Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel....
Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel….
You're seeing this all wrong. Intel is losing a customer, but not just any customer, but one that has exclusively used their chips since 2006 for their Macs despite AMD having some better options in terms of cost and performance per watt. Intel has also used Apple's Mac Pro to showcase new chips (read: market).
Additionally, moves Apple makes ripple through the entire industry so if Apple is making ARM-based chips work for traditional computing then you damn well should expect to see that momentum increase through the industry. All these things translate into Intel having less of a presence and making less money.
Personally, I hope Intel can figure things out and be competitive again because they're an American company, but that's not not eh horizon any time soon.
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.
Where? It is literally stated as "N/A" in the chart for LR. And there is no significant diifernec sin performance between M1 MAX vs the newest Intel and it looks like baseline M1 is faster than baseline Intel, and that's on unoptimized version! With native Apple silicon optimization, it may likely show a huge boost.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the cost. This high-end CPU may be faster, but how will their lower end chips compare against the CPUs in the relatively inexpensive Macbook Air, especially in terms of cost?
Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel….
You're seeing this all wrong. Intel is losing a customer, but not just any customer, but one that has exclusively used their chips since 2006 for their Macs despite AMD having some better options in terms of cost and performance per watt. Intel has also used Apple's Mac Pro to showcase new chips (read: market).
Additionally, moves Apple makes ripple through the entire industry so if Apple is making ARM-based chips work for traditional computing then you damn well should expect to see that momentum increase through the industry. All these things translate into Intel having less of a presence and making less money.
Personally, I hope Intel can figure things out and be competitive again because they're an American company, but that's not not eh horizon any time soon.
Great American companies fade away because technology paradigm shifted and their businesses model are not able to cope. Kodak is good example.
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 is precisely what this Intel announcement is about. It’s not about competing with Apple. What Apple did was demonstrate to the world that an ARM architecture can compete directly on price and performance with PC chips. Intel are terrified that the PC OEMs have taken note will move rapidly toward ARM based SOCs and that MS could help pave the way.
This is a stopgap measure aimed to reassure existing OEM customers, while Intel considers how to more directly respond to the threat. The clock it ticking.
Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel….
You're seeing this all wrong. Intel is losing a customer, but not just any customer, but one that has exclusively used their chips since 2006 for their Macs despite AMD having some better options in terms of cost and performance per watt. Intel has also used Apple's Mac Pro to showcase new chips (read: market).
Additionally, moves Apple makes ripple through the entire industry so if Apple is making ARM-based chips work for traditional computing then you damn well should expect to see that momentum increase through the industry. All these things translate into Intel having less of a presence and making less money.
Personally, I hope Intel can figure things out and be competitive again because they're an American company, but that's not not eh horizon any time soon.
Great American companies fade away because technology paradigm shifted and their businesses model are not able to cope. Kodak is good example.
Thanks for the dystopian Snapple cap history lesson.
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
If you believe the chart, it shows the i9-12900HK with better performance per watt than the M1 Max in the 30-35W range. Real world comparisons I don't know about, we'll need to wait for benchmarks.
Intel's Alder Lake chips are bench marked at 5 GHz. Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro runs at 3.2 GHz. Since performance is proportional to clock speed. Apple could easily overtake Alder Lake chips by raising the clock speed.
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
If you believe the chart, it shows the i9-12900HK with better performance per watt than the M1 Max in the 30-35W range. Real world comparisons I don't know about, we'll need to wait for benchmarks.
You know… It is really telling that Intel chose a single metric to base this claim on; a CPU “copy” throughput metric that may not have any significance on how the rest of the CPU performs. Especially since x86 CPUs are hamstrung by their variable width instructions and decoders. Even AMD has admitted to this as a huge limitation that there is no work around for.
And hasn’t Intel been caught with their pants down before with pre-release CPU benchmarking?
Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel….
You're seeing this all wrong. Intel is losing a customer, but not just any customer, but one that has exclusively used their chips since 2006 for their Macs despite AMD having some better options in terms of cost and performance per watt. Intel has also used Apple's Mac Pro to showcase new chips (read: market).
Additionally, moves Apple makes ripple through the entire industry so if Apple is making ARM-based chips work for traditional computing then you damn well should expect to see that momentum increase through the industry. All these things translate into Intel having less of a presence and making less money.
Personally, I hope Intel can figure things out and be competitive again because they're an American company, but that's not not eh horizon any time soon.
