MacBook Air with M1 chip outperforms 16-inch MacBook Pro in benchmark testing

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 78
    I don’t care how fast it is, without a identical functioning windows like  version of excel with same updates  its useless to me.
    williamlondonpscooter63
  • Reply 42 of 78
    I don’t care how fast it is, without a identical functioning windows like  version of excel with same updates  its useless to me.
    Did you miss the memo?  Window is porting their Window Office suite to the new M1 chip computers to run native, but for now their Office suite is compatible with Big Sur.  Microsoft says that the Apple Silicon updates have feature parity with the previous versions.

    tmayhydrogenwatto_cobrarazorpit
  • Reply 43 of 78
    Was the Geekbench app they used to test a native M1 version or was it the Intel version running in Rosetta mode?
  • Reply 44 of 78
    I don’t care how fast it is, without a identical functioning windows like  version of excel with same updates  its useless to me.
    Might want to read this:
    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/microsoft-365-and-office-2019-support-for-apple-silicon-c55b603e-14a6-4b69-bdc0-2bb4c9a36834?ui=en-us&rs=en-us&ad=us

  • Reply 45 of 78
    ajmasajmas Posts: 601member
    As soon as some real world tests are in, please publish them, even if it is just putting Rosetta 2 through its paces. Real world tests for me include FPS in a given 3D game, time for video processing or time to render a 3D scene in Blender, as examples. 

    I am not expecting anything amazing, just something that gives a real world impression, without being all defensive about either camps.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 78
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,681member
    aderutter said:
    If the M2 in the yet to be announced high end MBP and low end iMacs have 4 efficiency and 8 power cores that would be double the power cores of the M1, so a significant jump up. (Yes the GPU will need a boost too).

    I am now even more tempted by the M1 Macs, but the low 16GB RAM and smaller screen size make me pause... Incredible new Macs for lower end users though.
    jdb8167 said:
    My guess is that the MacBook Pro 16” and the iMac that are likely up next for a transition to ARM, are probably not going to be much faster CPU wise, but probably mostly differentiate in GPU specs.
    Perhaps we’ll see a 2X difference there in GPU speed, with perhaps only a CPU of 12 cores vs 8 or so.
    More PCIe lanes/IO. More CPU cores perhaps clocked a little higher. More GPU cores. Seems pretty obvious that some of these are going to happen. More PCIe lanes is almost a given. I can’t imagine Apple shipping a 16” with less than 4 TB3/USB4 ports. 

    I would guess, just as with the A-series, the number is generational. So, the M2 would be the next generation of the M-series. Variant in each generation will continue to use a single letter suffix. I believe they'll release the M1A next and it will increase core counts, 6/4 CPU, 12 GPU, and double DRAM. This will be offered as an upgrade option for 13" PowerBook and Mac mini and will also be used in the low-end 16" MacBook Pro and 21.5" iMac.

    The M2 will feature new cores and increase the number of PCI lanes (to support 4 Thunderbolt ports, eGPUs, 10Gb Ethernet). This generation will have multiple variants; M2, M2A, M2B. The M2 and M2A will be similar as previous generation, the M2B will have even more cores (8/4 CPU, 16 GPU)and more DRAM and will be used in high-end 16" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac. We may even see another "highest-end" variant for the iMac; M2C with 12/4 CPU, 20 GPU.
    edited November 2020 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 78
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    joguide said:
    I don’t care how fast it is, without a identical functioning windows like  version of excel with same updates  its useless to me.
    Did you miss the memo?  Window is porting their Window Office suite to the new M1 chip computers to run native, but for now their Office suite is compatible with Big Sur.  Microsoft says that the Apple Silicon updates have feature parity with the previous versions.
    Mac Excel has never had feature parity with Windows Excel, and I can't imagine the situation will get any better with an architecture shift.
    williamlondonanantksundaramscartart
  • Reply 48 of 78
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Was the Geekbench app they used to test a native M1 version or was it the Intel version running in Rosetta mode?
    Geekbench 5 universal came out yesterday (11 Nov) so these tests are native. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 78

    mjtomlin said:
    jdb8167 said:
    My guess is that the MacBook Pro 16” and the iMac that are likely up next for a transition to ARM, are probably not going to be much faster CPU wise, but probably mostly differentiate in GPU specs.
    Perhaps we’ll see a 2X difference there in GPU speed, with perhaps only a CPU of 12 cores vs 8 or so.
    More PCIe lanes/IO. More CPU cores perhaps clocked a little higher. More GPU cores. Seems pretty obvious that some of these are going to happen. More PCIe lanes is almost a given. I can’t imagine Apple shipping a 16” with less than 4 TB3/USB4 ports. 

