When PPC came out it was RISC vs. CISC. Whilst PPC was infinitely better in terms of technology, it suffered from manufacturing issues.
I was wondering about that. Apple moved away from PowerPC because it was less performant per watt, and it also generated more heat for less output than Intel at the time. Was PowerPC really infinitely better? Sounds like it might have been fundamentally badly architected if it could take the advantages of RISC and mess it up so badly. I don't think it was just manufacturing issues.
When PPC came out it was RISC vs. CISC. Whilst PPC was infinitely better in terms of technology, it suffered from manufacturing issues.
I was wondering about that. Apple moved away from PowerPC because it was less performant per watt, and it also generated more heat for less output than Intel at the time. Was PowerPC really infinitely better? Sounds like it might have been fundamentally badly architected if it could take the advantages of RISC and mess it up so badly. I don't think it was just manufacturing issues.
I don’t know enough to comment on the intrinsic pros & cons between the two architectures, but as I recall, Apple was the only significant consumer of PPC chips and there was a distinct lack of R&D, particularly in the low-power laptop segment, so even if the RISC architecture was superior it wasn’t developed and so was doomed.
Even if this was a straight up legit comparison, Intel still loses because they are comparing a 28 watt chip to a 10 watt chip.
What’s the performance of an Intel cpu that can fit in the thermal constraints of a fan less MBA?
Does that even matter unless you're trying to extend battery life on laptop - or worried about your electric bill?
It is more than that though, that 18 Watt difference adds up. For every million computers used, you save eighteen million Watts. Consider you also save in cooling because less energy used, less heat generated. With the push for saving the environment, there might be a push for greener computers, in which Intel would be the looser.
Agreed. we need to be better at conserving energy everywhere, even when you're at a desktop and it 'doesn't matter.' Another consideration - adding active cooling, like one would typically have in a desktop, should allow Apple to increase the clock speed and performance. What we are essentially comparing is a low-power, laptop processor vs a full-power processor.
What chance does this Intel presentation have to convince Apple to abandon its M-series chip plans, and jump back to Intel 86 chips? Absolutely zero. How many consumers who were going to buy a Mac are going to be persuaded by this presentation to instead buy a Wintel PC? Very, very few. So what purpose does the presentation serve? Just this: to stroke the bruised ego of the new chief executive. When Intel's third CEO in as many years leads off with something like this, it's not an indicator that the company's best days are "in front of it."
Even if this was a straight up legit comparison, Intel still loses because they are comparing a 28 watt chip to a 10 watt chip.
What’s the performance of an Intel cpu that can fit in the thermal constraints of a fan less MBA?
Does that even matter unless you're trying to extend battery life on laptop - or worried about your electric bill?
It is more than that though, that 18 Watt difference adds up. For every million computers used, you save eighteen million Watts. Consider you also save in cooling because less energy used, less heat generated. With the push for saving the environment, there might be a push for greener computers, in which Intel would be the looser.
Agreed. we need to be better at conserving energy everywhere, even when you're at a desktop and it 'doesn't matter.' Another consideration - adding active cooling, like one would typically have in a desktop, should allow Apple to increase the clock speed and performance. What we are essentially comparing is a low-power, laptop processor vs a full-power processor.
Two different coolings, one is cooling within the computer and you have the cooling for buildings. I was going for the cooling for the buildings. For a home, saving 18 watts isn't much, however less heat generated, the less often the AC has to kick on. More so when there is more computers, larger buildings, cities, and nations, the savings add up.
For me, it brings back memories of project I was handed to transfer data from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context, both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless.
Holy crapolina, OS2! Built one of those way back before I knew better. Was fun while it lasted.
When PPC came out it was RISC vs. CISC. Whilst PPC was infinitely better in terms of technology, it suffered from manufacturing issues. Now that ARM has fully matured to the point it can compete with X86 chips, Apple are in a much better position. They own the chip design, have the manufacturing volume advantage (with iOS device chips) and a solid manufacturer who is top of their game. Apple have learnt a lot how to be successful in the chip game. It's taken them 25 years but as we know they play the long game and can be very patient.
I, for one, am very excited to see how this plays out. It's great to see Intel squirm and hopefully this will impact M$ in the long term.
Nah! Microsoft is no more tied to x86 than Apple is/was. They are a software company and will build to whatever hardware platform they need to. It's just that there wasn't enough ARM based PC hardware out there for them to make any but a token effort.
At some point, if ARM based PCs start to grow, they will produce a fully supported retail version of Windows for it.
