The only advantage for Apple Silicon on paper seems to just be the power efficiency.
The biggest advantages are the GPUs and special silicon for hardware encoding.
Intel's GPUs are still terrible, this is their latest and greatest IGP and is less than 1/5th the performance of a 3060, which is roughly equivalent to an M1 Max:
This requires pairing Intel's chip with a 3rd party GPU, which itself will draw 40W+. Intel's chart compares the entire SoC power.
For efficiency, the node advantage Apple has contributes the most and Intel will eventually catch up. Intel plans to match them by 2025 but they're still more than a full node behind as far as density.
Also, the only reason they are improving now is because Apple dropped them, their roadmap before was half the pace.
The other downside to Intel was price on higher-end chips. People will be surprised when the Max Duo and possibly higher chips come out and compare performance per dollar vs Intel.
It’s always easy to have the best chip on paper benchmarks when it hasn’t shipped yet. considering the amount of digital contorsions required to support the antiquated x86 mode, I doubt very much they can make a processor that gets anywhere near M1Max performance. I guess we’ll see when they ship, but I doubt very much I’ll be using an Intel processor again in the foreseeable future.
Many were very eager to write off Intel. They were down, but they're certainly not out.
Not out as in filing for bankruptcy? Obviously not. That may never happen in our lifetime, but they are clearly out in terms of performance per watt. PPW is extremely important. There's a reason why Intel Atom isn't a real contender in the smartphone market and why Apple was able to scale up their mobile chip development to compete with Intel's performance at a faction of the power draw.
If you believe they merely have to "get back up" to have the fastest chip for a given PPW, how exactly do you think that's possible with the current path forward? I certainly don't see it.
I like to compare Apple vs Intel with Tesla vs GM (possibly Ford). GM is definitely done, they have no way to even try and catch Tesla. They can talk the talk, like Intel, but talk is cheap. Sure, GM will continue to make vehicles until the money runs out but like Intel they really don’t have anything that compares favorably in the long term to Tesla/Apple. Game, set already has happened for both. We’ll see how long it takes for match.
That chart (and claim) is based on a single metric from a dozen benchmarks as part of the SPECrate 2017 tests. Need to wait and see about real world tests.
Let’s also not forget, the M1 CPU cores are almost 18 months old now. Intel would be severely embarrassed if they didn’t have ANYTHING to show.
One last note, when your “mobile” CPU performance drops by 55% when the device is not plugged in… you basically failed.
This is gotta be fun. I should throw some more facts to add some fuel /s
1. The M1 Max by cinebench r23 is about 30% slower to 12700H; 2. M2 by report only offer a modest performer boost. 3. The 2-die Max Duo, supposedly used by the iMac Pro, is estimated to be ~26000, by comparison, the 12900K offers ~27000.
The only advantage for Apple Silicon on paper seems to just be the power efficiency. According to Anandtech, M1 uses roughly 17 watts when running cb23, slightly lower to the 20-24 watt maximum.
Have fun, and remember, Think Different /s.
Congrats… you just pointed out the main reason Apple ditched Intel. Apple isn’t reaching for massive GPCPU performance. They are clearly more interested in overall system performance and efficiency by incorporating more and more coprocessors to offload tasks to.
Furthermore, comparing a brand new CPU with one that’s about 18 months old is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating how “powerful” your new cores are.
That chart (and claim) is based on a single metric from a dozen benchmarks as part of the SPECrate 2017 tests. Need to wait and see about real world tests.
Let’s also not forget, the M1 CPU cores are almost 18 months old now. Intel would be severely embarrassed if they didn’t have ANYTHING to show.
One last note, when your “mobile” CPU performance drops by 55% when the device is not plugged in… you basically failed.
Actually, I thought I heard the M1 Pro and Max were totally redesigned.
So its ridiculous that Intel's comparing emulated software to its new chips. I bet it cannot perform fast enough with enough power efficiency.
That is completely wrong. That link is comparing x86 After Effects emulated on the M1 and nativeAfter Effects. An Intel CPU is not involved.
