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.
Energy efficiency “Energy Star” : does M1 MBP Apple Silicon beat Intel?
- Thread starter Henk van Ess
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I expected lower energy consumption for the M1 MBP 13 after moving from Intel to Apple Silicon, I am trying to understand why this hypothesis was wrong
Idle—Display on
Energy consumption is lower. Reason the reduction is limited is in bold.
The measurements are of idle power consumption when the display is turned on. The display uses an amount of power. Proof of this in past environmental reports when both display on and display off figures were reported - https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/archive/2012/13inch_macbookpro_retina_per_oct2012.pdf
Energy consumption by the screen has been severely reduced since then, but it's an amount of energy use independent to that used by the intel or M1 processors.
It's hard to lower idle power draw further? Isn't that just what the useless energy star ratings are? The other part is simply power adapter at 0% load. It's means the power adapter is quite efficient. Which is the only thing the energy star rating cares about.
I'm sure once the units gets in the hands of reviewers they can give you a better idea about the improved power efficiencies under normal usage and not idle.
The Energy Star rating came about in the 90's when idle power load on many things were atrocious.
Last edited:
So here is the summary of this thread for now:
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
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
You can tag me @acidfast7_redux by putting the username after the @ . Thanks, I feel at home here because you can ask questions and get great answers, which is basically my profession , check Twitter
I have to say that all of the summarised information is relatively useless as it doesn't address any of the machines when in operation, which is when the majority of power consumption will occur.
Unless, that is your arguing for a cradle-to-grave assessment that includes the manufacture of the new machine through when it gets recycled after being taken out of service. Those manufacturing-reused number will contribute significantly.
However, when it's idle screen or off, are mostly irrelevant IMHO.
It seems you are mistaking the Energy Star rating for a useful metric when it comes to power efficiency of the underlying silicon in the machine at anything other than idle power draw. They simply focus on the efficiency of the power supply / adapter when it comes to computers.
The current rating system requires a computer to use a power supply with 80 Plus Bronze level rating or higher as of 2008, no?
The current rating system requires a computer to use a power supply with 80 Plus Bronze level rating or higher as of 2008, no?
I am just following Apple’s lead here - they make the fuzz about this. Good to hear it has nothing to do with the processors at all
Agree, that’s why I started with the context. The only thing I can compare is : what specs does Apple give us on Intel vs Apple Silicon machines and can we draw conclusions from that minimal information? Even if the standalone Energy Stat is useless, with comparison we can maybe squeeze out some info. And the summary is based on that. ( I am well aware that this thread will self destruct coming Monday when the reviews are in with real life stats, some of them are in
Post in thread 'Apple Silicon M1: benchmarks and review for Mac Mini, MacBook Air and MBP 13 M1 and comparison with other brands'
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rison-with-other-brands.2267377/post-29229816 )
Last edited:
They sure did but they weren't hyping up the new systems Energy Star rating as they tell nothing useful really.
Expect the next power efficiency gains for power supplies when they convert to Gallium Nitride (GaN).
What you really want to compare is the TEC from EnergyStar website.
The new MacMini is 24.5 kWh.
The new MacMini is 24.5 kWh.
Attachments
Just to elaborate on this the TEC is an abbreviation of Typical Electricity Consumption. I assume yearly energy consumption in typical usage.
Can you compare this M1 stat to the max mini 2018 model so we can see progress/ or no progress ? and can you find the nov 2020 stay for MBP with May 2020 stat?
Sorry, man. I'm at the park with my daughter now and my last post was rushed as I was heading out the door. Energy star website (US) and sort by Apple.
Core i5 A1993 (2018) - 39.6kWh.
Core i7 A1993 (2018) - 60.9kWh.
M1 8GB A2348 (2020) - 24.5kWh.
M1 16GB A2348 (2020) - 24.8kWh.
Comparing all four. Remember that this is just power consumption and tells us nothing about performance.
Comparing the 13" MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM.
Comparing the MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM.
Again this tells us nothing about performance but only power consumption.
Last edited:
Yeah. About 50% energy reduction over a year.
And about £3 or $5 in savings over a year.
I'm much more interested in the sunk cost.
My last MBP lasted almost 9 years and thus I saved the environment by not upgrading.
I've skimmed this thread. I wonder what the difference is in power utilisation between putting the laptop to sleep overnight (let's guess and say 9 hours for a home machine or 15 for an office machine) compared to the extra power utilisation in shutting down and rebooting.
I always shutdown at night, but my ocpd will make me do that anyway, as having worked in IT for many years I still like the smell of a fresh reboot in the morning
I always shutdown at night, but my ocpd will make me do that anyway, as having worked in IT for many years I still like the smell of a fresh reboot in the morning
I'm just giving context to the data and how to understand it.
I mean no disrespect to anyone but this whole thread started out by comparing the same power brick and then wondering why there were no energy efficiency gains to be found between the computers.