Is M1 base really that superior to Intel i9 or i7?

[TheOutlier]

On Geekbench, I'm seeing that the scores of MacBook Air M1 is superior to that of a MacBook Pro 2019 16" or MacBook Pro 2018 15" using an Intel i9.

Therefore, it's possible that a tiny 13-inch MacBook Air M1 is more powerful than the most cutting edge of MacBooks released in 2019 and 2018, correct? Or am I missing something here?

Also, am I right in assuming the MBA M1 is going to handle my 3D and motion design tasks better than the 2019 and 2018 models even if those models had 32GB RAM?

(Context: I'm new to M1 and haven't really educated myself on its power yet.)

 

[mr_roboto]

The Air will slow down if asked to do multithreaded tasks for long periods of time - it has no fan, so it can't sustain peak performance forever. And Geekbench only measures peak since the tests run for short periods of time. If you were doing something that exercised all cores for long periods of time, the 2019 would likely be faster.

If this is something which concerns you, you'd want to upgrade to the 13" MacBook Pro at minimum. It has a fan and will maintain the performance as measured in Geekbench indefinitely.

I did see comparison tests a long time ago where, in some workloads, the late 2019 i9 could beat a M1. But in general, yes that performance is real. The M1 is very good relative to what Intel was making in 2019.

On RAM - If you actually need 32GB, you still need 32GB. Lots of people get confused ideas about how RAM relates to performance. The real way to look at it is that once you have enough RAM, your software will run as fast as it can given the CPU and GPU you've got, and if you don't have enough RAM, performance will suffer. There's usually not a lot of benefit to more RAM than that minimum amount.

Basically, if your workload causes tons of swapping at 16GB RAM, and little or none at 32GB, you want 32 for sure. If you think that's the case, look at a 14" or 16" with M1 Pro. (and as an additional benefit, these machines will offer a substantial performance upgrade over the M1 13" and Air, especially for any software which uses the GPU.)

 

[TheOutlier]

The Air will slow down if asked to do multithreaded tasks for long periods of time - it has no fan, so it can't sustain peak performance forever. And Geekbench only measures peak since the tests run for short periods of time. If you were doing something that exercised all cores for long periods of time, the 2019 would likely be faster.

If this is something which concerns you, you'd want to upgrade to the 13" MacBook Pro at minimum. It has a fan and will maintain the performance as measured in Geekbench indefinitely.

I did see comparison tests a long time ago where, in some workloads, the late 2019 i9 could beat a M1. But in general, yes that performance is real. The M1 is very good relative to what Intel was making in 2019.

On RAM - If you actually need 32GB, you still need 32GB. Lots of people get confused ideas about how RAM relates to performance. The real way to look at it is that once you have enough RAM, your software will run as fast as it can given the CPU and GPU you've got, and if you don't have enough RAM, performance will suffer. There's usually not a lot of benefit to more RAM than that minimum amount.

Basically, if your workload causes tons of swapping at 16GB RAM, and little or none at 32GB, you want 32 for sure. If you think that's the case, look at a 14" or 16" with M1 Pro. (and as an additional benefit, these machines will offer a substantial performance upgrade over the M1 13" and Air, especially for any software which uses the GPU.)

Thanks for the explanation! Makes sense that the peak performance from the M1 probably isn't meant to be for a long period of time, considering there's no fan. Good point about the RAM; that's definitely new info to me!

 

[pshufd]

The question of how things work in real life is interesting. I have an M1 mini 16/512 on my desktop and it was nice but it could slow down if you're running a lot of things on it. I have one large application with a Windows executable and it will run on macOS Intel via WINE and on macOS Apple Silicon via WINE and Rosetta 2. Startup uses 300% of the M1 and it takes a fair amount of CPU (under one core) while running. The program runs with ease on my Windows i7 desktop though. Two translations does have a performance and RAM cost.