Actually, Microsoft is very tied to the x86 architecture, at least in the consumer world. They nominally have an ARM version of windows but last I heard it couldn't run 64bit x86 software, leaving it rather crippled. until they up their game the ARM version is more 'window lite'
Yeh -- and that was my point: Microsoft is a software company and they'll create software for the platforms they can sell it on. Since there were essentially only x86platforms out there, that's what they aimed at. If 9no, make that "when") ARM platforms become more common they'll target them too
Even if this was a straight up legit comparison, Intel still loses because they are comparing a 28 watt chip to a 10 watt chip.
What’s the performance of an Intel cpu that can fit in the thermal constraints of a fan less MBA?
Does that even matter unless you're trying to extend battery life on laptop - or worried about your electric bill?
It is more than that though, that 18 Watt difference adds up. For every million computers used, you save eighteen million Watts. Consider you also save in cooling because less energy used, less heat generated. With the push for saving the environment, there might be a push for greener computers, in which Intel would be the looser.
True! That is likely why data centers are looking more at ARM processors. But, individual users look mostly at specs and price -- and seldom even know what the power requirements are unless they're concerned about all day battery life. But, even then I would wonder how much power the processor consumes vs the screen.
But regardless, ARM processors seem to be generally more efficient and therefor ultimately more powerful so they'll become increasingly more prevalent I think
There is a reason why the industry uses common sets of benchmarks and commercial application for testing performance. That's a level playing field that is well understood and people generally understand what the benchmarks mean.
Using a collection of hand picked esoteric tasks that are deliberately not optimized fro M1 hardware doesn't make a compelling argument for Intel. Just the opposite. It paints them as worried and scared. I'll leave the benchmarks and performance testing to unbiased third parties like Anandtech, etc. to for my opinions.
Finally, at the end of the day, Intel doesn't even seem to realize how they're getting beat. It's not just about having the maximum performance. It's more about having maximum efficiency. This allows companies like Apple to make far more compelling mobile products that not just perform better, but have much better battery life as well. Intel doesn't even attempt to address this... for obvious reasons as even cherry picked benchmarks wouldn't show in their favor.
I’m not really sure the point Intel is trying to make here. Most people who follow this know this is all cherry-picked and full of unequal comparisons (difference in chip wattage, software that runs through translation, unusual tests, etc). Secondly, who is the target audience here? Who are they trying to convince? I have news for Intel: Apple is gone. Within 18 months, you won’t sell them another chip. So is it a Windows vs. MacOS thing now? Good luck with that. Apple realized a long time ago it didn’t need to beat Microsoft. They are selling Macs hand over fist without even really going after Microsoft.
You blew it, Intel.
So you're saying that Apple would have never gone the route of in-house CPU production had Intel kept up with the performance/power in their CPU's?
I think the opposite. I think it was inevitable that Apple would develop their own Apple Silicon. They had a winner in the CPU's used in iPads and iPhones. It was natural to use those in their notebooks and desktops. Regardless of what Intel did, I think the turn away from Intel and towards Apple's chip-independence was coming.
Just what is expected? It's marketing, so, stop the bickering, children. This play had been on the cards since before Jobs' death. Apple is a strongly independent marque and contrary to we Homo sapiens, microprocessor designers discreetly absorbed into the ooze long ago were no pernicious evolutionary accident.
Closer to the Neanderthal branch, I'm of an age where I'll not be biting in to the Apple silicon.
Big Blueberry or Apple, enjoy your slice of the pie.
What chance does this Intel presentation have to convince Apple to abandon its M-series chip plans, and jump back to Intel 86 chips? Absolutely zero. How many consumers who were going to buy a Mac are going to be persuaded by this presentation to instead buy a Wintel PC? Very, very few. So what purpose does the presentation serve? Just this: to stroke the bruised ego of the new chief executive. When Intel's third CEO in as many years leads off with something like this, it's not an indicator that the company's best days are "in front of it."
I look at these benchmarks and don't see a good reason to stick with intel....
My grandson would likely say the same -- until phe discovers he can't do what he needs to do on the M1.
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it can't do what it needs to do. Would you take a Porsche to pick up a yard of mulch?
For me, it brings back memories of project I was handed to transfer data from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context, both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless.
This is a nonsense argument because it has no relation to the topic. Your take would make more sense in a “Windows versus macOS” discussion.
Since the M1 blocks you from running Windows, and not being able to run Windows means you won't be able to run proprietary Windows programs, then it doesn't matter how fast either is and that is EXACTLY what it is: Windows vs MacOS. As I said, but you ignored:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it can't do what it needs to do. Would you take a Porsche to pick up a yard of mulch?
