How many people are going to dump their Apple or Intel computers and switch. These comparisons seem to be filler and mainly for informational purposes but has very little practical application. I could be wrong but someone can come up with an Intel based device that’s 10 times faster and I still wouldn’t change.
I agree. Apple has changed to it's own silicon and I doubt they'll ever go back to Intel. I definitely won't ever buy a Windows PC (again, bought one for my daughter during law school in the early 2000's because they were required to use one for tests). Intel can only make fast or low power chips, they can't make both in one chip. If you own a utility company, go ahead and buy something with an Intel CPU in it and have it constantly connected to power. That's called a desktop. Also invest in a huge cooling system because you'll need it. Apple could create a desktop-specific SoC that uses a lot of electricity but that's not where they want to go. Apple wants people to use their computers wherever the consumer wants to use them. They don't want them tied to an electrical outlet.
There's no need to defend the M2 Max. It's an awesome chip. I've got an M1 Max for work and, being a long time PC user, I'm floored by how long the battery lasts without adjusting settings, while running containers, compiling code, and having 10 other apps going.
I used to chase the high end pc laptop dream but it's just ridiculous. For twice the money of a desktop, you get something with half the performance and 30 min of battery life.
You can't use it as a laptop. It has to be plugged in to pull enough voltage for its hardware. And you have to check all the right boxes in the bios and OS to conserve battery.
A better match up for the M2 would be a laptop from their more mobile series. For 12th gen it's the P series. Don't know what the 13th gen is.
If it can't be unplugged without losing a ton of performance and having shit battery life then what use is it as a laptop? It's basically just a slightly portable desktop but you're still tied to a wall outlet or else your performance advantage goes to the crapper. This is why these comparisons are useless. Apple could easily do the same thing and push tons of wattage through their SoC's but that's not the point of what Apple is doing with Apple Silicon. Apple Silicon is very impressive for what it does performance wise and still retains amazing battery life.
----
Believe it or not, that is the way some professionals and nearly all PC gamers use laptops: plugged in.
Users who want this kind of performance don't really care that much about having to plug in their laptop. They are not going do their expert magic at Star Bucks. Instead they might work at home or at a co-working space where outlets aren't exactly an issue.
Yes, it all might be less elegant than a Mac, but the raw power offered here for the dollars paid is much better value than an M2 Max.
I agree on the plugged/unplugged angle.
Buyers know exactly what they are getting and unplugged, they won't be pushing the machine anyway. An outlet will never be far away for when they need one.
I've never really understood the desire for hot, noisy, performance at any cost, machines but there is obviously a niche market for them (and gaming phones).
And these are more akin to portable computers rather than 'laptops'.
On the road, at most any job sites, at someones office, in a conference room, at school. In most instances, you don’t get to plug-in because you want to particularly if half the people at the meeting have brought their laptop too, how many wall plugs do you think there are?
Getting a full eight to 10 hour working day with a 16 inch M2 Max MBP unplugged is what Apple disruption and innovation is all about.
How many people are going to dump their Apple or Intel computers and switch. These comparisons seem to be filler and mainly for informational purposes but has very little practical application. I could be wrong but someone can come up with an Intel based device that’s 10 times faster and I still wouldn’t change.
Precisely. This stuff is for nerds to berate each h other about, the “mine is bigger than yours” crowd, the “Calvin peeing on Intel” or “Calvin peeing on Apple” decal aficionados.
If it can't be unplugged without losing a ton of performance and having shit battery life then what use is it as a laptop? It's basically just a slightly portable desktop but you're still tied to a wall outlet or else your performance advantage goes to the crapper. This is why these comparisons are useless. Apple could easily do the same thing and push tons of wattage through their SoC's but that's not the point of what Apple is doing with Apple Silicon. Apple Silicon is very impressive for what it does performance wise and still retains amazing battery life.
----
Believe it or not, that is the way some professionals and nearly all PC gamers use laptops: plugged in.