It's running Big Sur and Big Sur seems to use up a lot of RAM. I bought a 2014 iMac 27 (i7, 16 GB, 500 SSD, 4 GB GPU) for $500 and an iMac 2010 (i7, 8 GB, 1 TB HDD) for $100 in the past month and I like the combination of these two systems better than the mini. I added 16 GB of RAM to both systems ($94 each) and they handle whatever I throw at them. Some things the M1 runs faster but I never swap on the iMacs and responsiveness, while not neck-snapping like the M1 is fine for getting things done.

I am in the process of moving stuff off the M1 mini and then plan to sell it.

I really wanted a model with 32 GB of RAM and the ability to support 3 4k monitors but it was a chance to try out Apple Silicon. I have the 2021 MacBook Pro 16 which I love - the early M1 models were just a stopgap. I suspect many are in the same place looking for more options for the mini and iMac.

The used iMacs were great deals as the 2014 comes with a 5k display which I love. I can see how it's hard to go back after going 5k. But with the iMac, I get two displays, two sets of speakers, videocams, microphones and I don't have cables all over my desk. I would take a 2020 iMac i7 over an M1 iMac - just better performance all around and the ability to add aftermarket (cheap) RAM.

 

[leman]

The M1 machines will run loops around any 13” Intel Mac in almost every task (the caveat with RAM applies as me ruined by previous posters). They can also be faster than the Intel 15”/16” laptops in some tasks, but that kind of depends. You mention 3D design, so depending on what software you use and how well it takes advantage of the new hardware, it could go either way.

 

[throAU]

Apple silicon is the real deal

It may be workload dependent and you may find edge cases where intel is faster but... in general use I've found the 14" pro to be the most responsive machine I've ever used. And there's the desktop in my sig.

 

[pshufd]

The M1 machines will run loops around any 13” Intel Mac in almost every task (the caveat with RAM applies as me ruined by previous posters). They can also be faster than the Intel 15”/16” laptops in some tasks, but that kind of depends. You mention 3D design, so depending on what software you use and how well it takes advantage of the new hardware, it could go either way.

The Intel MacBooks, though, can run eGPU. The M1 GPU is really not that strong. The GPU in my 2014 iMac is 30% faster.

 

[pshufd]

Apple silicon is the real deal

It may be workload dependent and you may find edge cases where intel is faster but... in general use I've found the 14" pro to be the most responsive machine I've ever used. And there's the desktop in my sig.

I've not yet seen a comparison with an Alder Lake Hackintosh. I'd guess that the Alder Lake comes out on top.

Apple Silicon is a great architecture but the original M1 implementation has a lot of limitations.

 

[throAU]

The Intel MacBooks, though, can run eGPU. The M1 GPU is really not that strong. The GPU in my 2014 iMac is 30% faster.

It really does depend on how much GPU you need and what software is running. The M1 series GPUs use tile based rendering and a bunch of other tricks that will really shine with metal for example.

I've been pretty impressed with the base model M1 PRO Gpu in mine, even running Baldurs Gate 3.

But comparing a base m1 to an iMac or other device with discrete GPU or eGPU isn't really fair.

 

[throAU]

I've not yet seen a comparison with an Alder Lake Hackintosh. I'd guess that the Alder Lake comes out on top.

Apple Silicon is a great architecture but the original M1 implementation has a lot of limitations.

Intel will likely win CPU performance comparisons with alder lake. This is no surprise - because intel will crank the power up to 240 watts peak for short periods and call it a "laptop" chip.

If you care at all about performance whilst ALSO valuing fan noise, battery life, size and portability it will be no contest.

 

[pshufd]

It really does depend on how much GPU you need and what software is running. The M1 series GPUs use tile based rendering and a bunch of other tricks that will really shine with metal for example.

I've been pretty impressed with the base model M1 PRO Gpu in mine, even running Baldurs Gate 3.

But comparing a base m1 to an iMac or other device with discrete GPU or eGPU isn't really fair.

This thread is really discussing the M1, not the M1 Pro or M1 Max.

Apple itself has done comparisons of the base M1 GPU to discrete GPUs so it is fair.

My 2014 and 2015 MacBook Pros can drive two external 4k monitors, even without a discrete GPU. Something that the Base M1 MacBooks can't do without DisplayLink.