Great American companies fade away because technology paradigm shifted and their businesses model are not able to cope. Kodak is good example.
The whole S&P500 is a good example. How many '500 companies from 50 years ago are still on it? I forget the exact number, but it's very low -- like 20 or something.
Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel….
You're seeing this all wrong. Intel is losing a customer, but not just any customer, but one that has exclusively used their chips since 2006 for their Macs despite AMD having some better options in terms of cost and performance per watt. Intel has also used Apple's Mac Pro to showcase new chips (read: market).
Additionally, moves Apple makes ripple through the entire industry so if Apple is making ARM-based chips work for traditional computing then you damn well should expect to see that momentum increase through the industry. All these things translate into Intel having less of a presence and making less money.
Personally, I hope Intel can figure things out and be competitive again because they're an American company, but that's not not eh horizon any time soon.
Great American companies fade away because technology paradigm shifted and their businesses model are not able to cope. Kodak is good example.
The whole S&P500 is a good example. How many '500 companies from 50 years ago are still on it? I forget the exact number, but it's very low -- like 20 or something.
Do you remember Wang Laboratory? It used to dominate office computer market. It failed to make the transition to PC.
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
If you believe the chart, it shows the i9-12900HK with better performance per watt than the M1 Max in the 30-35W range. Real world comparisons I don't know about, we'll need to wait for benchmarks.
You know… It is really telling that Intel chose a single metric to base this claim on; a CPU “copy” throughput metric that may not have any significance on how the rest of the CPU performs.
Meh, Apple's vague charts aren't all that much better. I think it's a given that the marketing will emphasise strengths and downplay or outright omit weaknesses. No sense in criticising Intel any more than anyone else.
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
If you believe the chart, it shows the i9-12900HK with better performance per watt than the M1 Max in the 30-35W range. Real world comparisons I don't know about, we'll need to wait for benchmarks.
You know… It is really telling that Intel chose a single metric to base this claim on; a CPU “copy” throughput metric that may not have any significance on how the rest of the CPU performs.
Meh, Apple's vague charts aren't all that much better. I think it's a given that the marketing will emphasise strengths and downplay or outright omit weaknesses. No sense in criticising Intel any more than anyone else.
Has nothing to do with vague charts… has everything to do with using a single metric (which is just one of a dozen in a suite of SPECrate benchmarks) as a basis to make a bold claim of overall performance. Most benchmark suites give individual test scores and an overall score. Why do they do this, because specific optimizations can be made that enhance performance in one area, but may degrade performance in another. So where’s the overall SPECrate score?
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.
Where? It is literally stated as "N/A" in the chart for LR. And there is no significant diifernec sin performance between M1 MAX vs the newest Intel and it looks like baseline M1 is faster than baseline Intel, and that's on unoptimized version! With native Apple silicon optimization, it may likely show a huge boost.
Oh, LrC PugetBench plugin doesn't exist for macOS currently. I missed also the part about them saying they performed tests before Premiere was native, so that's also suspect — it's fully native now so I'm curious to see a revised set of graphs here! What a bullshit chart.
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
It's the same usual misleading tactics by Intel. It was tested here:
It used up to 115W just for the CPU package and averaged 63W just to get around 15% faster than their last-gen i9-11980HK (this chip is around the same as M1 Pro and Max CPU). They are saying the chip is basically the same as their desktop i9 chip but throttled down, like what Nvidia does with their notebook GPUs. Temperature went to 99C just during the benchmark. The AMD they compared it to used half the power. What a joke. Apple's chip uses under 40W for the CPU.
In the same test, Intel's i9-11980HK used 82W to get the same result as the M1 Max, which used 34W (or what they assume was the CPU package power, the wall power is much lower than the Intel laptop). Apple's still at least 2 years ahead of Intel on efficiency (obvious because they are on 5nm) and 5-6 years ahead in IGP performance.
Intel has to do this marketing to appease their investors and the tech bros who buy their enthusiast chips. To some people having the best score is all that matters regardless if you are leaving 3rd degree burns on their legs. We'll see what they can do in 2024, they are claiming to have 40% gain in performance/watt by then. They need 100% gain today. By 2024, Apple will be on at least 3nm with a further 70% gain over what they have now.
Competition is all well and good, but Intel isn't really competing with Apple. Intel is competing with AMD. With the market 90%+ Wintel and <10% Apple, Apple is niche competitor. Ever wonder what tools Apple uses to design & engineer the M1 / M2 chips? Guess what they run on Intel....
