Energy efficiency “Energy Star” : does M1 MBP Apple Silicon beat Intel?

[Henk van Ess]

This is thread is NOT about performance of Apple Silicon M1 but power consumption - so we have something else to nitpick before the real reviews come out and probably will back up the leaked real life performance stats.

NOTE: since this is "live research" you find the bottomline here. This is what you can expect reading this thread.

- we have some real stats about energy consumption of the Mac Mini and MBP 13 M1, which are put into focus in this thread

- When your Macbook Pro sleeps, it runs 0.04-0.06 watt either in May (Intel) or next week (M1). Also the drop in energy for idle screen and off are not impressive when Apple Silicon is compared to Intel. I expected better values because of the M1, but there is little change when compared with Intel.

Energy consumption is an amount of energy used independent to that used by the Intel or M1 processors. Not everyone, including me, knows that. The lack of improvement on energy consumption for the MBP 13 Nov is logical because the last model from May 2020 was already improved .

- The Mac Mini M1 shows a significant, over 40% drop on power consumption, either off, sleep or display on and idle. This makes sense because the last one was from 2018, so improvements are possible .

It is only when we look at power consumption during normal use (TEC) that we see higher gains. TEC is an abbreviation of Typical Electricity Consumption, yearly energy consumption in typical usage.

Core i5 A1993 (2018) - 39.6kWh.

Core i7 A1993 (2018) - 60.9kWh.

M1 8GB A2348 (2020) - 24.5kWh.

M1 16GB A2348 (2020) - 24.8kWh.

Here we see that the M1 shines .


End of summary, longwinded posting that doesn't come to the point is starting now:

Quick, give me your first response? Which Mac Mini is more energy efficient: the Mac mini with or without M1? Sure, the M1. Now look at this:


Product Environmental Report
Mac mini
Date introduced October 30, 2018

Product Environmental Report (published 4 days ago)
Mac mini
Date introduced Nov 10, 2020

So the old Mac Mini is 74% energy efficient and the M1 one 55% energy efficient? Wait till you read the next posting....

 

[Henk van Ess]

Now have a look at 2018 document in more detail

And compare it with the new document (2020)

You see that Apple bites with this marketing itself in the tail. The 74% for Mac Mini and 55% for M1 is probably put there because it's a relative figure: either comparing the old one with the new one or an old standard with a new standard is my best guess.

 

[Henk van Ess]

As you can see, Apple CHANGED the carbon footprint in 2020 for the Mac Mini3.0 i5 from 290 (2020) to 284 CO2e (2018) - not sure what happened here. Why would they do that afterwards?

Also your old Mac Mini with the i3 in it is stinking less
Apple changed the C02e for the Intel Core i3 from 270 to 263... It's a great world after all?? Confused... maybe they found better recycling materials?

 

[Henk van Ess]

Now let's compare the environmental data again, this time looking at Power consumption.

As you can see your new Mac Mini with M1 uses 0.25W when your Mac Mini is off somewhere in Europe (and other countries),but in the US, it's 0.21 W. (That difference is normal).

What you clearly can see, is the influence of the new architecture. That 0.25 came from 0.34 and the 0.21 came from 0.31 - do the math, it's a big percentage. In sleepmode it goes from 1.16W to 0.68W - a drop over 40% drop or 1.19 to 0.65. Display on and idle is also amazing: it goes for the 115v from 10.6W to 6.35W That are great gains.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Now why is the power supply efficiency unchanged. It's the highest in Europe (and some other countries): 92.6%. As it was in 2018. Both models have the same charger?

 

[Puonti]

So the old Mac Mini is 74% energy efficient and the M1 one 55% energy efficient?

No - whatever energy consumption level Energy Star certification required for a product of this class in 2018 and 2020 the mini undercut by 74 and 55 per cent respectively. I don't know if the certification requirements have become more strict in that time, but that would be one example of how this might happen.

As you can see, Apple CHANGED the carbon footprint the Mac Mini3.0 i5 from 290 to 284 CO2e - not sure what happened here. Why would they do that afterwards? Also your old Mac Mini with the i3 in it is stinking less
Apple changed the C02e for the Intel Core i3 from 270 to 263... It's a great world after all??

Undoubtedly Apple improves their processes over time, not just with new product generations. Using more recycled materials and renewable energy for example bring those values down for past products that are still in production.

 

[Henk van Ess]

No - whatever energy consumption level Energy Star certification required for a product of this class in 2018 and 2020 the mini undercut by 74 and 55 per cent respectively. I don't know if the certification requirements have become more strict in that time, but that would be one example of how this might happen.

That’s what I said: You see that Apple bites with this marketing itself in the tail. The 74% for Mac Mini and 55% for M1 is probably put there because it's a relative figure: either comparing the old one with the new one or an old standard with a new standard is my best guess.

 

[Sanpete]

an old standard with a new standard is my best guess.

Evidently, given the figures you show, which show how much more power-efficient the newer one is in the ways measured. The standards are set by an independent organization, Energy Star. Not up to Apple what they are year to year.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Anyway, let's do the same for Macbook Pro 13 inch and concentrate on the power consumption, will post it here.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Evidently, given the figures you show, which show how much more power-efficient the newer one is in the ways measured. The standards are set by an independent organization, Energy Star. Not up to Apple what they are year to year.

Any clue why the Power Supply efficiency stayed the same?

 

[acidfast7_redux]

First and foremost, I want to say that that I enjoy your posts, Henk van Ess (not sure how to tag a user and would like to learn how to do this, please), and their data-rich and detail-oriented much like myself. I'm a biochem/microbio prof and pour over data, currently, the SARS-CoV-2 and COVID data being released around Europe (with the 20A.EU1 being particularly problematic for the UK) and I greatly enjoy such technical questions.