Professionals on the road or students in someone else’s conference room can’t plug-in with multiple people in the room, and PC gamers? Who cares?
Wait! So a laptop with 24 cores capable of running at up to 5.6GHz is more powerful than a laptop with 12 cores running at 3.7GHz?
That's just crazy!
What a stupid waste of time. Yes, I get that it is a somewhat fair comparison in so much that these are two laptops being compared, but it gets a little ridiculous when on one those laptops is more like a portable desktop that all but requires it to be plugged in. This would be like Apple cramming an M2 Ultra into a MacBook.
Haven't we covered the fact that the race Apple is in, isn't about performance, but efficiency. And in that regard they are still way ahead of Intel. This laptop and that i9, while better than last generation, are not and could never be considered efficient by any meaning of the word.
By the way, the Blender CPU scores are not that impressive for a CPU with those specs. This article is all about the Intel i9, yet posting scores of Nvidia GPUs? And running a test that highly benefits from hardware accelerated ray tracing.
1) Intel has to to DOUBLE the cores and Jack up the clock speed and power consumption to beat the M2 Max.
2) Intel does not get credit for Nvidias GPU prowess, which is clearly ahead of Apples at the highest end, though also in large part due to crazy power consumption.
3) Apple can still beat Intel at lower power consumption and clock speeds with an m2 Ultra as it will contain the same amount of cores as the Intel chip.
4) apple can likewise beat Nvidia with more cores and cranking up the clock speed, though the feature set may not be comparable until m3 and even then, apple has to think ahead as Nvidia won’t be standing still.
Apple’s single core performance while using such little energy tells the story of their superiority.
Intel deceptively tried to look better by saying they use mostly efficiency cores, but they use the term “efficiency” completely different than apple. Their efficiency cores are more like specialty performance cores, whereas apples efficiency cores actually mean low power. So if apple uses all performance cores in a desktop specific chip, it’s a whole new ball game.
Nvidia has been the GPU king for a very long time. For apple to just arrive and do the damage it has done is telling. They’re on the right track and the only reason they aren’t doing heavier damage is that they had to delay GPU features this past year that won’t arrive until m3.
So apple is fighting a war on two fronts, versus not just Intel, but Intel AND Nvidia, who only win at the highest tier. And that safe space for them is on notice.
I wouldn't call 6.83 pounds "easily moved." What's the weight of the MSI power brick? I can run a 16" MBP continuously (while charging) with a 7.2 ounce 100w Anker power supply. Or live on the battery during the day and charge overnight with a 1.4 ounce 30w Anker power supply.
Looking at reviews of the MSI, it's claimed the "4090" is actually a throttled 4080--not comparable to the desktop 4090.
Does anyone really think this is going to cause a massive swing away from Apple Silicon by professionals who use Macs?
Of course not. People like the Mac for other reasons as well.
But it does show how desperate both Intel and Nvidia are to survive in the face of an Apple Silicon doomsday weapon.
In my work environment, it’s almost all Mac - except the video production team, which has custom PCs in the mix for the exact purpose of cranking the most amount of videos out per hour - with our workflow and software, the PCs are the faster exporters, so that’s where we batch export projects after editing is done.
Apple really lost the plot when it began knee the ‘13 Mac Pro. Made it right with the latest Mac Pro, but they haven’t updated it properly.
With apple silicon, they’ve shown that they are the pinnacle of mobile performance. But not quite in the desktop performance arena. Would be great to not have to give Intel and Nvidia any more money and move to a 100% mac solution.
Users who want this kind of performance don't really care that much about having to plug in their laptop. They are not going do their expert magic at Star Bucks. Instead they might work at home or at a co-working space where outlets aren't exactly an issue.
Yes, it all might be less elegant than a Mac, but the raw power offered here for the dollars paid is much better value than an M2 Max.
I agree on the plugged/unplugged angle.
Buyers know exactly what they are getting and unplugged, they won't be pushing the machine anyway. An outlet will never be far away for when they need one.
