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.
Are all M1 macs equally powerful?
- Thread starter Loa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are equally powerful for short loads. Air is a bit less powerful for sustained loads because it will throttle because of thermals.
Pretty much. However devices with a fan will be able to sustain the M1's full load continuously while the Air will throttle at some point.
As others have already said; in short loads, yes, exactly the same. It’s the same CPU.
An example of a longer load might be exporting a project in something like Final Cut Pro X or Premiere Pro. The MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, and iMac will do that a little bit faster than the MacBook Air because the M1 SoC will eventually reach its max temp and throttle down on the air.
In most benchmarks though, the differences are small. Most reviewers are saying that really, the compelling reason for the MacBook Pro is just better battery life. But there’s not really a noticeable or real-world performance difference between them. Even the Air will demolish previous generation iMacs, MacBook Pro’s, etc., even maxed out models. You won’t appreciably notice a couple of seconds faster export times.
Unless you’re really in love with the design of the iMac and just want one; if you already owned a MacBook Air; I don’t see any reason to buy an M1 desktop. IMHO the only compelling current M1 desktop is the Mac Mini because of it’s price. (I love the design of the new iMacs, but the laptops perform exactly the same for a similar price and… are laptops. You don’t give anything up using the portables now, but you do give up portability with the desktop). You could take what you might’ve budgeted for the M1 iMac and spend that on one (or two) of a number of fantastic displays to connect to your air.
An example of a longer load might be exporting a project in something like Final Cut Pro X or Premiere Pro. The MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, and iMac will do that a little bit faster than the MacBook Air because the M1 SoC will eventually reach its max temp and throttle down on the air.
In most benchmarks though, the differences are small. Most reviewers are saying that really, the compelling reason for the MacBook Pro is just better battery life. But there’s not really a noticeable or real-world performance difference between them. Even the Air will demolish previous generation iMacs, MacBook Pro’s, etc., even maxed out models. You won’t appreciably notice a couple of seconds faster export times.
Unless you’re really in love with the design of the iMac and just want one; if you already owned a MacBook Air; I don’t see any reason to buy an M1 desktop. IMHO the only compelling current M1 desktop is the Mac Mini because of it’s price. (I love the design of the new iMacs, but the laptops perform exactly the same for a similar price and… are laptops. You don’t give anything up using the portables now, but you do give up portability with the desktop). You could take what you might’ve budgeted for the M1 iMac and spend that on one (or two) of a number of fantastic displays to connect to your air.
My 2 cents:
After 6 months using the base M1 Mini (8GB) daily - it's been a game changer for me - runs ice cold all day, never lags, never hesitates to open anything, no more spinning beach balls, etc...
Now that I just received my M1 iMac, I have to say it is just as phenomenal!
My new M1 iMac (base iMac w/ 8GB) I bought optional gigabit ethernet & full sized keyboard and just amazed!
Super fast internet speed - this is my gigabit ethernet network:
After 6 months using the base M1 Mini (8GB) daily - it's been a game changer for me - runs ice cold all day, never lags, never hesitates to open anything, no more spinning beach balls, etc...
Now that I just received my M1 iMac, I have to say it is just as phenomenal!
My new M1 iMac (base iMac w/ 8GB) I bought optional gigabit ethernet & full sized keyboard and just amazed!
Super fast internet speed - this is my gigabit ethernet network:
Yeah; but you’d need a synthetic benchmark to show it. No end user would be able to detect a difference.
I agree but for the most "powerful" M1 computer it meets the criteria. In real world usage, it should hardly be detectable. Although, how long the CPU can sustain the speed as you said earlier does make sense.
Also most of the speed benchmark on Apple's website is based on 16GB RAM and 2TB drive for Mac Mini and Macbook Pro. Apple would likely want to show best of the best.
Last edited:
I wouldn't really put much value in marketing material benchmarks that Apple shows.
There are tons of benchmarks available online from reviewers showing performance at different price points. Different benchmarks will be affected by different components. More RAM for example won't generally make a difference in a CPU or GPU benchmark (but will make a real-world difference in an application capable of using more than 8GB of RAM)
Thanks for all the quick replies.
Are there extensive tests using different apps? All the tests I've seen were more short and anecdotal rather than rigourous.
I suspect that a 2 TB, 16 GB, 8 GPU, M1 iMac will top the performance list because of the dual fans with the 2 TB, 16 GB, 8 GPU, M1 Mac mini a close second. The 2 TB gives the fastest write performance and the 16 GB RAM gives the best system performance when using a large amount of RAM. The order here might be switched or they might be identical. Either way they will be close.
The M1 MacBook Pro maxed out will be next followed by the MacBook Air and because of the limited cooling, the M1 iPad Pro will be the least performance.
All of these computers are going to be fast and the differences under most usage won’t be noticeable.
The M1 MacBook Pro maxed out will be next followed by the MacBook Air and because of the limited cooling, the M1 iPad Pro will be the least performance.
All of these computers are going to be fast and the differences under most usage won’t be noticeable.