    I would guess, just as with the A-series, the number is generational. So, the M2 would be the next generation of the M-series. Variant in each generation will continue to use a single letter suffix. I believe they'll release the M1A next and it will increase core counts, 6/4 CPU, 12 GPU, and double DRAM. This will be offered as an upgrade option for 13" PowerBook and Mac mini and will also be used in the low-end 16" MacBook Pro and 21.5" iMac.

    The M2 will feature new cores and increase the number of PCI lanes (to support 4 Thunderbolt ports and eGPUs). This generation will have multiple variants; M2, M2X, M2Z. The M2 and M2X will be similar as previous generation, the M2Z will have even more cores and more DRAM and will be used in high-end 16" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac.

    Do you really think they’ll release a MBP 16“ that only supports a single external monitor?
    edited November 2020 williamlondon
  • Reply 50 of 78
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,681member
    jdb8167 said:

    mjtomlin said:
    jdb8167 said:
    My guess is that the MacBook Pro 16” and the iMac that are likely up next for a transition to ARM, are probably not going to be much faster CPU wise, but probably mostly differentiate in GPU specs.
    Perhaps we’ll see a 2X difference there in GPU speed, with perhaps only a CPU of 12 cores vs 8 or so.
    More PCIe lanes/IO. More CPU cores perhaps clocked a little higher. More GPU cores. Seems pretty obvious that some of these are going to happen. More PCIe lanes is almost a given. I can’t imagine Apple shipping a 16” with less than 4 TB3/USB4 ports. 

    I would guess, just as with the A-series, the number is generational. So, the M2 would be the next generation of the M-series. Variant in each generation will continue to use a single letter suffix. I believe they'll release the M1A next and it will increase core counts, 6/4 CPU, 12 GPU, and double DRAM. This will be offered as an upgrade option for 13" PowerBook and Mac mini and will also be used in the low-end 16" MacBook Pro and 21.5" iMac.

    The M2 will feature new cores and increase the number of PCI lanes (to support 4 Thunderbolt ports and eGPUs). This generation will have multiple variants; M2, M2X, M2Z. The M2 and M2X will be similar as previous generation, the M2Z will have even more cores and more DRAM and will be used in high-end 16" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac.

    Do you really think they’ll release a MBP 16“ that only supports a single external monitor?

    For a first generation system? Yes. And that 21.5" iMac will only have 2 Thunderbolt ports ... and the interwebs will implode because of it. We won't see expansion parity until the M2.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 78
    lkrupp said:
    I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
    5 years? Really? Where did you get that from? I have a late 2013 iMac with a 1TB Fusion drive. DriveDx (a respected disk health monitor app) reports the 128GB SSD portion of the Fusion drive is 100% good and has 67% of its life left. So after 7 years all is well and predicted to function well for more years still.

    So, really, where did you come up with this bullshit number?
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontrack.com/amp/en-us/how-long-do-ssds-really-last/Y3FlazhwYUFXdDNFMUs4eDhuUk1VZ1R3Rnl3PQ2

    10 years advertised but according to a study 25% less often, so 7.5 years.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-lifetime-of-SSD/answer/Irn%C3%A9-Barnard?ch=10&share=c08b4b6d&srid=znDLO

    Between 5-10 years.

    So yes, I was on the conservative side, but hardly “bullshitting”. Next time, try to approach me and others less aggressively but more respectful instead. I am not interested in juvenile behavior from random, anonymous people. Thanks 🙏 
    edited November 2020 muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Reply 52 of 78
    I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
    Ok, quick poll, comment below if you've have replaced a failed SSD in your MacBook (and not covered by Apple Care).

    Personally, I've never experienced a failed SSD, let alone felt the need to replace it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 78
    I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
    Ok, quick poll, comment below if you've have replaced a failed SSD in your MacBook (and not covered by Apple Care).

    Personally, I've never experienced a failed SSD, let alone felt the need to replace it.
    Just like anything else, YMMV when it comes to failing SSDs. It all depends on a lot of variables. How you treat your computer, what is the environment your computer is in, etc. From my Genius friends at my local Apple Store, the biggest issue is a failed logic board rather than the SSD. When that happens, if you didn’t back up your stuff, you’re screwed. The silver lining is since the new Macs will have less chips on the logic board, the failure rate should go down. 