For me, it brings back memories of a project I was handed to transfer data
from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do
that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving
system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at
work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer
running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into
the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context,
both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless."
Absolutely.
I once attempted to make a banana and vanilla milkshake. I first tried using a cement mixer and a three-legged Alsatian called Derek. I couldn’t get the cement mixer into the kitchen and Derek kept eating the banana.
In the end, Mrs Ray2016 suggested I give the blender a go.
To my surprise, it did the job perfectly.
In that context, both the cement mixer and Derek were worthless.
So I guess we both learned that it’s better to pick the right tool for the job at the outset.
Since the M1 blocks you from running Windows, and not being able to run Windows means you won't be able to run proprietary Windows programs, then it doesn't matter how fast either is and that is EXACTLY what it is: Windows vs MacOS. As I said, but you ignored:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it can't do what it needs to do. Would you take a Porsche to pick up a yard of mulch?
For me, it brings back memories of a project I was handed to transfer data
from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do
that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving
system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at
work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer
running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into
the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context,
both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless."
M1 doesn't "block" Windows. If Microsoft wants to make Windows on ARM available for retail sale, or to Parallels and VMWare as "OEMs" then it will run on the M1 Macs with a little bit of work (I'm running a beta of Windows on ARM on the Parallels technical preview and it mostly works).
I’m not really sure the point Intel is trying to make here. Most people who follow this know this is all cherry-picked and full of unequal comparisons (difference in chip wattage, software that runs through translation, unusual tests, etc). Secondly, who is the target audience here? Who are they trying to convince? I have news for Intel: Apple is gone. Within 18 months, you won’t sell them another chip. So is it a Windows vs. MacOS thing now? Good luck with that. Apple realized a long time ago it didn’t need to beat Microsoft. They are selling Macs hand over fist without even really going after Microsoft.
You blew it, Intel.
So you're saying that Apple would have never gone the route of in-house CPU production had Intel kept up with the performance/power in their CPU's?
I think the opposite. I think it was inevitable that Apple would develop their own Apple Silicon. They had a winner in the CPU's used in iPads and iPhones. It was natural to use those in their notebooks and desktops. Regardless of what Intel did, I think the turn away from Intel and towards Apple's chip-independence was coming.
I actually wasn't attempting to imply that, though I can see why it may have come across that way. I think you're probably right. Apple was probably going to go its own way. Though, I do think that Intel might have delayed that or even stopped it had they innovated at a pace that changed Apple's calculus. Apple concluded they could do it better...better performance and better control of their product. Intel had a piece in it too.
Even if this was a straight up legit comparison, Intel still loses because they are comparing a 28 watt chip to a 10 watt chip.
What’s the performance of an Intel cpu that can fit in the thermal constraints of a fan less MBA?
Does that even matter unless you're trying to extend battery life on laptop - or worried about your electric bill?
Or trying to have an audio chat without a hairdryer blast of noise from an overheating computer?
I swapped out a Intel 2020 13" MBP (32GB RAM) for a M1 (16GB RAM) and their is simply no comparison. I've never heard the fan, it never gets hot much less warm, it's as fast or faster when using Rosetta, it instantly wakes from sleep, its far more responsive when switching tasks, and the real world battery life is easily 2x to 3x better.
Since the M1 blocks you from running Windows, and not being able to run Windows means you won't be able to run proprietary Windows programs, then it doesn't matter how fast either is and that is EXACTLY what it is: Windows vs MacOS. As I said, but you ignored:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it can't do what it needs to do. Would you take a Porsche to pick up a yard of mulch?
For me, it brings back memories of a project I was handed to transfer data
from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do
that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving
system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at
work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer
running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into
the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context,
both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless."
M1 doesn't "block" Windows. If Microsoft wants to make Windows on ARM available for retail sale, or to Parallels and VMWare as "OEMs" then it will run on the M1 Macs with a little bit of work (I'm running a beta of Windows on ARM on the Parallels technical preview and it mostly works).
He's been claiming that since they were announced and despite dozens (maybe even hundreds) of people explaining to him how Apple is blocking MS from doing anything he still insisting that Apple is keeping MS off Macs. At some point we just have to ignore the willfully and woefully ignorant.
Since the M1 blocks you from running Windows, and not being able to run Windows means you won't be able to run proprietary Windows programs, then it doesn't matter how fast either is and that is EXACTLY what it is: Windows vs MacOS. As I said, but you ignored:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it can't do what it needs to do. Would you take a Porsche to pick up a yard of mulch?
