Like Apples Air Power ?
Everyone is out to dog Intel on this news. What you don't understand is this is a good thing. We the buyer get faster chips and a lower cost. A win in my book.
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
Everyone is out to dog Intel on this news. What you don't understand is this is a good thing. We the buyer get faster chips and a lower cost. A win in my book.
Yes but at what price? The thing about Apple is, you can't have a decently priced midrange desktop but with good graphics. If you want good graphics, you have to go for the Super Pro Max X model which means you will also have to pay for the better CPU/more RAM and you will pay $3,000+.
Not really. No one really cares how much energy their machines consume as long as the cooling is effective.
Fact is, Intel's new 12th Gen mobile chips are pretty amazing, especially as they have now adopted the performance & efficiency core set-up.
All the 12th Gen laptops I've seen unveiled at CES packing the new P (28w) & H (45w) series chips offer amazing performance & easily undercut the MacBook Pro pricing. Nothing desperate about that.
That's true for desktops with a permanent power supply but definitely not for mobile devices including notebooks.
I don't think that makes higher IPC a tradeoff. It means that ways to achieve higher IPC come with tradeoffs. Which I suppose one could argue is very pedantic, but I don't agree. "Better speed" is not a tradeoff, it's a goal. How you get there often comes with tradeoffs.
Well, people are still sour by how Intel has tried to put lipstick on a pig in the Skylake era.
Last edited:
"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."
Yeah, but Anandtech got very different results for SPECint2017. Assuming 35W for each (which is also strange; Anandtech sees the M1 package drawing up to 92W in short bursts, and even if Intel was counting power draw without the RAM, that doesn't account for the stark difference):
For example, the 5980HS scores 37.27, and the M1 Max 53.38. That's 69.8%. Intel shows the 5900HX (which is quite similar) as within about 90% of the M1 Max.
Likewise, the 11980HK scores 38.82. That's 72.7%. Intel shows it within about 85%.
The data is in the chart. They have a tick more performance at far higher power consumption. Apple has choices if they want to beat Intel: M2, M1 MAX Duo in a laptop, increase clockspeed by 5%. I actually don't think that they need to do anything in the near term.
I have the M1 PRO MacBook Pro 16. The battery life is simply insane for this size laptop and its capability. I was using two laptops in the past (2014 and 2015 MacBook Pro 15) so that I'd have enough battery life. I'd put one on the charger and use the other and then switch. No need with M1 PRO chip.
My daughter has the M1 MacBook Air. She texted me yesterday from an Acela train and said that everyone has MacBook Air on the train. No surprise as it's the perfect travel companion for 4-8 hour train rides.
What's a good AMD or nVidia GPU cost right now?
I just bought a 2014 iMac 27 i7 and it's a very nice system for office stuff. The nice thing about Apple Silicon is that it's driving down the prices of used systems. If you want to run macOS, and I do, then you don't have many options on hardware unless you want to go the Hackintosh route. But I've been there and it's a bit of a nuisance to do.
Desktop != “Pro”
Desktops are just… desktops. Like every PC everyone has owned forever. And iMac and Mac Mini computers are definitely in that category.
I think that the 18-core iMac Pro is in the Pro category. I almost bought one this week and regret not pulling the trigger. It would be a fun machine.
I get this on portable/battery-operated devices, but why do you care about it on desktops? On a desktop you should be taking advantage of the fact your have a consistent power source and space for fans or liquid cooling to get the highest power you can. I for one am not willing to leave performance on the table simply to avoid putting a $50 liquid cooling solution on the CPU.
Oh no, it uses the same power as a single incandescent light bulb, whatever will I do!?
There are people that live in warm climates without air conditioning. And certainly countries where electricity is expensive. Or you may just like a quiet environment where you work. Or you may just want efficient systems. Or you may want a mobile system that can double as a desktop replacement.
?
1% of people, lmao. What are you, 12? I’m definitely not 1% of the population and I’m using my machines solely for work anymore.
Extrapolating this statement, if gaming was the primary use of a computer for 99% of the population them Macs wouldn’t exist, nor Linux.
A lot of computers are used for mining these days which is why GPUs cost a fortune. There are videos coming out regularly complaining about the GPU situation. Apple doing their own is a good solution to the problem but not for gamers.
Rising power costs and not wanting to have a sauna/office combo come to mind.
I might agree if power levels didn’t rise so much with current gens but holy hell, how is it acceptable to have a 200 watt cpu with a 400 watt gpu now?
Maybe I don’t believe I should need to tinker to not burn my legs with a laptop.
Are you paid for your gymnastics? Because I want in on it.
It‘s comparable when you’re comparing the end result of all of the hardware and the OS combined to perform a given task. Why wouldn’t it be? That is the point after all, right? To run apps that do things?
The test they’re running puts zero load on the GPU, though. So that would seem negligible. My bet is they simply wanted Apple’s best on the chart.
Intel has a history of cherry-picking models for comparison. I recall when they did that with the MacBook Pro, and then switched the comparison on battery life to the MacBook Air as it had less battery life.