Response in next reply.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Let's do the same exercise with the Macbook Pro. In 2020, May 4, this was the latest claim:

A few months later, November 10th 2020, Apple claims this. As you can see, we don't see the same difference in Energy efficiency, for the MBP 13 Apple Silicon M1 it DID went up from 63 to 74 - so there are different standards for different machines? Anyone?

In NOT the next posting, I like to bury the news, are some real energy consumption specs of the M1/ MBP 13.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Did they change the carbon footprint stats again, because of changes in production process, as somebody said in this thread?

Yes the did. Footprint MBP 1.4 Ghz went from 217 to 212 - again, new materials?

Burying the most important thing here, once again: the total carbon footprint of the MBP Pro M1 compared to Intel went down from 212 to 185.

 

[acidfast7_redux]

The carbon footprint of the same hardware should decrease over time, simply because the transport options increase in efficiency over time. I assume that the gCO2e would include transport to the enduser. If it's simply manufacturing, then the processes have simply become more efficient.

Personally, I am OK with that idle wattage. My entire house when asleep pulls around 24W with all of the electronics on about around 100W when three people are using lights and charging things but no appliances are on. Most appliances pull around 1 kW or so.

Our total estimated electricity usage for the year (3 person household, mid-terrace, 106m2, ErdGas/natural gas heating) is 2058.8 kWh/year or 5.64 kWh/day ... so that change in efficiency is insignificant in my day-to-day electricity usage.

 

[Henk van Ess]

this is interesting

What are the power consumption specs of the MBP 13 with M1? Huh? Almost no change. When your computer sleeps, it runs 0.04-0.06 watt either in May (Intel) or next week (M1).


Please check what I did. I compared https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_Nov2020.pdf with https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_May2020.pdf

So if you came to this post. Here's the bottomline. The Mac Mini shows a significant, over 40% drop on power consumption, either off, sleep or display on and idle. The Macbook Pro doesn’t.

Possibly reason: the stats are already very low and more gain is hard to reach. Or anyone? Thoughts? Why is there almost no gain in power consumption stats when we compare the MBP 13 Apple Silicon with MBP 13 May 2020?

 

[nicho]

Any clue why the Power Supply efficiency stayed the same?

Because it uses exactly the same power supply in the same chassis? The change in logic board makes no difference.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Because it uses exactly the same power supply in the same chassis? T

Yeah that I thought at first, but the Wattage is lower

 

[nicho]

No - whatever energy consumption level Energy Star certification required for a product of this class in 2018 and 2020 the mini undercut by 74 and 55 per cent respectively. I don't know if the certification requirements have become more strict in that time, but that would be one example of how this might happen.

They have.

Computers

Why ENERGY STAR? ENERGY STAR makes it easy to find an energy-saving computer to meet your needs. Using the ENERGY STAR product finder, you can select from hundreds of certified efficient computers from the best, most trusted, and most popular brands -- like Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo and others.

www.energystar.gov

 

[acidfast7_redux]

What are the power consumption specs of the MBP 13 with M1? Huh? Almost no change. When your computer sleeps, it runs 0.04-0.06 watt either in May or next week.


Please check what I did. I compared https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_Nov2020.pdf with https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_May2020.pdf

So if you came to this post. Here's the bottomline. The Mac Mini shows a significant, over 40% drop on power consumption, either off, sleep or display on and idle. The Macbook Pro doesn’t.

Possibly reason: the stats are already very low and more gain is hard to reach. Or anyone? Thoughts? Why is there almost no gain in power consumption stats when we compare the MBP 13 Apple Silicon with MBP 13 May 2020?

View attachment 1667460

View attachment 1667459

I'd argue that those stats are the easiest to measure (uniform between users) but the least relevant. My old MBP was in use more hours per days than it was inactive and I'd wager that the same is true for most other users.

I would like to see the hard-to-measure data of average energy consumption and total cost to run/year. Most of my other appliances provide such data.

I would also like to see the data for total energy consumed during average usage lifetime versus manufacture to determine whether the manufacturing data is insignificant.

 

[nicho]

Yeah that I thought at first, but the Wattage is lower

Unrelated calculations. Believing the wattage used at idle is in any way related to the power efficiency of the power supply will have you on a wild goose chase.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Unrelated calculations. Believing the wattage used at idle is in any way related to the power efficiency of the power supply will have you on a wild goose chase.

good to know, thanks for the contribution

 

[Henk van Ess]

Ok, found the environmental document for the Macbook Air M1 too, will study it and post here.

 

[nicho]

I would like to see the hard-to-measure data of average energy consumption and total cost to run/year. Most of my other appliances provide such data.

Technically, this data (average energy consumption, not cost per year though) exists on the energy star website if you want to know.

good to know, thanks for the contribution

You're welcome. The calculation is actually detailed in the environmental report right above the power consumption table.

So, for example, if the nominal rating of the power supply is 100W, it has been tested at 25W, 50W, 75W and 100W in both instances.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Technically, this data (average energy consumption, not cost per year though) exists on the energy star website if you want to know.



You're welcome. The calculation is actually detailed in the environmental report right above the power consumption table.

So, for example, if the nominal rating of the power supply is 100W, it has been tested at 25W, 50W, 75W and 100W in both instances.

Missed that. Can you also give your thoughts about https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ins-mac-mini-huge-gains.2268390/post-29244476

 

[nicho]

Missed that. Can you also give your thoughts about https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ins-mac-mini-huge-gains.2268390/post-29244476

Not sure what thoughts you're looking for... but the old mac mini was running an 8th gen intel processor and the old MBP was running a 10th gen one. There were much larger opportunities for reduced power consumption in the mac mini.