I've never really understood the desire for hot, noisy, performance at any cost, machines but there is obviously a niche market for them (and gaming phones).
And these are more akin to portable computers rather than 'laptops'.
On the road, at most any job sites, at someones office, in a conference room, at school. In most instances, you don’t get to plug-in because you want to particularly if half the people at the meeting have brought their laptop too, how many wall plugs do you think there are?
Getting a full eight to 10 hour working day with a 16 inch M2 Max MBP unplugged is what Apple disruption and innovation is all about.
If you don't push the machine to its limit it will give you more usage time on battery.
I have yet to see a conference room without enough sockets for everyone. Often they are right in the table.
For auditorium scenarios, they are never all day battery usage, but like I said, buyers of these kinds of machines know what meets their requirements.
The thing that amazes me is that Intel has years of experience developing high end CPUs. Apple is on its 2nd generation is ia getting close to beating the best that Intel can produce. Also remember the M2 has the graphics built in too. Just think where Apple will be in 2 years time and if it will help add the capability to include eGPUs, Apple will be in a class of there own.
It is truly amazing what Apple has done and it is going to be a great ride how the M series evolves in the next decade.
How many people are going to dump their Apple or Intel computers and switch. These comparisons seem to be filler and mainly for informational purposes but has very little practical application. I could be wrong but someone can come up with an Intel based device that’s 10 times faster and I still wouldn’t change.
Of course these Intel vs Apple articles are mostly for entertainment, like a continuing soap opera. Apple has moved on after its divorce with Intel . The vast majority of Apple's customer base has moved on and is sticking with Apple. Sorry soap opera fans, super couple Apple and Intel are never ever going to get back together again, or maybe that's just what Taylor thinks.
The vast majority of the reasons that prompted Apple to divorce Intel still apply. Intel's lack of commitment to meeting Apple's timely delivery and volume demands. Intel's inability to ratchet up performance fast enough to allow Apple to go to market with significantly upgraded products year after year. Intel's power gluttony that spoiled some of the prime reasons that Apple's customers loved Apple products so much. Apple buyers wanted performance, but they also wanted cool & quiet operation, longer periods of time untethered from the mains, and of course they wanted sleek design and light weight. Intel was dead wood, extra baggage, an absent partner, and a drag on Apple and its customers.
It really was you Intel, not Apple.
Simply put, Intel could not hold up their end of the relationship and squandered whatever preferred relationship they had with Apple. I don't know who they were trying to make happy for all those years they were slow walking their delivery promises to Apple, but it certainly wasn't Apple or Apple's customers they were trying to make happy.
Sorry Intel, putting on a new suit and strutting out with a new show pony years too late does not change a thing for Apple's customers. And from what we're seeing, that show pony has a voracious appetite. Good luck feeding that little piggy. Of course some people do like Intel and Microsoft pork, and their Intel food truck has finally come into the parking lot with the smokey fumes bellowing from the mandatory always-on cooling fans. Plus, I've been involved in plenty of working group meetings where the participants don't mind daisy chaining power strips together in Clark Griswold fashion to keep all those Intel processors sufficiently fed to avoid universal battery meltdown, which could have resulted in many hours of gained productivity.
There are obviously some people who are going to be completely thrilled by these new Intel processors and third party graphics card combos. Good for them. They deserve to be happy because they've been waiting for so long for their Santa Claus to finally pull something worthy from his sack for them. It'll be like a big warm, or actually more like a scorching hot and flaming, hug that they've been really needing for way too long. I'm genuinely happy for them. I am.
6.83lbs, and the power supply is apparently 2.78lbs, so 9.61 lbs together. Eek!
The 16” M1 Max is 4.8lbs and the 140W charger is .61lbs, so ~5.41 lbs together.
Worth noting you can get essentially the same power in the 14” MBP, which is 3.5lbs, and that’s got a very slightly heavier 96W charger at .66lb, so 4.16lbs.