What I mean is that Intel is comparing performance of emulated software (intel code on M1) on M1 to native x86 apps on their x86 chips. The article said, "Intel said it conducted some of its productivity testing for platforms like Adobe Premiere Probefore those apps were optimized for Apple Silicon."
As the link shows, there's a HUGE performance boost when it got compiled and optimized for native Apple Silicon thus Intel's benchmark is questionable.
Build a power hungry, thermally challenged chip based on some Apple CPU principles and voila! It’s pretty fast.
Then talk about it in a laptop being pretty fast whenever it is actually available. For how long? Who knows? But it’s apparently pretty fast.
Meanwhile Apple is over here actually SHIPPING their own fast chips being cool and efficient. And it’s their first generation.
By the time Intel comes out with this, Apple will already have a base version of the M2 shipped.
And Apple has already tested production of the M3.
Even in the first generation, a quad M1 Max will humble the volcanic Intel offerings.
Apple is about making the chips scream while preserving integrity. Intel is just about trying to lay a claim above Apple, chip integrity, longevity, and cooling needs notwithstanding. And it’s taken them a year and a half just to get to this point.
Let’s just savor this moment. How many of us thought we’d ever see a performance benchmark graph coming from Intel that compares, not AMD, but Apple as the rival they wish to beat. And having to resort to vague terms and crazy wattage to do so. Wow.
It’s not that Intel has fallen so much as it is Apple has risen and is not only dominating, but poised to do so in even greater ways this year and beyond.
Many were very eager to write off Intel. They were down, but they're certainly not out.
Not out as in filing for bankruptcy? Obviously not. That may never happen in our lifetime, but they are clearly out in terms of performance per watt. PPW is extremely important. There's a reason why Intel Atom isn't a real contender in the smartphone market and why Apple was able to scale up their mobile chip development to compete with Intel's performance at a faction of the power draw.
If you believe they merely have to "get back up" to have the fastest chip for a given PPW, how exactly do you think that's possible with the current path forward? I certainly don't see it.
Intel needs to go back to the drawing board like Nokia, Palm, Blackberry, Microsoft Phone, Motorola, and Sony needed to do in 2007 with the intro of the iPhone, Intel is disrupted and without a in house OS to go with their new cpu designs they are done…..
Apple will do servers too and a modem, Qualcomm is also on the dart board next to Intel and their turn will come too….
That chart (and claim) is based on a single metric from a dozen benchmarks as part of the SPECrate 2017 tests. Need to wait and see about real world tests.
Let’s also not forget, the M1 CPU cores are almost 18 months old now. Intel would be severely embarrassed if they didn’t have ANYTHING to show.
One last note, when your “mobile” CPU performance drops by 55% when the device is not plugged in… you basically failed.
Actually, I thought I heard the M1 Pro and Max were totally redesigned.
Those two CPU’s are designed done and dusted, the Apple team is working on what comes after 2021 and 2222….
What I mean is that Intel is comparing performance of emulated software (intel code on M1) on M1 to native x86 apps on their x86 chips. The article said, "Intel said it conducted some of its productivity testing for platforms like Adobe Premiere Pro before those apps were optimized for Apple Silicon."
If you actually look at the Intel chart, they're using the PugetBench plugin in Premiere and Lightroom, both of which are ASi native.
The Apple mantra on processors is “performance per Watt”. When Apple first opened talks with Intel about the Mac’s transition to Intel chips, this truly blindsided Intel as they thought the way forward was forever better heat dissipation. For Apple, with an ever-increasing proportion of its products in the mobile category, it was simply a matter of physics. More heat = more Watts = bigger batteries/shorter battery life/noisier fans/hotter surfaces etc. - all things an anathema to Apple.
The newly announced, but not released, Intel chips are still at least a generation away (easily 50%) in terms of performance per Watt than Apple M1s that have been shipping in actual products for over a year! I think that puts Apple a comfortable 2 to 3 chip generations, or around 4-6 years ahead of Intel. Anyone can obtain better performance by throwing more power at the problem. Just transform the M1 Max curve on Intel’s own chart by a factor 2 in the X and Y axes and suddenly Intel’s latest (pre-)announcement looks rather embarrassing. In fact, the M1 Max x 2 curve would literally be off the performance axis shown.
