely. At best Apple will continue Rosetta 2 for five years minimum (based on Rosetta 1's life span) with perhaps another 3 years added in for refurbs. With the way the world is moving to ARM (cost and performance per Watt) by that time the X86 is likely going to be in the same boat as IBM mainframes - a niche that the majority of users don't bother with.
Yeah it was all Intel’s fault.
Apple could have done something about the thermals but it would not have been “thin”.
Well if I had the Intel chip in a Mac I could run bootcamp and windows 11, but that is now gone. Once my 2019 MacBook Pro dies, I will most likely switch to a i9 version of a Chromebook for mobile use at half the price of a MacBook. Where I can get access to Linux right from the Chrome OS system. Also the Microsoft xcloud gaming server has been running great on my work Chromebook.
Actually Apple planned their specs based on what Intel said would be available. Intel's delays for that period are well known. Heck, Intel had yet another delay in 2020. Note that Intel doesn't tell you anything about how much their new chip does against AMD who is their real competitor in the x86 space?
ARM dominates the mobile space and Apple showed that quality ARM desktops that run x86 at something reasonable are actually possible. As energy usage becomes more and more a concern ARM also stands above x86.
Last edited:
I say I can run 0-60mph faster than my Tesla, doesn't actually make it true.....
Intel today unveiled new 12th-generation Core processors suitable for laptops, and as part of the announcement, it claimed that the new Core i9 is not only faster than Apple's M1 Max chip in the 16-inch MacBook Pro, but is the fastest mobile processor ever.
The new Core i9 features a 14-core CPU with six performance cores and eight efficiency cores, while the 10-core M1 Max chip has eight performance cores and two efficiency cores. The high-end Intel chip has a max Turbo Boost frequency of 5.0GHz, but power draw can reach up to 115 watts, which is significantly more power than the M1 Max chip ever uses and not ideal for the thermal envelope of devices like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro.
Intel shared a very basic performance vs. power chart as part of its marketing, with fine print indicating that performance was measured based on compiling binaries with the SPEC CPU 2017 benchmark suite. Interestingly, the chart claims that the new Core i9 achieved faster performance-per-watt than the M1 Max chip, but overall the M1 Max can still operate at much lower wattages than Intel's top-of-the-line mobile offering.
"Specrate 2017 integer n-copy data is a good benchmark that we use to gauge client multi-threaded performance, and our data indicates that the Core i9-12900HK is faster performance-per-watt than the M1 Max processor in this test," an Intel spokesperson told MacRumors, when asked for comment about the results.
Of course, we'll have to wait to see how the 12th-generation Core processors perform in real-world testing for a true comparison with the M1 Max chip.
Intel's new chips are certainly fast, but Apple likely has no regrets with switching to its own custom silicon given the power efficiency of its chips, which deliver impressive performance without running hot in thin and light systems like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. And we're likely just months away from Apple unveiling its next-generation M2 chip that should take another leap forward in performance-per-watt.
Intel's 12th-generation mobile Core processor lineup includes 28 chips, including mid-range and low-end Core i7 and Core i5 options. The chips have entered final production and devices powered by them are expected to launch this year.
Article Link: Intel Says New Core i9 Processor for Laptops is Faster Than Apple's M1 Max Chip
Forgive me for not reading back through every page, but Intel's power consumption figures relating to a CPU on its own, or for a system running this CPU? As an M1 is an SoC, the chip's stated wattage also includes the GPU as part of the package. Adding a GPU's power draw to the Intel CPU's, surely that figure will increase?
In this case, it is about a processor that is going into a laptop where performance per watt matters. Battery life matters. Having no fan noise matters. Being able to run solely on battery and being able to have max performance matters. Intel, so far, has been unable to produce a processor that can allow for all that. I highly doubt that is going to change with the 12th generation processor.
So the comparison is an existing product from 2021 someone can actually buy compared to a hypothetical product someone hypothetically could buy in 2022.
Got it.
Get back to me when there are actual retail products to use for comparisons. ??♂️
Both figures refer to the SoC, so that should include the GPU. Since they say SoC, not SiP, it should exclude the RAM.