The constant fanboyism in these comments is excruciating. You all surprisingly didn't die off with Steve. End of the day you're continuing to compare apples to oranges. Macs weren't worth the plastic they were made from before moving to Intel. Intel brought compatibility and a larger application set. More use cases and business adoption. Now going back to M1 chips you're looking at that window closing again. Mac still isn't the market leader in notebooks for business. Enterprise software devs aren't going to make applications compatible with both platforms. Eventually, you're gonna be back where you were.
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
“Specrate 2017 integer n-copy data is a good benchmark”
One specific benchmark in a suite? Sure sounds like cherry picking. 🍿
One specific benchmark in a suite? Sure sounds like cherry picking. 🍿
did you see the photos of the new XPS 13" i was impressed!
there is no trackpad!
…fastest mobile processor ever.*
*Must be plugged in. On battery power, performance degrades up to 50%. Intel cannot not be held responsible for claiming fastest mobile processor ever if user has access to only built-in battery power.
*Must be plugged in. On battery power, performance degrades up to 50%. Intel cannot not be held responsible for claiming fastest mobile processor ever if user has access to only built-in battery power.
There’s no pressure on Apple because those Intel processors won’t be running macOS or any critical macOS software. Apple’s competition is now Apple’s current systems. As long as their next series processors perform better than the current ones, then anyone who buys them will have the “fastest Mac ever”.
They’ve sidestepped the whole Intel/AMD back and forth.
Nice graph intel... a laptop CPU must have a an excellent performance at 35-45W max. No one cares about performance at 65W+ at which the CPU will likely start thermal throttling anyway. So, unless unless your workplace is inside an igloo... not the right tool for the job. 115W peak draw is the next joke. Good luck not just cooling the CPU, but also supplying it with the necessary amps. That needs additional VRMs which in turn also want to be kept cool and which probably don't really increase efficiency at low load.
tl;dr: performance in laptops is relevant at 45W max for 99% of users. Everything beyond that is probably a workstation class device. An i9 is not a CPU for the broad mass. An M1 Pro/Max is.
intel better starts comparing i5 and i7...
tl;dr: performance in laptops is relevant at 45W max for 99% of users. Everything beyond that is probably a workstation class device. An i9 is not a CPU for the broad mass. An M1 Pro/Max is.
intel better starts comparing i5 and i7...
Recently all the dell that I have with either 10 gen or 11 gen laptop processors, they are all white noise machines. Fan never stops
nobody is making games of value for apple now. I doubt that will change in the next couple of years. apple should follow microsofts lead and purchase a gaming house. however, luckily for apple and unluckier for users who like to game, the average user is happy to pay $2.5k to browse the web and play phone games on their "pro" machine.
as far as power consumption goes, I don't play games on battery so battery life is irrelevant for me. if I am on battery, I am just using the macOS side of my notebook.
This little pissing match is going to be a huge benefit to the consumer. I think it's safe to say that Apple got Intel's attention. However, Intel clearly just said screw it on the power draw just to get the performance numbers. Most people don't pay attention to the power stuff, which is unfortunate, especially in the mobile market. Dial is down to 45 watts and I would guess it will underperform the M1 significantly.
My sentiments exactly, this is a VERY good thing 🤩
'Love the smell of performance in the morning...' 🙀
As I sit typing this in my new MBP M1Pro which never seems to break a sweat with anything I throw at it with a battery life that goes on and on and on... 🥳
Yes, but historically, they usually ship their big iron first. For example, the entire run of Skylake was essentially Intel missing their shipping targets high performance mobile processors (the ones Apple’s most interested in) over and over again. I think this may mark a bit of a change especially as, at the high end, AMD’s about tied with them for marketshare.
Apple's best play would be to figure out how to marry both Intel silicon and Apple silicon onto the same motherboard, best of both worlds. When a MacBook Pro is plugged in, it would take full advantage of both SoCs. On battery power, it could fall back to only the Apple SoC.
With support for building Universal apps, a single app package already runs on both processors, so such a hardware architecture is not that far out of reach. Figuring out how they would cooperate is the biggest challenge.
With support for building Universal apps, a single app package already runs on both processors, so such a hardware architecture is not that far out of reach. Figuring out how they would cooperate is the biggest challenge.
According to the graph it does out perform.
But one thing I read about the E-core processors is that they have a much more simplified instruction set available to them and because of fewer transistors it is able to perform the tasks that it is able to more power efficiently. But given an instruction set that is incomparable, then E-cores will not be available for use and will be stuck with only 6x P-cores when they are available.
So the cherry-picking of the benchmark makes a big difference in the "story" that Intel is able to tell. And real world usage will be better determination on performance.
And it comes with a free 60 amp cable to plug it directly into your power panel
That chart’s about six months old. Possible that intel’s newest chips have improved. Also, Apple doesn’t quote in that chart what tests they used. Likewise intel is only quoting one tests. Both charts are basically useless marketing fluff 😁
Naaahhh, this IS still Intel we’re talking about
They’ve got a long way to go to show they can hit their shipping targets. Marrying Intel silicon with Apple silicon just puts Apple back in the position where they’re waiting for Intel to pull their socks up and hit the target they announced months prior.Remember, Alder Lake’s target was SUPPOSED to be low power, but they’re now talking about almost twice the TDP they had captured on prior roadmaps. This shows that, while they look good on a chart they specifically produced to look good, they’re still Intel and it’s better altogether for Apple to be completely separate from them.
Notice how they admit that M1 Max completely crushes their (currently shipping) last-gen i9. Incredible work by Apple.
Well the whole electrical design (schematic, layout, signal integrity simulations, etc.) of Apple’s Macs are done on Windows and Linux PCs so if you are an engineer at Apple you probably need a PC.
That’s the test environment not the test. We’re the doing a multithreaded Fibonacci or prime search or what? What was the calculation the price was doing? Intel was just doing integer copies which happens to be a test their cpus should be good at.