Wait until real World performance metrics are published by third parties of actual shipping products at the (same) time.
I have great distain for intel. I can not wait to see Apple further blast them. It will not even be a contest. The speed at which Apple can move is far beyond anything Intel can do. Intel has constantly and for too many years been the reason Apple's innovation was slowed/stale. That and the lack of power efficient chips, was a huge factor for Apple to jump ship and go at it on their own. No more Slow, Power hungry, Lap burning hot, loud fan spinning intel chips... Welcome quiet, fast, cool powerful M-series, Apple Silicon!
Many were very eager to write off Intel. They were down, but they're certainly not out.
Not out as in filing for bankruptcy? Obviously not. That may never happen in our lifetime, but they are clearly out in terms of performance per watt. PPW is extremely important. There's a reason why Intel Atom isn't a real contender in the smartphone market and why Apple was able to scale up their mobile chip development to compete with Intel's performance at a faction of the power draw.
If you believe they merely have to "get back up" to have the fastest chip for a given PPW, how exactly do you think that's possible with the current path forward? I certainly don't see it.
I don't think that's true. They are fairly competitive in performance per watt. What they haven't yet mastered is low-power performance. But this is the first Intel generation to embrace a big.LITTLE-type architecture, and it shows a marked improvement. They're getting there.
So, they were down, but they're not out. And they also have Arc coming. So not yet a write off.
I like to compare Apple vs Intel with Tesla vs GM (possibly Ford). GM is definitely done, they have no way to even try and catch Tesla. They can talk the talk, like Intel, but talk is cheap. Sure, GM will continue to make vehicles until the money runs out but like Intel they really don’t have anything that compares favorably in the long term to Tesla/Apple. Game, set already has happened for both. We’ll see how long it takes for match.
I'm always impressed with how little actual knowledge of the automotive market Tesla supporters have. Thanks for the anecdotal evidence of that.
Meanwhile, Ford, Toyota, VW, GM, and just about every automotive company generates more profits than Tesla. How can that be?
Oh wait, you're talking about the stock...
Meanwhile, Ford, et al, are having to add ever more production for their EV trucks. Meanwhile, Tesla is still attempting to define what it's Cybertruck will be.
Ford and GM are simply dropping an electric motor and batteries into existing vehicles. Yes, Tesla has not sold as many cars as the others although the Model 3 has been the highest selling vehicle in the US. Ford and GM publish lots of garbage saying everything is under control and they’ll make millions of EVs. No they won’t. Toyota says they’ll build BEVs bug that’s only to keep federal agencies from fining them. No existing ICE manufacturer really wants to go EV because they already make tons of money so why change.
These companies are looking to completely shift to alternative fuel sources in the next 5 to 10 years. For instance Honda announced all of their vehicles will be electrified by 2030.
This really isn't Apple processors vs Intel processors.
It's ARM based processors vs x86 based processors.
ARM has always been known for its efficiency the other for cheap, raw power.
It will be interesting to see where this rivalry goes when Windows starts supporting ARM processors and multiple manufacturers churn them out -- from cheap, low powered ones to high end processors. And, I would expect that Intel will be one of them (unless NVIDIA blocks them) because the only reason they don't have an ARM license right now is pride -- and a lack of machines to put them in.
Windows is the key here. Until they fully support ARM, it will remain Apple vs Intel.
That chart (and claim) is based on a single metric from a dozen benchmarks as part of the SPECrate 2017 tests. Need to wait and see about real world tests.
Let’s also not forget, the M1 CPU cores are almost 18 months old now. Intel would be severely embarrassed if they didn’t have ANYTHING to show.
One last note, when your “mobile” CPU performance drops by 55% when the device is not plugged in… you basically failed.
Actually, I thought I heard the M1 Pro and Max were totally redesigned.
