Emulated 12900K for mobile has better performance with low power consumption like M1 Max?

[Jorbanead]

I get that but doesn't change the fact that Intel is now able to come very close to M1 Pro/Max with 7nm and x86. Is it not concerning? And M1 Pro/Max actually uses 35W according to Anandtech.

Eh let’s wait for real world performance and implementation. You’re acting like Apple is doomed because in this one instance that you cherry-picked and misconstrued, Intel has gotten “closer” to Apple.

If your point here is “Apple made a mistake switching to their own processors” as that seems to be the theme in all your posts, there’s mountains of evidence to show they made an extremely wise choice here. Apples very first chips (which are now using a year-old process based on A14) are smoking the competition, and Intel has to pull out all the stops they can to even be in the same league.

But keep going because TBH these threads are entertaining to see the hole you’re digging get bigger and bigger.

 

[sunny5]

Eh let’s wait for real world performance and implementation. You’re acting like Apple is doomed because in this one instance that you cherry-picked and misconstrued, Intel has gotten “closer” to Apple.

If your point here is “Apple made a mistake switching to their own processors” as that seems to be the theme in all your posts, there’s mountains of evidence to show they made an extremely wise choice here. Apples very first chips (which are now using a year-old process based on A14) are smoking the competition, and Intel has to pull out all the stops they can to even be in the same league.

But keep going because TBH these threads are entertaining to see the hole you’re digging get bigger and bigger.

I'm just gonna wait for actual result then cause there are so many PC friends arguing that Intel is better now and I dont have clear answers.

 

[falainber]

No. Because they are actually very far. M1 does NOT use 35W for the CPU. That should include memory and such as well because Anandtech is measuring overall SoC power draw in all of their tests to account for memory power consumption as well.

Excerpt from your reactions:

View attachment 1905454

Again, please don't take things out of context without understanding what all of this actually means. The bottom line is that Intel is not getting any closer. They made Alder Lake more efficient than the last generation. But they are not close at all.

M1 Max SOC as a whole uses up to 95W not 35W. 12900K is also an SOC with basically all the same components as in M1.

 

[bill-p]

M1 Max SOC as a whole uses up to 95W not 35W. 12900K is also an SOC with basically all the same components as in M1.

95W includes everything at worst case scenario, though: CPU, GPU, memory, voltage regulators and even storage.
12900K is NOT an SoC. It's a CPU with GPU. Memory is separate. Storage is separate. And voltage regulators are also separate. Also 12900K draws 240W in worst case. Excluding memory, storage, voltage regulators, etc...

M1 Max is basically the whole computer in one.
12900K is NOT the whole computer.

 

[mi7chy]

And even in that video, the chip was drawing more than 35W. It was at 45W constantly. That's 50% more power consumed than M1 Max.

View attachment 1905444

IA cores is CPU which is 34.82W while GT cores of 9.30W is iGPU.

 

[Jimbonatius]

Why are you simping so hard for intel, Sunny?

 

[Ceed]

I just don't understand this desire to see someone not succeed. Is it a western thing? They both look like great chips to me. Well within the range of what can be called competitive.

 

[Gnattu]

I'm just gonna wait for actual result then cause there are so many PC friends arguing that Intel is better now and I dont have clear answers.

You don’t have to argue with them TBH. Competition occurs everywhere in the industry and the “best” crown won’t last long usually, especially when we are talking about “future” stuff.

 

[Ceed]

Exactly, the world didn't stop spinning just because Apple made an SoC.

 

[Jorbanead]

I'm just gonna wait for actual result then cause there are so many PC friends arguing that Intel is better now and I dont have clear answers.

Even if Intel were beating Apple, Apple still has the advantage long term. Intel has a lot of issues that they need to address that Apple doesn’t need to worry about. Apple also has the advantage that they are only designing for themselves - so they can customize their chips for their hardware and software better than anyone else.

What doesn’t show up on benchmarks is the crazy optimization Apple can achieve with their software. While Intel and AMD play games to boost benchmark scores - Apple focuses on real world performance.

 

[Gnattu]

I just don't understand this desire to see someone not succeed. Is it a western thing? They both look like great chips to me. Well within the range of what can be called competitive.