I would hardly call the Intel laptop unusable without being plugged in. The article failed to mention that Luke's test on battery only demonstrated the same hard-core video editing/export only to see how performance was affected and how much battery draw took place. He did not test normal general use on the battery. He only demonstrated what would heavily tax the CPU.
Considering 95% of people use a laptop while it is plugged in, what is the big deal? Most people only use it on battery to go attend a meeting and then go back to their desk and plug it back in. Considering the Intel laptop is targeted at gamers, it will likely be plugged in when playing games. He also demonstrated plugging it into an HDTV 4K to test the gaming performance and it did quite well. A gamer would buy the Intel PC laptop over a MacBook any day of the week. Luke did a fair comparison of both laptops and both have their pros and cons, but he never called the Intel laptop unusable if it wasn't plugged in. It is a laptop for a different market, and yes, it has incredible specs for being inside a laptop. Would I buy it? No, not into a gaming laptop with disco lights. I would bet you could turn off the disco lights.
One thing that is not being discussed here is that there's no way that Intel i9 alone can compete with the M2Pro or even worse the M2Max. The laptop in question is being boosted by the Nvidia RTX 4090 graphics card.
You want a chip for chip comparison? Pit the Intel i9 (with its internal graphics) vs M2Max. Then not even 1.5 Gigawatts would be enough to catch up to the M2Max.
A comparison between an ultra high end macbook pro (which will never replace a gaming laptop) and an ultra high end gaming laptop (which will never replace a mac, or really be used for anything other than gaming). Such foolishness. But that's EXACTLY the comparison Apple went for when they first introduced the Apple silicon macbook pro. So here we are.
Considering 95% of people use a laptop while it is plugged in, what is the big deal? Most people only use it on battery to go attend a meeting and then go back to their desk and plug it back in.
Where’s your source for this ridiculous claim? The whole point of a laptop is to be used as a portable computer running on battery. For the last 20 years now one of the biggest selling points for laptops is how many hours of usage you get. Reviewers constantly perform battery rundown tests (which are horribly time consuming) because this is a very important capability for users.
What I find funny is how Apple keeps causing everyone to move the goalposts. Android users loved benchmarks when they were faster than the iPhone and hated them when the iPhone pulled ahead (even manufacturing those stupid App races as a way to somehow claim they’re just as fast).
Now that Apple Silicon is the clear performance/efficiency leader suddenly people are claiming most users are plugged in.
Apple saw this coming. At the end of their M1 MacBook keynote they had this video:
“Plug it in. Where are you going. Just plug it in.”
I really love Intel for coming up with that. The lack of competition made Apple very lazy and their chips melted from vastly superior to still better in most cases overtaken in some. Best seen at Apple watches where processing power more or less flatlined since AW4.
Comments
I used to chase the high end pc laptop dream but it's just ridiculous. For twice the money of a desktop, you get something with half the performance and 30 min of battery life.
You can't use it as a laptop. It has to be plugged in to pull enough voltage for its hardware. And you have to check all the right boxes in the bios and OS to conserve battery.
A better match up for the M2 would be a laptop from their more mobile series. For 12th gen it's the P series. Don't know what the 13th gen is.
Getting a full eight to 10 hour working day with a 16 inch M2 Max MBP unplugged is what Apple disruption and innovation is all about.
That's just crazy!
What a stupid waste of time. Yes, I get that it is a somewhat fair comparison in so much that these are two laptops being compared, but it gets a little ridiculous when on one those laptops is more like a portable desktop that all but requires it to be plugged in. This would be like Apple cramming an M2 Ultra into a MacBook.
Haven't we covered the fact that the race Apple is in, isn't about performance, but efficiency. And in that regard they are still way ahead of Intel. This laptop and that i9, while better than last generation, are not and could never be considered efficient by any meaning of the word.
By the way, the Blender CPU scores are not that impressive for a CPU with those specs. This article is all about the Intel i9, yet posting scores of Nvidia GPUs? And running a test that highly benefits from hardware accelerated ray tracing.