The SoC is a completely different design than the M1. (Think of the Pro/Max as the M1X.) But the CPU cores (as well as most others) are the same.
As others have pointed out, intel is comparing their latest (preproduction) chip/design with Apple’s chip that’s been out for over a year, they’re giving a single benchmark using tools that designed & optimized for x86 architecture but not the M1 and ignoring the rest of the system. Kind of changes the meaning when you put it in perspective.
But to borrow a phrase, the reports of Intel’s death have been greatly exaggerated. For sure, intel has fallen behind in processor design and fabrication, but for the time being at least, they have a guaranteed market from MS Windows. Beyond that, they have a large market in other areas. This announcement is more important for PR purposes than it is for their business as a whole.
Comments
Intel's GPUs are still terrible, this is their latest and greatest IGP and is less than 1/5th the performance of a 3060, which is roughly equivalent to an M1 Max:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/GeForce-RTX-3060-Laptop-GPU-vs-Iris-Xe-G7-96EUs_10478_10364.247598.0.html
This requires pairing Intel's chip with a 3rd party GPU, which itself will draw 40W+. Intel's chart compares the entire SoC power.
For efficiency, the node advantage Apple has contributes the most and Intel will eventually catch up. Intel plans to match them by 2025 but they're still more than a full node behind as far as density.
Also, the only reason they are improving now is because Apple dropped them, their roadmap before was half the pace.
The other downside to Intel was price on higher-end chips. People will be surprised when the Max Duo and possibly higher chips come out and compare performance per dollar vs Intel.
considering the amount of digital contorsions required to support the antiquated x86 mode, I doubt very much they can make a processor that gets anywhere near M1Max performance. I guess we’ll see when they ship, but I doubt very much I’ll be using an Intel processor again in the foreseeable future.
If you believe they merely have to "get back up" to have the fastest chip for a given PPW, how exactly do you think that's possible with the current path forward? I certainly don't see it.
Let’s also not forget, the M1 CPU cores are almost 18 months old now. Intel would be severely embarrassed if they didn’t have ANYTHING to show.
One last note, when your “mobile” CPU performance drops by 55% when the device is not plugged in… you basically failed.
Congrats… you just pointed out the main reason Apple ditched Intel. Apple isn’t reaching for massive GPCPU performance. They are clearly more interested in overall system performance and efficiency by incorporating more and more coprocessors to offload tasks to.
Furthermore, comparing a brand new CPU with one that’s about 18 months old is a rather lame attempt at demonstrating how “powerful” your new cores are.
What I mean is that Intel is comparing performance of emulated software (intel code on M1) on M1 to native x86 apps on their x86 chips. The article said, "Intel said it conducted some of its productivity testing for platforms like Adobe Premiere Pro before those apps were optimized for Apple Silicon."
As the link shows, there's a HUGE performance boost when it got compiled and optimized for native Apple Silicon thus Intel's benchmark is questionable.
Intel needs to go back to the drawing board like Nokia, Palm, Blackberry, Microsoft Phone, Motorola, and Sony needed to do in 2007 with the intro of the iPhone, Intel is disrupted and without a in house OS to go with their new cpu designs they are done…..
Apple will do servers too and a modem, Qualcomm is also on the dart board next to Intel and their turn will come too….
The newly announced, but not released, Intel chips are still at least a generation away (easily 50%) in terms of performance per Watt than Apple M1s that have been shipping in actual products for over a year! I think that puts Apple a comfortable 2 to 3 chip generations, or around 4-6 years ahead of Intel. Anyone can obtain better performance by throwing more power at the problem. Just transform the M1 Max curve on Intel’s own chart by a factor 2 in the X and Y axes and suddenly Intel’s latest (pre-)announcement looks rather embarrassing. In fact, the M1 Max x 2 curve would literally be off the performance axis shown.
So, they were down, but they're not out. And they also have Arc coming. So not yet a write off.
The SoC is a completely different design than the M1. (Think of the Pro/Max as the M1X.) But the CPU cores (as well as most others) are the same.