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.
Does M1 chip faster than 16" 2.4 i9 chip?
- Thread starter stark4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, the Air is the only fan-less one.
I think the first question was asking whether the new 13” M1 chip is faster than the current Intel ones in the 16”.
I guess we should know soon...
Just wait and see how it plays out & listen to feedback from early adopters before selling.
Clockspeed is kind of irrelevant though, no? As long as the performance stats are good....
Yes, absolutely - having dropped £3k on a laptop a year ago I'm in no massive rush. TBH it's still plenty of machine for me and battery life is of no concern right now; the only thing I'm interested in is whether there's comparable or superior performance in a smaller package.
I'm looking for confirmation NOT to flip my laptop this year, unlike in the past!
Of course it will throttle after some time like the 12“MB without fan. In the pro the fan will help to keep clock speed up
Though the M1 has less high performance cores than the current 16” i9, each M1 core is about 10 percent faster than Intel’s best cores with much better IPC and performance per watt (miles ahead).
The Unified Memory Architecture means many things like loading apps and big files is faster.
Dedicated cores for Machine Learning makes this faster than Intel and AMD’s chips for those tasks.
The MacBook Pro 16” will probably have the successor M2 chip and I doubt Intel will have anything close to its performance.
The Unified Memory Architecture means many things like loading apps and big files is faster.
Dedicated cores for Machine Learning makes this faster than Intel and AMD’s chips for those tasks.
The MacBook Pro 16” will probably have the successor M2 chip and I doubt Intel will have anything close to its performance.
Is there a reason you want to sell so early? Do you need the speed for work?
Not really; the i9 is a beast. I’m self employed and my role includes some photo and video work so I do use the power.
That said, I’m very interested in the ability to run iOS apps; the battery life will be good sometimes; and I always have an eye on the best time to flip
laptops and buy new ones so I don’t take the full hit at once.
If the M1 pros are as fast as the current i9’s, it might be worth selling sooner rather than later to get the best used price. If they’re not I’ll possibly live with this machine for a good while yet.
Just getting my facts together...
For video and photo work, most likely Apple's hatdware accelerators will come into play, which will complicate the speed comparison. For your purposes, it may not matter, as the accelerators will very much help speed your work load along massively, for the same reason that you can edit 2 4K streams of video and output the result so easily on an iPad Pro.
I don't know how the M1 will end up comparing to an i9 until we get actual units benchmarked. I do know how well the hardware accelerators in the A12X do with video editing in the iPad Pro, and expect that there will be better than iPad video processing in the M1 Macs.
I personally expect to see that the M1 MBP has a higher (to what degree is unknown at this time) clock speed than the MBA, which is pushing up TDP on the MBP to the point where it needs active cooling to prevent throttling for longer processes. For your workload though, it may not make much of a difference if the hardware accelerators are being engaged to do the heavy lifting for video.
I don't know how the M1 will end up comparing to an i9 until we get actual units benchmarked. I do know how well the hardware accelerators in the A12X do with video editing in the iPad Pro, and expect that there will be better than iPad video processing in the M1 Macs.
I personally expect to see that the M1 MBP has a higher (to what degree is unknown at this time) clock speed than the MBA, which is pushing up TDP on the MBP to the point where it needs active cooling to prevent throttling for longer processes. For your workload though, it may not make much of a difference if the hardware accelerators are being engaged to do the heavy lifting for video.
That’s right. Many Android users forget this when comparing phones as well. Apple has always been about the experience. As long as it’s users, often artistic professionals, can run apps smoothly it really doesn’t matter. Both commercial videos we saw focused solely on artists, not nasa engineers.
Yes, their are fringe cases and that is why they offer an Air up to a $50k pro machine. But spec to foreign spec means nothing.
According to geekbench 5, yes the entry level macbook air is faster than the top end i9 in the 16" macbook pro. Much faster in single core and also slightly faster in multicore.
Well, Geekbench may show that M1 is faster with native apps, but I'd guess Rosetta 2 apps will probably run somewhat slower.
And perhaps that's why Apple is still keeping Intel Macs around. They know M1 won't be able to offer significantly faster performance with many apps that still depend on Rosetta 2. I wouldn't be surprised if these apps end up not even faster than the 4-port 13" Pro.
And perhaps that's why Apple is still keeping Intel Macs around. They know M1 won't be able to offer significantly faster performance with many apps that still depend on Rosetta 2. I wouldn't be surprised if these apps end up not even faster than the 4-port 13" Pro.