1) Intel has to to DOUBLE the cores and Jack up the clock speed and power consumption to beat the M2 Max.
What's the weight of the MSI power brick? I can run a 16" MBP continuously (while charging) with a 7.2 ounce 100w Anker power supply. Or live on the battery during the day and charge overnight with a 1.4 ounce 30w Anker power supply.
Looking at reviews of the MSI, it's claimed the "4090" is actually a throttled 4080--not comparable to the desktop 4090.
I have yet to see a conference room without enough sockets for everyone. Often they are right in the table.
For auditorium scenarios, they are never all day battery usage, but like I said, buyers of these kinds of machines know what meets their requirements.
Just think where Apple will be in 2 years time and if it will help add the capability to include eGPUs, Apple will be in a class of there own.
It is truly amazing what Apple has done and it is going to be a great ride how the M series evolves in the next decade.
The vast majority of the reasons that prompted Apple to divorce Intel still apply. Intel's lack of commitment to meeting Apple's timely delivery and volume demands. Intel's inability to ratchet up performance fast enough to allow Apple to go to market with significantly upgraded products year after year. Intel's power gluttony that spoiled some of the prime reasons that Apple's customers loved Apple products so much. Apple buyers wanted performance, but they also wanted cool & quiet operation, longer periods of time untethered from the mains, and of course they wanted sleek design and light weight. Intel was dead wood, extra baggage, an absent partner, and a drag on Apple and its customers.
It really was you Intel, not Apple.
Simply put, Intel could not hold up their end of the relationship and squandered whatever preferred relationship they had with Apple. I don't know who they were trying to make happy for all those years they were slow walking their delivery promises to Apple, but it certainly wasn't Apple or Apple's customers they were trying to make happy.
Sorry Intel, putting on a new suit and strutting out with a new show pony years too late does not change a thing for Apple's customers. And from what we're seeing, that show pony has a voracious appetite. Good luck feeding that little piggy. Of course some people do like Intel and Microsoft pork, and their Intel food truck has finally come into the parking lot with the smokey fumes bellowing from the mandatory always-on cooling fans. Plus, I've been involved in plenty of working group meetings where the participants don't mind daisy chaining power strips together in Clark Griswold fashion to keep all those Intel processors sufficiently fed to avoid universal battery meltdown, which could have resulted in many hours of gained productivity.
There are obviously some people who are going to be completely thrilled by these new Intel processors and third party graphics card combos. Good for them. They deserve to be happy because they've been waiting for so long for their Santa Claus to finally pull something worthy from his sack for them. It'll be like a big warm, or actually more like a scorching hot and flaming, hug that they've been really needing for way too long. I'm genuinely happy for them. I am.
Considering 95% of people use a laptop while it is plugged in, what is the big deal? Most people only use it on battery to go attend a meeting and then go back to their desk and plug it back in. Considering the Intel laptop is targeted at gamers, it will likely be plugged in when playing games. He also demonstrated plugging it into an HDTV 4K to test the gaming performance and it did quite well. A gamer would buy the Intel PC laptop over a MacBook any day of the week. Luke did a fair comparison of both laptops and both have their pros and cons, but he never called the Intel laptop unusable if it wasn't plugged in. It is a laptop for a different market, and yes, it has incredible specs for being inside a laptop. Would I buy it? No, not into a gaming laptop with disco lights. I would bet you could turn off the disco lights.
What The Hell Is A “Jigga” Watt?
What I find funny is how Apple keeps causing everyone to move the goalposts. Android users loved benchmarks when they were faster than the iPhone and hated them when the iPhone pulled ahead (even manufacturing those stupid App races as a way to somehow claim they’re just as fast).
Now that Apple Silicon is the clear performance/efficiency leader suddenly people are claiming most users are plugged in.
Apple saw this coming. At the end of their M1 MacBook keynote they had this video:
“Plug it in. Where are you going. Just plug it in.”
https://youtu.be/tEvXVJHTQAk