Nice blurry video. Perfect! Exactly what we were looking for!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Silicon M1: benchmarks and review for Mac Mini, MacBook Air and MBP 13 M1 and comparison with other brands
- Thread starter Henk van Ess
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Still very impressive! Especially considering it is passively cooled 10watt CPU. Not to far off from the base config 16" Pro in multicore and still beats it in single (6912/1113).
Still looking pretty good considering M1 has only 4 high cores, the 4 efficiency cores are equal to dual core 10th i3 according to apple. So chuck in some 2 extra high perf cores, so total 8 high pref core and 4 efficiency core. With a TDP of 15-18 will likely beat ryzen 4800U.
Why?
Right now a 4 high score 4 low core is getting 7500 Multi score in Cinebench, so 8 core high core, 4 low core will likely get 10500 in Multicore, purely guessing.
The ryzen 4800U has 8 cores running at full power unlike the M1 which has Big little structure.
It is very good, I like this processor. It appears to be the most efficient processor on the market. Heck its my username, I think its very impressive, but I think some people should temper their expectations. This isn’t a Renoir killing chip and may not even be an i9 killing chip as was bragged about by the media for a week.
As for a direct comparison to Renoir, it should beat it in performance per watt, it is on 5nm, which as AMD is on 7nm. Also Zen 2 is over a year old, so its really not that impressive to win out, right?
I think that's a bit... too optimistic. M1 in the MacBook Pro 13" is probably already running with TDP around 15-18W.
The MacBook Air probably has the TDP at around 7-10W. That's just about in line with how the other fanless MacBook (the 12") had its processor configured as well. And that thing also throttled in pretty much the same manner.
While M1 is an amazing chip, I think it's about time we set our expectations to more realistic numbers: it's amazing, and it is faster than Intel's last generation chips, but it's not like it's the absolute fastest thing around. It's also hugely efficient, but it's not leaving the competition completely in the dust. And that's totally okay. It just means Apple's engineers are great and they were able to catch up to, if not exceed, x86 in a few short years. Plus efficiency is the name of the game here.
See... if I can get sustained Core i9 performance with over 10 hours of battery in any computer, that's already good enough. Why do we have to insist that Apple absolutely dominates in every category?
Correct, I don’t understand why some people are underwhelmed with this. It’s an amazing chip, but is probably not the outright fastest, yet. We have not even gotten into the fixed function parts of the silicon, and watch these chips destroy everything in web browser performance outside of Zen 3 desktop chips. This chip is fantastic! This chip is good for the industry as a whole.
It's a Renoir/i9 killer for those concerned about battery life, noise, etc, things that matter to many laptop users. Not for those who don't care about those things, I suppose.
Were you going to point out a laptop that was available in October with a Renoir chip that would show Apple wasn't comparing to AMD? Still seems possible to me they included AMD in their comparisons.
What are "our" expectations?
The only people I see making crazy statements are the people trying to knock the chip, setting up strawmen so they can knock them down...
these results, if confirmed, are a shame to Apple.
They signal average to low performance, even though they put the M1 inside what they call a "Pro" laptop.
Imagine being stuck with this kind of performance on a MacBook Pro for the next 5 year, usual life span of a MacBook.
And to upgrade, you need to replace the whole machine, no upgrade.
Also Docker and a boatload of dev tools are not supported, so why the "Pro" moniker. And to make matter worse, 90% of software will be emulated on day one, inflicting an additional 20% penalty on performance.
Apple please, just drop the Pro line, market the MacBook Air as an iPad with an attached keyboard and call it a day.
I don't think "pros" have any business with these mediocre machines.
They signal average to low performance, even though they put the M1 inside what they call a "Pro" laptop.
Imagine being stuck with this kind of performance on a MacBook Pro for the next 5 year, usual life span of a MacBook.
And to upgrade, you need to replace the whole machine, no upgrade.
Also Docker and a boatload of dev tools are not supported, so why the "Pro" moniker. And to make matter worse, 90% of software will be emulated on day one, inflicting an additional 20% penalty on performance.
Apple please, just drop the Pro line, market the MacBook Air as an iPad with an attached keyboard and call it a day.
I don't think "pros" have any business with these mediocre machines.
Yes good points, but some people don't get that is made for MBA air, not for the real MBP the one with 4 ports. that one uses a 10th gen 28 i7 part
This kind of thing (to use a neutral term for it) has been posted and replied to a dozen times today. Rather than clutter the board with more pointless repetition, maybe you could read the many responses already here.
Well, both sides are guilty.
There are those who are claiming M1 is not amazing because it's not able to beat multi-core performance of some high-end notebook and desktop chips, or that the GPU is not able to beat dedicated GPUs from last year, etc...
And then there's the other end of the spectrum where people are claiming the fanless MacBook Air can run circles around Core i9, and that the upcoming chips for the 16" MacBook will completely dominate the competition, etc...