I've noticed this, you can see in the lab that they're using Windows-only Modelsim in full screen on Intel Macs. Irony much. I doubt they'll continue to show Modelsim once they obsolete their Intel Macs.
Apple's best argument for the M1X was that it can run at maximum performance including graphics while on battery power. Intel still can't make this claim. No laptop can use 75 watts of power for long.
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.
You're saying that Intel's 12-gen mobile processors will have a better performance per watt in real world comparisons?
It's the same usual misleading tactics by Intel. It was tested here:
It used up to 115W just for the CPU package and averaged 63W just to get around 15% faster than their last-gen i9-11980HK (this chip is around the same as M1 Pro and Max CPU). They are saying the chip is basically the same as their desktop i9 chip but throttled down, like what Nvidia does with their notebook GPUs. Temperature went to 99C just during the benchmark. The AMD they compared it to used half the power. What a joke. Apple's chip uses under 40W for the CPU.
In the same test, Intel's i9-11980HK used 82W to get the same result as the M1 Max, which used 34W (or what they assume was the CPU package power, the wall power is much lower than the Intel laptop). Apple's still at least 2 years ahead of Intel on efficiency (obvious because they are on 5nm) and 5-6 years ahead in IGP performance.
Intel has to do this marketing to appease their investors and the tech bros who buy their enthusiast chips. To some people having the best score is all that matters regardless if you are leaving 3rd degree burns on their legs. We'll see what they can do in 2024, they are claiming to have 40% gain in performance/watt by then. They need 100% gain today. By 2024, Apple will be on at least 3nm with a further 70% gain over what they have now.
Thanks for the into. I hadn't seen that first link, but I was fairly certain the answer would be something along those lines.
Comments
Additionally, moves Apple makes ripple through the entire industry so if Apple is making ARM-based chips work for traditional computing then you damn well should expect to see that momentum increase through the industry. All these things translate into Intel having less of a presence and making less money.
Personally, I hope Intel can figure things out and be competitive again because they're an American company, but that's not not eh horizon any time soon.
This is a stopgap measure aimed to reassure existing OEM customers, while Intel considers how to more directly respond to the threat. The clock it ticking.
You know… It is really telling that Intel chose a single metric to base this claim on; a CPU “copy” throughput metric that may not have any significance on how the rest of the CPU performs. Especially since x86 CPUs are hamstrung by their variable width instructions and decoders. Even AMD has admitted to this as a huge limitation that there is no work around for.
And hasn’t Intel been caught with their pants down before with pre-release CPU benchmarking?
The whole S&P500 is a good example. How many '500 companies from 50 years ago are still on it? I forget the exact number, but it's very low -- like 20 or something.
Has nothing to do with vague charts… has everything to do with using a single metric (which is just one of a dozen in a suite of SPECrate benchmarks) as a basis to make a bold claim of overall performance. Most benchmark suites give individual test scores and an overall score. Why do they do this, because specific optimizations can be made that enhance performance in one area, but may degrade performance in another. So where’s the overall SPECrate score?
https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-12900hk-alder-lake-is-a-power-hungry-beast-of-a-notebook-cpu-up-to-29-faster-than-amd-ryzen-9-5900hx/
It used up to 115W just for the CPU package and averaged 63W just to get around 15% faster than their last-gen i9-11980HK (this chip is around the same as M1 Pro and Max CPU). They are saying the chip is basically the same as their desktop i9 chip but throttled down, like what Nvidia does with their notebook GPUs. Temperature went to 99C just during the benchmark. The AMD they compared it to used half the power. What a joke. Apple's chip uses under 40W for the CPU.
Anandtech did a power test for M1 Max here:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/3
In the same test, Intel's i9-11980HK used 82W to get the same result as the M1 Max, which used 34W (or what they assume was the CPU package power, the wall power is much lower than the Intel laptop). Apple's still at least 2 years ahead of Intel on efficiency (obvious because they are on 5nm) and 5-6 years ahead in IGP performance.
Intel has to do this marketing to appease their investors and the tech bros who buy their enthusiast chips. To some people having the best score is all that matters regardless if you are leaving 3rd degree burns on their legs. We'll see what they can do in 2024, they are claiming to have 40% gain in performance/watt by then. They need 100% gain today. By 2024, Apple will be on at least 3nm with a further 70% gain over what they have now.