Intel swipes at Apple Silicon with selective benchmark claims

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 68
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,394member
    blastdoor said:
    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?
    Battery life, heat, and fan noise are real considerations for lots of folks.

    But I agree with your other points about software availability being a very important consideration. The big one continues to be games. I bet apple could triple Mac market share (or more) if they eliminated the gaming gap with windows 
    Xedmuthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMacwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 68
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,304member
    Apple always manages to trigger sleeping companies when it advances. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 68
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,828member
    lkrupp said:
    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. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 24 of 68
    I’m a long term windows user who will definitely buy a MacBook as my next laptop. If Apple offered a more reasonably priced option (I’m in Europe. I know the US value proposition is stronger), it really would be game over for Intel, and a major headache for Microsoft. As things stand, Intel can compete in the lower end laptop market. 
    edited February 7 watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 68
    doggonedoggone Posts: 290member
    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.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 68
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,699member
    Companies that rely on cherry-picking benchmarks of their choosing should probably be in the cherry picking business, not making microprocessors. 
    EsquireCatsJWSCtechconcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 68
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member
    “ straining to paint itself in the best light” - eel, yeah. That’s what marketing does. They ignore all the other evidence except the few bits that make their point. 

    CPU and system comparisons have be becoming more difficult for years as various CPUs will excel in some areas and lag in others; If you rely on a specific piece of software that is significantly faster on an intel machine then that machine would make more sense for you. I'm sure there are some tasks for which an intel CPU truly does better than the M1, but cherry-picking a bunch of non-standard measures that specifically exclude the advantages on one side is far from a reasonable comparison. 

    Several people have made the statement "this is just the M1, wait for the M2!" One should be careful with this; implicit is the assumption that M2 will be an order of magnitude better than the M1. That may be, but it remains to be seen, so we can't really assume that will be the case. Clearly, Apple has plans to advance the capabilities since the Mac Pro is presumably on their timeline for the conversion, so it's not unreasonable to expect improvements, but for now all we know is the M1.
    edited February 7 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 68
    y2any2an Posts: 88member
    They compared an 11th gen i7 with an entry level M1. They should be embarrassed...
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 68
    Intel should have said something like how they welcome competition from not only Apple but other companies as well as that will cause Intel to strive for better products. Instead they went with the I’ll take my ball home if you don’t like it approach and looked like morons instead. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 68
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    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. 
    Actually, this s quite embarrassing for Intel. Apple is owning them in the real world and in all of the benchmarks the youtubers are putting out. Even die hard WinTel guys are tripping out. 

    Intel is a CPU company. Their CPUs just got put on notice. 

    Apple's M series lays the smack down royally. 

    So much so, that even Microsoft is talking publicly about wanting to do something similar to Apple.

    Problem is, MS sucks at hardware. 

    Intel is facing the soon prospect of their partners hating them for not being able to compete. they know this. So they are placating their crowd right now. It's smoke, but it may stop the bleeding in the short term. 

    Meanwhile, Apple will be coming out with chips that actually have a good number of dedicated performance cores and improved capabilities. 

    The M1 already owns and it's just the budget chip. These will be nightmares for Intel. 

    The Windows guys will be begging for hardware to compete with Apple. As. multimedia director and creator myself, speed is huge. The ability to produce a 4k final product from start to finish is huge. Photoshop speed, After Effects, etc. It all adds up quite a bit. Then there is the regular usage smoothness and snappy feel. It feels magical compared to X86. 

    Intel is going to need to reinvent like a big boy or risk being abandoned by its partners. 





    williamlondonwatto_cobraargonaut
  • Reply 31 of 68

    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    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?
    Battery life, heat, and fan noise are real considerations for lots of folks.

    But I agree with your other points about software availability being a very important consideration. The big one continues to be games. I bet apple could triple Mac market share (or more) if they eliminated the gaming gap with windows 
    Totally agreed on gaming.

    If Apple made a true run for making Macs gaming machines along with the best multimedia creation devices, they'd dominated the market. Macs operate more similar to embedded devices than PCs - especially true in moving to the M series SOCs. Everything is so tightly integrated. Translate that to gaming and it's the better than PC power with the benefit of console - like code refinement and performance targeting. 

    Half-Life 3 on M series? Yes please. 
    blastdoorwatto_cobraargonaut
  • Reply 32 of 68
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,871member
    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."


    edited February 8 williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 68
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,871member
    sdw2001 said:
    I look at these benchmarks and don't see a good reason to stick with intel....