I'd really like to quote something from Apple's keynote: the 13" MacBook Pro is the ultimate expression of the M1 chip.
So... say, we get an M1X for the 16" MacBook Pro and a M1Z for the iMac, Mac Pro... those will probably be more optimized for performance. Meaning... they probably won't be able to achieve the amazing battery life, nor the nice and quiet performance of the 13" Pro and Air that were announced. Those chips may beat whatever AMD or Intel can push out, but I'm under no illusion to think they won't have any drawback. Likely power consumption will shoot right up, and we'll be back to the same 10-hour max battery life, with maybe 4-5 as the worst-case.
Really, it's a balancing act, and I think Apple has already hinted at the fact that the 13" MacBook Pro that was just introduced is the best performance/watt ratio already. The rest of the scale may not be linear, and we may see the fastest chips equalize out. So iMac and Mac Pro may not be significantly faster than Intel or AMD offerings. The 16" Pro will probably not have amazing battery life. Such is the "realistic expectation" I'm talking about.
First off the performance is not a shame. The Cinebench score is 7500 in Multi Core and 1498 in single core, this beats the base level macbook pro 16".
This is for the entry 2port MBP so yeah, considering the previous macbook pro had 8th gen this is a massive improvement.
It also beats the 10th gen i7 from the 4port model MBP.
The M1 in the macbook air can't sustain the performace thats all
Look the M1 is an amazing processor, there is no doubt whatsoever about it.
Performance per watt looks good (even though I am waiting for more thorough testing).
The problem I have is with the whole "Pro" shenanigan.
Performance per watt is crucial when you are on a battery: yes, laptops run on a battery, fair enough. The problem is that Apple made us believe this was going to be latest and greatest, while at best is an evolution of what's currently inside my iPhone 11 Pro Max. It has misled the audience with charts with no axis, no details on reference models against which they claim 2x, 3x, 4x everything.
The fact is that I know all of this, and even though I am numb to it, this is getting more ridiculous every year.
Now we have a 13" glorified iPad with attached keyboard that reaches 1600$ for an "acceptable" build.
Why are they still having the "Pro" line?
Are you being intentionally ignorant or what? It's literally a big step up from the previous version of the same model in both performance and battery life. The details for their references are literally on the product pages on their site. You could put in like five minutes of research before making awful posts.
@M1 Processor : Do you know the MBA configuration that got the 6304/1477 score?
7 or 8 GPU?
8 or 16 GB RAM?
Thanks!
7 or 8 GPU?
8 or 16 GB RAM?
Thanks!
Maybe with noise (even though the MBP uses a fan), but both AMD and Intel processors can last more than 10 hours so that’s really not that big a deal. I think you misunderstood me, what I originally said that Apple WAS NOT comparing it with AMD but rather, and I quote ”some crappy” Intel CPU, maybe 30w i3 or 45w i5. That’s the only way they could come those numbers.
That's why I keep asking you to suggest some laptop with an AMD chip that was available in October that would show Apple couldn't have been comparing to the latest AMD. As I said, still seems possible to me they included AMD in their comparisons.
The AMD CPUs were released early this year so they are a lot of models with them. They are difficult to find because they are out of stock almost everywhere, but one example would be the Yoga Slim 7 4800U. But for which comparison are you talking about? They are very vague except the ones that compare to the previous generations
In their presentation, apple said M1 powered laptops were faster than 98% of all laptops being sold at present. In other words, the top 2% of laptops being sold are still faster by some measure, but every faster laptop operates with a much higher TDP.
Apple is hitting roughly 1.5x the performance per watt of AMD’s most efficient parts (4800U in 15W configuration), and roughly 2-3x (depending on configured TDP) the performance per watt of Intel’s most efficient parts (i7-1165G7). These efficiency advantages will definitely result in advantages for Apple as they scale to higher core counts. Increasing clock speeds increases power consumption very non-linearly, but increasing core counts generally scales near-linearly, or even sub-linearly if you clock the cores slower. A future 16” MBP with Apple Silicon may still be outperformed by high power and high core count desktops, but I’m confident Apple can be best in class for performance at every power budget by a comfortable margin.
I am doubtful they are comparing AMD for two reasons.
1. Everything that they said up into this point compared Intel, and can’t directly compared with AMD since AMD silicon is not available for macOS. Geekbench scores are a bit higher on macOS than windows btw.
2. Their benchmarks don’t line up with what we know about chips such as the 4800u. As a point of reference the 4800u scores about 10000 in R23 compared to 7600 in the M1. Of course the 4800u is probably its 25w tpd config, vs 15 for the MBP.
Why do you think this is a valuable comparison, comparing a 4 core SoC with an 8 core SoC? Is it something to be proud of that it takes 6 to 8 x86 large cores and a lot more power to match the M1? I just don't understand what's going on here. Do all these people truly not understand the difference between a large and a small core?
Yes, we all want the M1X to be released soon. But until Apple releases its machines in that class, with 8 large cores, we are limited to the M1.