 

[pshufd]

Intel will likely win CPU performance comparisons with alder lake. This is no surprise - because intel will crank the power up to 240 watts peak for short periods and call it a "laptop" chip.

If you care at all about performance whilst ALSO valuing fan noise, battery life, size and portability it will be no contest.

I was just answering your performance point.

Most people apparently don't care about power given that gamers and gaming companies still focus on x86.

I really like the 5k iMacs and you don't have a choice on those right now unless you like to do iMac surgery.

 

[leman]

The Intel MacBooks, though, can run eGPU. The M1 GPU is really not that strong. The GPU in my 2014 iMac is 30% faster.

That is true. I was primarily comparing to the 13” models. The base M1 can be as fast or faster in some tasks than the entry-level Mac dGPUs of 2020 or earlier for example, but it’s a hit and miss.

 

[throAU]

Most people apparently don't care about power given that gamers and gaming companies still focus on x86.

no, but this thread is about the m1 air. and power is important in machines with fans vs those without - because power drives heat generation, and heat generation drives noise.

The contrast between a fanless m1 to x86 machines with fans is relevant. As soon as you go alder lake (at least anything approaching m1 performance), you're going to have a fan, and the way intel are cranking the voltage on them to get clocks (to win short term benchmark tests - bet if you run anything longer than CineBench it will drop to base clock); it will be loud.

 

[pshufd]

That is true. I was primarily comparing to the 13” models. The base M1 can be as fast or faster in some tasks than the entry-level Mac dGPUs of 2020 or earlier for example, but it’s a hit and miss.

I'm not aware of any 13 inch MacBooks in the past 8 years with dGPUs. My recollection is that they all use Intel Integrated.

 

[pshufd]

no, but this thread is about the m1 air. and power is important in machines with fans vs those without - because power drives heat generation, and heat generation drives noise.

The contrast between a fanless m1 to x86 machines with fans is relevant. as soon as you go alder lake, you're going to have a fan, and the way intel are cranking the voltage on them to get clocks (to win short term benchmark tests - bet if you run anything longer than CineBench it will drop to base clock); it will be loud.

Yes, but you were the one that brought up your desktop comparison.

 

[throAU]

Yes, but you were the one that brought up your desktop comparison.

Where?

You brought up your 2014 iMac with ability to do eGPU - I merely responded to that.

 

[pshufd]

Where?

You brought up your 2014 iMac with ability to do eGPU - I merely responded to that.

"

It may be workload dependent and you may find edge cases where intel is faster but... in general use I've found the 14" pro to be the most responsive machine I've ever used. And there's the desktop in my sig."

 

[MajorFubar]

Seems the answer here is 'it depends what you want to use it for'.

People seem over-fixated by the power they need even though the requirements for most people are really basic. People seem to be spending a grand or more on brand new Macs for web browsing, content consumption and extremely light duties, such as taking occasional notes in a class. Far be it for me to judge what people spend their money on, but if I wasn't a creator and I used a computer primarily for consuming others' content, I could do that with a $250 Windows laptop and save a ton of money. The $750 difference sure buys a lot of beer.

 

[throAU]

Far be it for me to judge what people spend their money on, but if I wasn't a creator and I used a computer primarily for consuming others' content, I could do that with a $250 Windows laptop and save a ton of money. The $750 difference sure buys a lot of beer.

Yeah this is a thing too.

On the one hand - apple do not give you the option to get the nice screen or speakers (for example) without stepping up and including options most would never care about.

On the other hand, they do make it simple in terms of logistics and user choice, and its pretty hard to buy something completely pointless. There's no need to go comparing 15 different machines if you're in the ecosystem. You pick the one that includes your must-haves and then grit your teeth and pay up

 

[Bodhitree]

I think when considering an Apple computer you have to look at the whole package. The design of the machine, the speed of the processor, coolness, quiet, battery life, the software that comes with the machine, the operating system, price.