If Geekbench is your thing, then the Mac mini is currently the highest scoring M1 Mac, with the iMac, MBP and MBA following in that order. Keep in mind that the difference between the scores is still very small.
This is quite logical really, given that each device successively has a smaller enclosure and cooling system, meaning the Mac mini has the most ‘breathing space’.
This is quite logical really, given that each device successively has a smaller enclosure and cooling system, meaning the Mac mini has the most ‘breathing space’.
Geekbench is useful but hardly definitive. The Geekbench browser Mac chart doesn’t list the M1 iMac yet so I’m not sure where you got your list. But sustained performance of all CPU cores and all GPU cores over a period of time could show different results from Geekbench since GB makes no attempt to stress the SoCs.
If one fan is enough to keep M1 cool, iMac doesn't have an advantage using two fans. If anything the iMac is driving a quite high resolution display, which drain som resources. But I will put Mini, MBP and iMac equal in performance.
Good thought though you can also use a 6K display with any of them. But heat might be an issue with the large, high density display on the iMac.
Heat travels up, so don't think the fans in the new 24" iMac is cooling the backlight. But in my old late 2009 27", just turning up to full brightness will make the fans spin.
Makes sense. I’m waiting for the Geekbench browser Mac charts to be updated. I’m curious which design has the most thermal headroom or if the iMac and mini are equal.
Yeah the current Mac mini thermals support up to a 65W chip based off of the 2018 Intel mini. The current one also uses the same fan. So a 15W M1 chip has more than enough breathing room.
The thermals for the 2-port 13” MacBook Pro on the other hand can handle only 15W chips based off of the Intel models (again M1 models use the same fan) so it has less breathing room but still fully capable of running the M1 at max capacity. My guess is this exact TDP is why Apple capped M1 to 15W.
The M1 in the air is rumored to be limited to 10W of power instead of 15W based off of interviews I’ve seen with Apple exec (they never clearly state the specs so it’s a bit of guess work based off that and other things I’ve seen).
Discussions about fan and thermal capacity is all well and fine, but until we get well-run real world tests of sustained 100% load, it doesn't mean much.
And I just can't find anything solid online. It seems to me that comparing a Macbook Air and a MacBook Pro on long video encodes would be 1) easy and 2) would give us a real world performance result.
And I just can't find anything solid online. It seems to me that comparing a Macbook Air and a MacBook Pro on long video encodes would be 1) easy and 2) would give us a real world performance result.
The problem is most sites give Macs fluff tests in general. They just aren't as rigorously tested as PCs. Probably because there are so few models and releases. It isn't worth developing a wide range of tests. Since it'll just be against a few Macs.
While cross platform testing is more difficult. Serious testers like to rule out variables for a consistent comparison. Which having a different OS makes a huge variable. Same with the testing software. It may be the same version but there's going to be a lot of differences under the hood. As the software is working with a different OS.
Anyways. I try to go with the better PC reviewers for Macs. As they tend to be more thorough in the analysis. Rather than the ole "Geekbench gets good results and the display looks pretty".
Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch (M1) Review: a Shot in the Arm
Loses Intel but gains more performance and battery life.
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2020 Laptop Review: The entry-level Pro also gets the M1 performance boost
Notebookcheck reviews the entry-level MacBook Pro 13 2020 with Apple's new M1 processor. Does the active cooling solution make a noticeable difference?
Max Tech has already uploaded a comparison video, which as always very interesting analysis. Though I have to say, the differences in results are only around 5% so nothing to worry about ?
While comparing TDPs on Intel give you a rough idea of relative power consumption between different Intel offerings of the same generation, Intel’s TDP ratings have been fairly poor the last 5 or so years, and consumption under full load has been increasing with each generation. And because Apple never caps TDP on the Intel machines they build, power consumption of those machines can be noticeably in excess of the rated TDP. This is clear in part because the M1 MacBook Pro doesn’t need to spin up the fan as much to handle the M1 at loads that would be spinning the fan at full speed on Intel. So I would be very careful about using Intel TDPs to rate Apple’s cooling solutions, since they have to handle some (poorly documented) amount above that.
Also, based on what Anandtech was able to glean, the M1 is very likely not a “15W” chip per se. The CPU alone can pull upwards of 20-24W, and the GPU close to 15W. Intel’s current “15W” chips are even more hungry than that.
I will agree that the Mac mini is a good place if you want to guarantee no thermal limits when doing a heat soak test, due to the oversized cooling that can handle >65W. That said, from what information does exist, I don’t see any evidence of the M1 MBP hitting thermal limits. It does get warm, but doesn’t hit the limits of the fan and heatsink used. The iMac should be in the same boat, running at lower RPMs with the dual fan setup, and should have enough headroom to also offer whatever SoC shows up in the 4-port 13” MBP.
Completely agree. I do feel that the issue of 'thermal throttling' has become something a trend in the community, which has was likely increased following Apple's previous generation of MacBook Pros (that were designed for Intel chips which weren't delivered).
Suffice to say, this might be the first Mac product line in many, many years that actually has sufficient thermal capacity.