    My grandson would likely say the same -- until he 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.
    What can’t he do?  Your comparison sounds a little ridiculous.  An M1 Mac can basically do anything a consumer grade machine needs to do.  Even without native support.  The only exception might be gaming, but most people aren’t buying Macs for gaming anyway.  

    It cannot reliably run the proprietary applications his school requires him to use because they are designed for Windows.

    That is:  it is simply not true that an M1 Mac can "basically do anything a consumer grade machine needs to do" because it is unable to run Windows nor can it run the proprietary applications that only run on Windows.  So, like a Porsche with a dead battery, it doesn't matter how fast it is.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 34 of 68
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,871member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    sdw2001 said:
    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.

    Very true!
    Further:   Apple's main goal here is not to develop their own chip for what is, for them, a marginal product and likely a money loser.  Rather it is to fold it into their overall iOS based ecosystem and  both contribute to  and benefit from its synergy.

    In other words, they had less incentive to break away from Intel processors per se than they did from how it blocked them integrating the Mac into the rest of Apple's ecosystem.  Now, they can fully develop MacOS the way that they want much as they did with iPadOS -- where it has its own power and features but still fully integrates with Apple's other product (mostly iOS).
  • Reply 35 of 68
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,871member
    doggone said:
    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.
    edited February 8
  • Reply 36 of 68
    One of the most skewed benchmarks in a long time. Intel should be ashamed of themselves. Had they done this a few weeks ago, I may have chosen AMD over Intel for my PC upgrade.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 68
    sdw2001 said:

    bulk001 said:
    Intel’s hubris is made worse by the fact that Apple has never selectively highlighted facts that make them look better than their competition!!! (/s for those
    of you with your jock strap too tight to miss it). While interesting, the reality is that we are 7 months into a 24 month transition with a first gen chip. Once major software from companies like Adobe are fully transitioned we will know the real world results. If this transition is what it takes to move Intel along then it is a win for a lot of people and companies not just Apple users. And if accurate, they will force Apple to work even harder!
    OK, to be fair that is not true at all, particularly as it applies to the power PC versus Intel era.  Apple pretty much did nothing but photoshop comparisons.  Were you around for the “megahertz myth?”  There was some truth to it, but Apple played it up big time. Intel is doing the exact same thing now. The difference is it’s not going to work.  
    If one bothered to do an exhaustive search I am sure you would find other examples but here is one recent claim from Apple re: iPhone waterproofing https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-water-resistance-waterproof-fine-waterproof-italy-2020-11
    Now Apple has to be judged by the same standards everyone is holding Intel to. 
    edited February 8
  • Reply 38 of 68
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member
    bulk001 said:
    sdw2001 said:

    bulk001 said:
    Intel’s hubris is made worse by the fact that Apple has never selectively highlighted facts that make them look better than their competition!!! (/s for those
    of you with your jock strap too tight to miss it). While interesting, the reality is that we are 7 months into a 24 month transition with a first gen chip. Once major software from companies like Adobe are fully transitioned we will know the real world results. If this transition is what it takes to move Intel along then it is a win for a lot of people and companies not just Apple users. And if accurate, they will force Apple to work even harder!
    OK, to be fair that is not true at all, particularly as it applies to the power PC versus Intel era.  Apple pretty much did nothing but photoshop comparisons.  Were you around for the “megahertz myth?”  There was some truth to it, but Apple played it up big time. Intel is doing the exact same thing now. The difference is it’s not going to work.  
    If one bothered to do an exhaustive search I am sure you would find other examples but here is one recent claim from Apple re: iPhone waterproofing https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-water-resistance-waterproof-fine-waterproof-italy-2020-11
    Now Apple has to be judged by the same standards everyone is holding Intel to. 
    Not really the same thing. Apple advertised its phones as meeting IP68 standards, which they did. The fine was because real world conditions didn't match laboratory conditions. Go figure. For something like water resistance there are an infinite number of variables so the only way to make any sort of measurement is to control for all of them. It's not unlike someone complaining that a company showed a processor's speed for an excel spreadsheet but It didn't perform as well on a numbers spreadsheet or photoshop. 

    In this case, Intel is cherry picking benchmarks and specific tasks that put the M1 at a disadvantage while ignoring others that are likely a better comparison and there are plenty of real-world comparisons that have the M1 besting intel. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 68
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member

    doggone said:
    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'
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 68
    blastdoor said:
    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.
    Xedwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.