M2 will be overtaken by 13900HK .... see how this works.....
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
Exactly ..... as I said previously, not everyone has a portable machine just to run on battery. Many use a portable machine to use between several locations on mains.
Because they rather use the space for a bigger battery I assume. More people will care about 4 extra hours of battery life compared to a few millimeters thickness.
Intel has a history of cherry picking and outright lying when it comes to benchmark results. People are right to take this with a mountain off salt. Intel might be telling the truth but the M2 will likely take the crown back anyway.
I say all this having been through this myself. Intel runs your software and theirs with some unspecified benchmark and shows their software is 2-3x faster. In real world tests that was never three case. Intel marketing is a bunch of lying liars.
And more people would have preferred a cooler less-noisy laptop, but that didn't make Apple produce thicker laptops with better thermals.
M1 has already overtaken it.
Intel just refuse to admit this because they are still stuck with the mhz wars mindset. Faster and faster, more and more is all Intel care about. The concept of optimisation where you get more actual work done wth less mhz and less power used is not in Intel's DNA.
Intel is not wrong that 12900HK is faster and more power hungry. However faster and more power hungry does not always make for the better product.
You are correct but I think there is a point here.
That point being, even the office workers want yesterday's latest and greatest in their machines. Even office work needs a GPU. Yesterday's tech, but optimised for a lower power, lower mhz but still really efficient form factor. Also most importantly cheaper than bleeding edge technology.
Secondly, Apple is proving that integrated graphics are the future.
"you do not anything more than Integrated graphics for Windows and Office type apps."
Statements like this will soon be a thing of the past. Even how M1 is doing this. How M1 integrates everything helps everyone's workflows, even office workers.
No there is a point when Intel's CPU heat will burn down a home and they need to stop.
Because the “power” on the access is vague - it is contrary to actual measurements in ArsTechnica, and Intel has a history of comparing average power in one system to peak in another, etc.
I thought that I had heard that the baseline is 150, but can max to 350.
And the base model M1 Air is very performant.
I use it for dev as a temp solution and actually found although it only has 8gb of ram, everything works well and fast. So i'll save my money for a year or so and see what else comes out.
If the M2 Air is a little bump & 16gb, but still around the £999 mark, then I could buy every new base model Air when it comes out and it would probably be equivalent to my usual MBP spend every few years.
And the sad truth is, I'd probably be just as happy and can always sell the old ones.
With Intel’s absolutely abysmal management, continuing process issues and the stark truth that x86 is at its architectural limits, Apple does not have anything to worry about at this point. Neither does AMD. Intel trying to sell 45w TDP CPUs with power AND “efficiency” cores that aren’t really very efficient or useful with a straight face would make WC Fields proud. What a bunch of shysters.While I think it's unlikely, it would crack me up to no end if Intel ends up re-taking the power/performance lead over Apple at some point in the next few years. Just to enjoy seeing all the Apple fanboys scratching their heads
Intel deserves all they get.
I don't use a Mac for the processor. My personal Mac is the last i5 model of the 13" MBP and my work Mac is the last version of the i9 16" MBP. Both of which sound like jets when I am throwing a workload at it and I get to watch the battery just get sucked dry. I got my mom a M1 MacBook Air for Christmas and the batter on that thing lasts forever and it is faster than both of my intel Macs.
I use a Mac for the user experience. MacOS is lightyears ahead of Windows and I am not talking about the Core OS though we all know Unix is better but I am talking about what the user sees and uses. The ecosystem is for more superior out of the box than anything you could spend tons of time and money building in Windows or even Linux. My stuff just works together with almost no manual intervention.
I use a Mac for the user experience. MacOS is lightyears ahead of Windows and I am not talking about the Core OS though we all know Unix is better but I am talking about what the user sees and uses. The ecosystem is for more superior out of the box than anything you could spend tons of time and money building in Windows or even Linux. My stuff just works together with almost no manual intervention.
They did not work perfectly on pc computers
The G4 processor was not designed by Apple. It was designed by Motorola, and they couldn't produce what they had promised to Apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_G4
I for one would welcome the return of the CPU being thinly thing to worry about when getting a computer, I just don't see it happening, especially from Apple. Yes I was mainly an Apple user back in the day, but I did add the original VooDoo card with the pass through to my wife's 486DX2/66. Between actual 3D video cards and the lean times of AAA gaming on the Mac, I stopped regularly upgrading my Apple systems. I keep one to enjoy when not gaming, but as Apple systems get more an more expensive, it's harder and harder to justify staying in the system.
While I love the new M1, Apple is building for an audience that is not me. Everyone on here is focused on power per watt. I care about desktop power first since mine will always be plugged in. Apple wants anything with better than a basic GPU to be for "power users" willing to spend $3-4K for a workstation class machine - that's just not reasonable for a gaming system.
I have AAA titles I play on my mini with an eGPU but those days are drawing to a close.
Apple’s desktops with the duo max and Quadra max will have very competitive GPUs.
Yeah, if only Intel could compete. BUT, they can’t make macOS systems, sooooo, competition is irrelevant?
You're missing 5W for CPU since Apple claims 30W plus about 70W for 32-core iGPU that gets destroyed by almost 3x by 70W Nvidia mobile 3060 in Blender.