Exactly. It will be sad for the industry if only Apple can make high-efficiency processors. Didn’t we forget the time when Intel sells rebranded processors with marginal improvements year after year when they don’t have good competitors?

 

[joelypolly]

Not sure arguing over the package power really matters at this point. Compare actual products once released. Hypothetically the M1 can probably clock to over 4GHz and consume 100W+ but no products have those specs. And Intel could undervolt to what they did by hand but no products will actually come close because they simply won't be hand optimized.

 

[falainber]

95W includes everything at worst case scenario, though: CPU, GPU, memory, voltage regulators and even storage.
12900K is NOT an SoC. It's a CPU with GPU. Memory is separate. Storage is separate. And voltage regulators are also separate. Also 12900K draws 240W in worst case. Excluding memory, storage, voltage regulators, etc...

M1 Max is basically the whole computer in one.
12900K is NOT the whole computer.

95W is just for M1 SOC and storage and memory (RAM) are not part of SOC. Only cache memory is part of SOC but that is true for Intel CPUs too. The K series of Intel processors is by design not limited in power consumption. It is limited only indirectly - it starts throttling when the temperature gets too high. There are many reports on the Internet about people limiting the power usage of ADL processors (by undervolting and disabling some cores) to up to 35W with very good results in terms of performance. Direct comparisons with M1 chips are still impossible. We'll need to wait until the mobile versions of ADL are released but 240W is just a red rag. It does not prove anything regarding ADL chips efficiency.

 

[Colstan]

I just don't understand this desire to see someone not succeed. Is it a western thing?

No, it's a human thing. Tribalism has occurred as long as humans have existed, in fact it probably goes back before our existence with Homo Erectus and later with the Neanderthals and Denisovans. It's just that today, instead of beating each other over the heads with wooden clubs and sharpened animal bones, we argue about sports, politics, and whatever "team" we belong to. It's human nature to want to belong to a tribe.

In this case, it's nerds on the internet arguing about their favorite semiconductor company, whichever that may be. The faceless, giant conglomerate that doesn't know they exist, doesn't care about them - other than for their money, yet somehow they find an identify with a company that makes tools out of circular wafers of sand.

I'm obviously not speaking about everyone on the MacRumors forum, just the small minority that seem to have a partisan leaning toward one company or another for whatever personal reason. I'm a Mac user, but I always consider my options if I decided that Apple wasn't for me, at some point. If I were to build a PC last month then it would have been with a 5600X, today it would be a 12600K, because that chip seems to currently be the best value on the market for the PC. Next year, Intel will probably be leapfrogged by somebody else, and so the wheel turns.

 

[bill-p]

95W is just for M1 SOC and storage and memory (RAM) are not part of SOC.

If you mean the package power sensor on the M1 does not account for memory, then sure, I guess I can concede that is true, but it does include memory and storage (PCIe) controllers (and storage chips draw power from PCIe controller IIRC?), as well as voltage regulators and pretty much everything aside from the memory chips, which... incidentally, are also included on the same package, even if they are not on the die. And this 95W figure is only obtained in the absolute worst case when both CPU and GPU are pushed to the absolute max. If Anandtech measured the M1 Pro instead, this number would be a lot lower.

Unless I read this page wrong?

Apple's M1 Pro, M1 Max SoCs Investigated: New Performance and Efficiency Heights

www.anandtech.com

Only cache memory is part of SOC but that is true for Intel CPUs too.

No. This is wrong. It's not just cache memory. Please see the block diagram:

12900K is just a processor with GPU and cache integrated. But even then, the integrated GPU of the 12900K is nothing compared to what's in the M1 Max. I think we can both agree to that.

Voltage regulators, memory controller and PCIe controllers are still separate in an Intel computer AFAIK. So the power consumption of those things are still not factored in, and they should not be insignificant.