For me, it brings back memories of a project I was handed to transfer data
from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do
that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving
system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at
work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer
running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into
the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context,
both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless."
M1 doesn't "block" Windows. If Microsoft wants to make Windows on ARM available for retail sale, or to Parallels and VMWare as "OEMs" then it will run on the M1 Macs with a little bit of work (I'm running a beta of Windows on ARM on the Parallels technical preview and it mostly works).
Or realizing this thread is solely about performance & benchmarks.
Spend all day saying how Intel still got it’s own, I don’t care. Bringing that to another unrelated topic is misleading, or I guess someone doesn’t understand the context.
Apple always manages to trigger sleeping companies when it advances.
Not really.
Intel did fine without Apple. They are going back to that state. All Apple did was provide more revenue options to intel.
However, if you look at the bigger picture, intel should be thinking about the collective of companies which have been encroaching on its strongholds. Apple isn't in that group today, but it's feasible that one day it might want a part of that pie. IMO, it definitely should make a serious commitment to those markets which sit outside the CE realm.
Nobody said Intel will go bankrupt. If you want an ultrabook then there’s no choice, or Zen couldn’t overtake the server market.
That doesn’t mean their product is great. In fact, they’ll lose their safe space if they still don’t realize how bad the situation really is.
Since the M1 blocks you from running Windows, and not being able to run Windows means you won't be able to run proprietary Windows programs, then it doesn't matter how fast either is and that is EXACTLY what it is: Windows vs MacOS. As I said, but you ignored:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it can't do what it needs to do. Would you take a Porsche to pick up a yard of mulch?
For me, it brings back memories of a project I was handed to transfer data
from a DB2 database into a proprietary system and, the only way to do
that while retaining data integrity was to type it into the receiving
system. I had both a Mac and a Windows machine sitting on my desk at
work but neither would do it. Instead I had to use my home computer
running OS2 to read a record from the DB2 database and then type it into
the proprietary system using a keyboard emulator. In that context,
both the Mac and Windows machines were worthless."
M1 doesn't "block" Windows. If Microsoft wants to make Windows on ARM available for retail sale, or to Parallels and VMWare as "OEMs" then it will run on the M1 Macs with a little bit of work (I'm running a beta of Windows on ARM on the Parallels technical preview and it mostly works).
While that is very true, from the point of the view of the user, Windows is blocked from running on the M1 Mac. If you have an application that can only run on WIndows, you'll need to buy a Windows machine.
Hopefully Microsoft brings their ARM based Windows up to snuff. But, until then, if you need to run Windows on a Mac you'll need an Intel version.
Comments
Yeh -- and that was my point: Microsoft is a software company and they'll create software for the platforms they can sell it on. Since there were essentially only x86platforms out there, that's what they aimed at. If 9no, make that "when") ARM platforms become more common they'll target them too
Using a collection of hand picked esoteric tasks that are deliberately not optimized fro M1 hardware doesn't make a compelling argument for Intel. Just the opposite. It paints them as worried and scared. I'll leave the benchmarks and performance testing to unbiased third parties like Anandtech, etc. to for my opinions.
Finally, at the end of the day, Intel doesn't even seem to realize how they're getting beat. It's not just about having the maximum performance. It's more about having maximum efficiency. This allows companies like Apple to make far more compelling mobile products that not just perform better, but have much better battery life as well. Intel doesn't even attempt to address this... for obvious reasons as even cherry picked benchmarks wouldn't show in their favor.
Closer to the Neanderthal branch, I'm of an age where I'll not be biting in to the Apple silicon.
Big Blueberry or Apple, enjoy your slice of the pie.
I'm just wondering how "Stock Option Pricing" and "Online Homework" are measurable metrics?
Intel is desperately misleading customers.
I swapped out a Intel 2020 13" MBP (32GB RAM) for a M1 (16GB RAM) and their is simply no comparison. I've never heard the fan, it never gets hot much less warm, it's as fast or faster when using Rosetta, it instantly wakes from sleep, its far more responsive when switching tasks, and the real world battery life is easily 2x to 3x better.
Spend all day saying how Intel still got it’s own, I don’t care. Bringing that to another unrelated topic is misleading, or I guess someone doesn’t understand the context.
Nobody said Intel will go bankrupt. If you want an ultrabook then there’s no choice, or Zen couldn’t overtake the server market.
That doesn’t mean their product is great. In fact, they’ll lose their safe space if they still don’t realize how bad the situation really is.