You are going to lose out on some things. For example a 24” M1 iMac or M1 Mac Mini doesn‘t stand up to the latest Intel desktop machines in terms of brute processor speed. But its a vastly quieter, cooler, more elegant machine, while still being blazingly quick in most areas.

The M1 MacBook Air is excellent value and very fast for the price. Most laptops in its performance bracket are around 2000 euro’s here. And the M1 Pro MacBook Pro’s are cutting edge laptop technology bar none, as long as you don‘t care about gaming.

 

[pshufd]

Yeah this is a thing too.

On the one hand - apple do not give you the option to get the nice screen or speakers (for example) without stepping up and including options most would never care about.

On the other hand, they do make it simple in terms of logistics and user choice, and its pretty hard to buy something completely pointless. There's no need to go comparing 15 different machines if you're in the ecosystem. You pick the one that includes your must-haves and then grit your teeth and pay up

What I love about Apple Silicon is that it is cratering the prices of Intel Macs and they can be incredible values depending on your needs. I'm typing on a 2010 iMac right now and I absolutely love this machine, especially the price of $100. I see lots of sellers asking $300-$400 for the same machine and they never sell. Once they lower their price, the machines move right away. The same thing is happening with even 2013-2015 MacBook Pros. One of these days, maybe five years from now, the 2020 iMac i7 will be about $500 used. I have already seen used 2020 i5s for $900 locally.

One person I met trying to sell three 2019s for $1,500 each asked me why they wouldn't sell. Her company had just replaced their employee iMacs with Apple Silicon MacBook Pros. Apple offered $1,100 for trade-in value. I just told her that Apple is rumored to be coming out with Apple Silicon iMac 27s and that a lot of Intel iMac 27 supply has come onto the market.

 

[iBug2]

The Intel MacBooks, though, can run eGPU. The M1 GPU is really not that strong. The GPU in my 2014 iMac is 30% faster.

Regarding the GPU, don't trust the numbers. My iMac 2017 5K had a Radeon Pro 580, which is supposed to be much faster than M1, but my girlfriends M1 Macbook Air did GPU accelerated tasks faster than my iMac, like photo editing.

 

[pshufd]

I think when considering an Apple computer you have to look at the whole package. The design of the machine, the speed of the processor, coolness, quiet, battery life, the software that comes with the machine, the operating system, price.

You are going to lose out on some things. For example a 24” M1 iMac or M1 Mac Mini doesn‘t stand up to the latest Intel desktop machines in terms of brute processor speed. But its a vastly quieter, cooler, more elegant machine, while still being blazingly quick in most areas.

The M1 MacBook Air is excellent value and very fast for the price. Most laptops in its performance bracket are around 2000 euro’s here. And the M1 Pro MacBook Pro’s are cutting edge laptop technology bar none, as long as you don‘t care about gaming.

You miss out on expandability for future needs.

I built a Windows desktop and it looks great, and it runs cool and quiet and it's efficient. Those were my design goals.

I like the M1 MacBook Air. We have one of them. I really like the 2021 MacBook Pro and that's my daily driver laptop right now. But one of these days Rosetta 2 is going to go away and your Intel programs are going to stop working. Which is why I keep Intel systems around. That and none of them ever swap.

 

[pshufd]

Regarding the GPU, don't trust the numbers. My iMac 2017 5K had a Radeon Pro 580, which is supposed to be much faster than M1, but my girlfriends M1 Macbook Air did GPU accelerated tasks faster than my iMac, like photo editing.

Some things will be faster and some will be slower.

I was offered a 2017 iMac Pro, 18 cores, Vega 56, 64 GB RAM and 2 TB SSD for $1,900 a month ago. I'm kicking myself for not buying it. It was at an auction house and they thought that the 18 meant i8 so they priced it like a 2020 iMac i7. That Vega 56 could probably handle your girlfriend's workload just fine. There is a reason why Apple still sells the Intel iMac 27.

I'm thinking that Apple wants to go with 12 performance cores in the iMac 27 as the 2017 iMac Pro 18-core Xeon outperforms the M1 MAX in Geekbench 5 Multicore. It outperforms the M1 MAX in OpenCL too.