    Btw, thank you for having the foresight to protect your Mac with Applecare. There are still many people who think it’s not needed and those are the ones who are pissed that having a hardware issue after two years should be Apple’s responsibility to cover and not their own. 
    CheeseFreezewatto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 78
    2015 iMac with Apple 512G SSD.
    DriveDx health rating 100% with no errors
    DriveDx lifetime left indicator 84%
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 78
    DuhSesame said:
    Being fanless doesn’t mean it’s great.  I have no doubt that even U-series chips can run without active cooling.  Whether you want that it’s another question.

    also worth noting Apple doesn’t pick the Y just for “fanless.”
    Talk about missing the point...

    It’s great, not because it’s fabless, but because it whoops hot Intel i9 processors WHILE BEING FANLESS! 
    williamlondonchiawatto_cobrarazorpit
  • Reply 56 of 78
    XedXed Posts: 2,700member
    I just remembered another false argument about why Apple Silicon was going to fail. There was an assumption that Apple couldn't possibly best Intel so their Rosetta emulation software would be too slow to be useful, whereas the switch from PPC to Intel had a significant performance leap that made Rosetta feasible.

    That clearly isn't the case, and it's even possible Apple is using some of those 16 billion transitions to assist in emulation for the next several years before detracting it.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 78
    The lesson here is that Apple is blowing the doors off high end Intel CPUs ... with budget end, M Series chips that don’t even need active cooling in some cases. 

    That is CRAZY. 

    This is obviously hurting some serious feelings right now. 

    Alol those so hurt should strongly invest in a support system. We don’t want to worry about you when the Apple heavy Metal comes out. 

    Especially concerned for that Linus Tech Tips guy. Sorry buddy, but your computer just got owner by a “smart toaster” processor. LOL
    williamlondonwatto_cobrarazorpit
  • Reply 58 of 78
    sbdudesbdude Posts: 276member
    riverko said:
    I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
    Well, someone probably forgot to tell to my MacBook Pro Retina Mid-2012 that his SSD is 3 years over due...

    Same here, though it's also replaceable for what it's worth.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 78
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,584member
    cloudguy said:
    All right. I will eat crow. I have long claimed that there was no way that Apple Silicon would match the Core i7 at launch and would probably be in line with the Core i3 or at best Core i5. I was wrong. I shall go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on now. 

    But while on my way to the corner I will protest:

    Apple did not reach this performance with the 4 and 6 core iPhone and iPad chips as people were claiming previously. Apple only reached this performance with an octacore chip that was specifically designed for use in personal computers - not mobile devices - that requires more cores, more power and dissipate more heat. We have always known that this was possible, as modern (meaning a ARM Holdings design base and not the Sun Sparc and other early RISC servers that go back to the 1980s) Linux-based ARM workstations and servers have existed since at least 2011 (the year after the A4 was released). Ubuntu has had official ARM releases since 2012, and HP - the venerable Wintel manufacturer - has been selling them to data centers since 2014. 

    So I was absolutely right about Apple not being able to build a MacBook Pro or iMac with a 6 core chip that had 128kb/8MB caches (the M1 is octacore with 192kb/12MB caches). As lots of people on this site and elsewhere were indeed claiming that the 4 and 6 core low power/low heat iPhone chips could absolutely be put in a MacBook Pro and work as good or better ... yeah those people were as wrong as I was and even more so. 

    Now in the corner of shame I go, sucking my thumb in the process. But you folks who claimed that this would have been possible with the iPhone chips need to go to corners of their own.
    Jeeze. Really, back in June Apple stated that they wouldn’t be using iOS chips for their new Macs. It didn’t take a genius to understand what they were saying. I’ve been saying here, for years, that Apple would have to do something special in order to have a viable way to have macOS on their mobile chips. So what? It was obvious, or at least, it should have been.
    chiamuthuk_vanalingamradarthekatwatto_cobraMplsPrazorpit
  • Reply 60 of 78
    mhgmhg Posts: 2member
    cloudguy said:

    So I was absolutely right
    Whilst the M1 does have 8 cores, four are high performance cores and four are efficiency core: they are not equal. I don't know much about the Intel Core i7, but I suspect all cores are "high performance" cores. Saying the M1 has 8 cores in comparison with the Intel Core i7 is probably not correct.
    GrayeaglewilliamlondontmayhydrogenentropysStrangeDayscornchipwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.