 

[donth8]

Cinebench R23 is not optimized correctly for M1. On another thread it was discussed at length. On x86 it uses both Hyperthreading and AVX. Hyperthreading itself gives a 20-25% boost that is why both Intel and AMD perform so well in that Benchmark. Since version R20 it also uses AVX, that is why Alder Lake uses over 200W when running that benchmark full tilt. Now, Hyperthreading being used is totally fair since it’s a feature Apple chose not to implement. The devs at Cinebench not using the SIMD built into the M1 chips is definitely not…

Now running the 12900k at 45W achieves about 52% of the results at over 200W. Let’s say that other tests like Geekbench scale the same way, that means the score at 45W would be 9500 which is way below the M1 Max. Wonder why the person who posted those results at 45W didn’t post other benchmarks like Geekbench. Probably because it would make the 12900k look terrible… Cherry picking just one benchmark is never good that’s why I trust Anandtech since they use Spec2017 and many others.

 

[iPadified]

As if it matters what Intel spits out at the moment. ASi is here to stay and from any metric it seams like the ASi performs well and often better than competitors in the same power bracket.

Good that Intel got a thorough kick in the **** (chose you own body part) to finally come to the conclusion that using less energy for a task is better than using more energy.

 

[leman]

M1 Max SOC as a whole uses up to 95W not 35W. 12900K is also an SOC with basically all the same components as in M1.

It uses 34W running multi-core Cinebench R23 which is what‘s relevant here.

 

[PsykX]

I just don't understand this desire to see someone not succeed.

I'll speak for myself here.

It's not that I don't want Intel or AMD to succeed, because competition is good, it forces companies to surpass themselves and come up with incredible products.

But here's the situation.

Software speaking : Windows and macOS have never been so alike. Windows' GUI has improved over the years, the animations have improved and are now GPU optimized, it borrowed Exposé/Mission Control, it centered the icons in the Task bar just like the Dock, it has an equivalent to the App Store...

Hardware speaking : There's so many PC manufacturers, now some of them tend to imitate a few Mac features (such as all-in-one PCs, and aluminum chassis, razor thin laptops like the MBA).

Now, Apple took their biggest risk ever in Apple history with Apple Silicon. While it's having an incredibly smooth transition, it comes with a few drawbacks : some software or frameworks left unoptimized, lots and lots of unoptimized games and of course the loss of Windows compatibility and the loss of most Linux compatibility (exception one distro).

Apple Silicon is now their biggest differentiating element in the "Mac vs PC" debate. If Intel succeeds more than Apple in the coming years, this differentiator will end up being a failure for Apple and its entire user base will suffer for a long time because Apple won't transition again before at least 2035. We as Mac users certainly don't want that. Which leads us to this. There's only one possible outcome : Apple HAS to succeed.

 

[Gnattu]

There's only one possible outcome : Apple HAS to succeed.

This is true. Mac sales doubled after the transition and even archived a new record high in a quarter. The numbers speak for themselves.

the loss of most Linux compatibility (exception one distro).

The Asahi Linux team does not folk the kernel and make custom builds, but push the changes to upstream so that the mainline kernel will receive the support as well. Most distros updates their kernels slowly but this is not only the problem for Apple Silicon Macs, most new hardware require a new kernel or back-ported driver.

 

[leman]

The Asahi Linux team does not folk the kernel and make custom builds, but push the changes to upstream so that the mainline kernel will receive the support as well. Most distros updates their kernels slowly but this is not only the problem for Apple Silicon Macs, most new hardware require a new kernel or back-ported driver.

This is true, but since Apple Silicon requires a specialized bootloader anyway, I doubt that any standard distro will support it even if Asahi project is successful.

 

[Gnattu]

Apple Silicon requires a specialized bootloader anyway

This is common for arm boards unfortunately. The UEFI firmware is not widely adopted for ARM boards and different system usually has different booting process. A lot of of them is using u-boot and you have to flash it to the beginning sectors of a specific size of internal storage/SD cards most of the time, and different boards are using different U-Boot images.

 

[Kylo83]

If we still had 12900k and boot camp these machines would be insane for gaming

 

[tmoerel]

If we still had 12900k and boot camp these machines would be insane for gaming

Gaming is irrelevant to Apple's macbook business model.

 

[tmoerel]

I'm just gonna wait for actual result then cause there are so many PC friends arguing that Intel is better now and I dont have clear answers.

You will never convince any real mac user that a PC is better. If it doesn't run macOS but the hot-pile-of-****-that-is-called-windows then it is totally irrelevant to them!