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 Lunar Lake Chips Have 'Fastest Built-In GPU in the Industry'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not a PC gamer, I don't know any PC gamers, and even I know this would be the case. Surely gamers would know enough to deduce that x86 games don't work on ARM.
This is a silly story.
This is a silly story.
They definitely can, on MacOS that compatibility layer is Rosetta2, Windows on ARM has a (slightly less efficient) equivalent
Intel is in such bad shape they needed both. They didn't get a dump truck full of cash. They got a commitment for strategic investments to try to mitigate the fact that Taiwan is in a crucial and precarious position.
No, it's no comfort to those laid off. But maybe it will keep Intel alive as a viable competitor in the future.
And on topic, I'm not sure anyone cares about who has the fastest integrated GPU. This is why Intel is in such bad shape. They've been skating to where the puck was several years ago for a decade now.
Yes I know there is a compatibility layer, but even Apple's has limits. The Windows version is pretty problematic.
And I can tell you having used WoARM in the real world that it's not just efficiency that's the problem. There are all kinds of weird issues. Most commercial software does not officially support it.
It works a lot better on the Mac than on Windows.
I will never buy another Intel product again. I have gotten burned too many times by false claims, chips that are too hot being put into both PCs and Macs with inadequate cooling, and disgusted by their business practices.
Running a Dell Latitude 7390 with 8th generation Intel that runs fine, but in a few years will be upgrading to either AMD or Qualcomm depending on what's available and if Qualcomm compatibility gets better.
Running a Dell Latitude 7390 with 8th generation Intel that runs fine, but in a few years will be upgrading to either AMD or Qualcomm depending on what's available and if Qualcomm compatibility gets better.
They are deadman walking, x86 is being phased out as windows becomes more compatible with arm while qualcomm etc races to iterate new arm cpus from their first gen release which is already impressive. Only saving grace is if intel can get that mythical foundry upgrade done, highly doubtful given how messed up the company is.
They refused to create ARM cpus
They continue to do half ass attempt at making dedicated low end GPU cards noone wants with driver improvements at a glacier pace, instead of going after middle/top end gaming performance and aggressive driver improvements, which is where profits are
They completely missed the boat on AI / server side hardware, given the wide moat to entry and very limited number of existing player with intel's vast history/experience, it's criminal they did not capture any of the AI hardware market.
The new soc chip looks good, but is too little too late. Once windows arm version is viable in a few years, it's all over for intel.
One thing that I’ve not seen mentioned in any comparison of the Snapdragon X Elite compared to Apple’s M-series chips is the performance per core. All of the comparisons just look at the overall results which indicate the the X Elite is faster in multi-core, but slower in single-core. However, the X Elite has 12 cores vs. Apple’s 8 cores. If you do the math and look at performance per core, Apple is significantly ahead of the X Elite and if you compared a 12 core M-series chip with the X Elite, you’d really see how much faster the M-series chips are. Also, the Snapdragon’s GPU is quite a bit behind that of Apple’s as well.
It will be interesting to see these numbers and compare them for Lunar Lake vs. the other two.
It will be interesting to see these numbers and compare them for Lunar Lake vs. the other two.
Lots of Intel hate, and I get it. But, I'm glad Apple woke them up and got them moving again. Competition in the chip industry is good for everybody, and we can't have Intel sitting it out.
It doesn't matter. Don't you know companies are supposed to just keep people forever, even if they are no longer needed? lol.
That's pretty much what the single-core score shows.
Right. I suppose Qualcomm's scheduler is poorer than Apple's.
But this isn't really that interesting. Either your task cannot be parallelized, which is true for most tasks, and then the single-core score is relevant. Or it can, and then you care about the multi-core score. "What if it had more cores?" isn't, for most users, a useful questions to ponder.
It should be noted, too, that you cannot easily deduce this from Geekbench 6 scores, as it is specifically designed not to scale well; they want to simulate how a multi-core CPU behaves in the real world. So, if you take, say,
Apple's M2 Ultra vs. M2 Max, it's is "only" 44% faster in Geekbench's multi-core score, but that doesn't mean Apple's scheduler is that poor.
You weren't around the mhz wars between Intel and AMD back in the Thunderbird, Duron and Athlon days?
AMD was the first to 1ghz and it hit Intel pretty hard and they also had the first x86-64 chip in the consumer market. All the tech sites were making fun of them and saying they were done for...they were the definite underdog for a few years.
Last edited:
I don't know. I refuse to click on any video with a face in it looking at you like it's a cow, or ready to gobble something. So I refuse to click on about a quarter of popular tech videos.
That's what they added, how many people retired/left etc in that time frame. The 16,000 also excludes the voluntary early retirements that took place before this purge.
I compared total employee count, not new hires, so retirees/resigners are accounted for.