It’s not really faster than Apple’s offering. Not sure what the max power draw for the M1 Max is, but restrict Intel’s new i9 to the same wattage as the M1 Max and then we can see who comes out ahead.
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
I understand your sentiment, but I would much rather Apple completely ignore Intel's design philosophy of screaming "more powah!" like Jeremy Clarkson and instead continue to focus on Apple Silicon offering excellent, even if not leading, performance on tasks and applications focused for macOS on chips that use significantly less power allowing our desktop Macs to run without needing five-digit RPM fans or liquid cooling and for our portable Macs to run for double-digit hours on a charge.
And unless Apple plans on selling M1 chips to other hardware makers, Intel doesn't need to do much other than keep up to preserve their market. Intel is selling to Windows and Linux markets where nobody is thinking about Apple. Apple sales are a tiny piece of Intel's business.
So the M1 Max is dog food. At least the shock & awe was fun while it lasted.
Did the dozens of commenters attempting to call out Intel for higher power usage:
A) Fail to look at the provided graph at all.
B) Fail to understand the provided graph.
C) Think Intel are lying about their data.
I’d wager it’s probably a mix of all three. I don’t know why I waste my time looking at MacRumors comments.
Before the haters jump on me, yes this is a cherry picked benchmark but it’s not a ridiculous workload.
Regardless of how you look at it this is an impressive feat that puts Intel 12th gen mobile chips within spitting distance of M1 Max in power and efficiency.
A) Fail to look at the provided graph at all.
B) Fail to understand the provided graph.
C) Think Intel are lying about their data.
I’d wager it’s probably a mix of all three. I don’t know why I waste my time looking at MacRumors comments.
Before the haters jump on me, yes this is a cherry picked benchmark but it’s not a ridiculous workload.
Regardless of how you look at it this is an impressive feat that puts Intel 12th gen mobile chips within spitting distance of M1 Max in power and efficiency.
not really. processor power is hardly the issue there. PC gamers will be lucky if their entire industry isn't left out in the cold following the chip shortage.
It's in the article, up to 115W! I can only imagine how loud and hot those laptops will end up being...
It's not about being faster Intel!! It's about that idiotic heat your CPUs dissipate!! 115 WATTS?! Are you kidding me?!
They were comparing it to the M1 Max, not the M1.
Not really. In terms of CPU cycles per watt, Apple has lapped Intel, Nvidia, AMD and Qualcomm many times over.
If Intel really wanted to introduce competition and be honest with their claims, they would deliver a kick ass desktop processor that will give Apple’s M2 and future desktop processors a run for their money. Intel needs to stay away from mobility because we all know they suck at it.
The only shock will be seeing your Power Bill after you buy one of these Intel CPUs. On the plus side, soon enough you will experience the awe of watching your machine melt into a puddle from all the heat it puts out so that will save you on said power bill going forward from that point.
Last edited:
Two takeaways from this: Intel have fully given up the pretence these are 45W TDP chips, and they claim the new i9 produces more power at 35W than the M1 Max at the same power draw. If the latter is true that's impressive, but it does beg the question why the former also needs to be the case...
Dear Intel, M1 Max was last years model from Apple.
This years models from Mac has not come yet.
Dear Intel, what is your point ?
This years models from Mac has not come yet.
Dear Intel, what is your point ?
If you watch
particularly with high load stress 16" MBP M1 Max briefly hit AC 110 watts (fluctuating) at 05:20 time point, obviously its very efficient with other usage loads.
That would be funWhile 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
PC games have been gpu-limited for some time now. and GPU's aren't exactly easy to come by. Actual desktop graphics cards are about 4th or 5th on the manufacturing pecking order after video games systems and other embedded graphics units. the trickle down effect of years of lack of gpu options into game development cannot be ignored. Why make a game for PC not many people can really play when you can just make it on a console and have a captive audience?
Apple is being particularly innovative here by also catering to GPU needs, albeit only in the laptop form-factor (so far). As powerful as intel chips might be (and this one looks like it gets up there) it still has to be paired with a relatively comparable gpu option, which Intel does not have internally. As power hungry as this intel chip looks on its own just imagine the total system power with a traditional high-end mobile gpu.
Last edited:
M1 Max isn't that much better off at 1hr 36m at higher loads.
Interested in seeing how AMD mobile 6000 APU fares.
Lol, wut? I am not updated on this space... but sounds like emperor's new clothes fable
I get that not being able to use Boot camp or run Windows in a local VM is a limitation that you previously didn't have, and that's annoying.
But even for a niche user who buys a Mac laptop to run permanently in Boot camp, a few of these don't make much sense. Why would you be running IIS or SQL server on your laptop? And why would you run Access if you can run SQL Server? As for FoxPro...you're joking, right? Anyone who has need for ADSI or GPEdit or Orca can surely run them in an RDP session?
[FWIW, I work in a Windows corporate environment and use a Mac at home, but even when I'm in the office I do a lot of my work on RDP sessions on VMs, so using my Mac at home is no different]
The edge cases that don't have practical workarounds other than buying a non-Mac laptop must be a tiny, tiny proportion of power users.
CPU+GPU+display+RAM. Not fair, not accurate.If you watch
particularly with high load stress16" MBP M1 Max briefly hit 110 watts (fluctuating), obviously its very efficient with other usage loads.
I think the performance value is something that is overlooked. Maybe because Apple doesn't sell processors we can only infer what the "costs" are of their processors. The cost to produce is certainly lower, however Apple now has the added R&D costs etc. So yeah even if Intel can match Apple in performance or even performance per watt, I'd bet that the processors that would/could do that are much more expensive than what Apple can not produce in house.