You’re not pro enough then. If you’re a real pro you would not care about cost. Only appearance counts and here mac always wins
😂
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.
Geekbench score for the Intel i9-13900K is out and it’s not looking pretty for Apple …
- Thread starter Retskrad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
😂Laptop form factor vs tower desktop?
Personally that would not have solved any of my issues with Intel in laptops - hot, noisy and consequentially slow when it throttles in sustained use.
Ive had a few generations of these. intel has always been great in towers, and also in a way cheaper package.
Personally that would not have solved any of my issues with Intel in laptops - hot, noisy and consequentially slow when it throttles in sustained use.
Ive had a few generations of these. intel has always been great in towers, and also in a way cheaper package.
Yeah. I can't ever use another Windows laptop simply because of the horrendous battery life and the ridiculously loud fans and heat. There is literally no comparison at this point in time. AMD is getting there, at least. Intel isn't even trying.
Yes, but the M2 is the product line equivalent of a i3 not an i9 - it also draws almost 100W less power.
i9 should be compared to an upcoming M2 Max for a fair comparison.
Also, the 'rabbit out the hat' for the M3 will be the shift from 5 > 3 nm
Intel will be moving from 10nm —> 3nm (TSMC) soon too. That is when AMD and Apple will be in trouble as AMD and Apple are leveraging from TSMC superior process. The M2 on 10mm would also be hot and power hungry.
The M2 Max will have the same single core score as the M2, so the comparison is still valid.
There is no way TSMC will have enough capacity to produce the bulk of Intel's CPUs. We are talking about mind-boggling volumes here. Intel might use TSMC to produce some of the more premium or niche models (maybe their gaming GPUs), but that's about it.
I don't think Apple can currently clock their CPUs much higher.
For example when AMD launched their Zen architecture, their CPUs could barely do over 4ghz no matter the cooling, as time went on and AMD refined and improved the architecture but also changed manufacturing processes, clocks raised and Zen 4 will probably match Intel's peak clocks. The idea is this was clearly a direction AMD strived to while the frequency on Apple's CPU cores improve when the manufacturing nodes allows it and by as much as the node allows it.
AMD and Intel are moving to better nodes as well, they also haven't taken all their tricks out of the bag.
Last edited:
Thats my concern about the M Series as well. They might be far more efficient in performance per watt, but if you can’t drive the watts and therefore performance up till it hits the burning hot top line intel then what?
In the laptop space, they are comparing very favourably. In the desktop space, we will see.
The problem is you are comparing an unreleased chip that was measured plugged in and is the highest performance variant to Apple’s latest low end chip in their lowest cost LAPTOPs. Come on, seriously. The M1 is still leaps ahead in terms of laptop performance and efficiency let alone the new M2. You are literally comparing numbers alone, not computers.
This is Apple M2 in a passively cooled ultraportable laptop:
This is Intel Alder Lake i7-1280P/1260O, Intel's current fastest CPUs for ultraportable laptops:
This Intel Alder Lake i9-12900H, Intel's current fastest CPU for larger multimedia and professional laptops:
I think the benchmarks look fairly good for Apple so far, at least in the laptop segment. Of course, the performance of the M2 Pro/Max variants remains to be seen. As is the performance of Raptor Lake. The initial results you quoted do not look encouraging, as there is no performance uplift relative to the current products.
What makes you think that? Intel has already bought alot of capacity at TSMC. Furthermore, it has been reported that Apple, NVIDIA and AMD want to cancel their orders at TSMC due to lack of demand. So if Intel wants even more capacity at TSMC, they can buy more.
Intel at 3nm produced by TSMC is coming, which would solve alot of problems for Intel.
Cutting edge nodes usually have limited availability. Intel ships A LOT of chips. A LOT. TSMC might have enough capacity to make a certain kind of smaller-volume product (like maybe some server CPUs or the gaming GPU) but not for the mainstream CPUs.
Last edited:
As I said in my post it is a mix of hardware and software, which is why if you really want to see what is faster you compare doing the same task. A geek bench result is just numbers and will not really mean anything when it comes down to doing what you want to do on your computer. Sure you can say a custom built PC is faster than a Mac but what does that really mean if the software runs better on a Mac or vice versa? I am not anti PC or anything, I have 2 PC's I have built and use at home along with various Mac's I use for work and home.
Well, this is relative.
The cost of electricity may vary from country to country and over time as well, and also on the usage. If you are mining Bitcoins, then the electricity bill will certainly be more expensive with a PC, but you will get more results as well. If the PC can perform the tasks faster, you will need to use it for less time, saving energy (and also precious time).
There are other hidden costs when comparing PCs to Macs not taken into consideration. The Mac may need less support, but it may be more expensive when you need it. The PC is upgradeable, so it may last more time in the long run. It is virtually impossible to consider all of them.
Why would Apple be in trouble? People are not buying Mac's purely based on specs.
Don't do that, because it makes no sense.
Intel's desktop and high-powered laptop i5 / i7 / i9 are fundamentally the same chip. The differences mostly come from binning and disabling some parts. They are high-end consumer chips, and their pricing and target audience are similar to Apple's Mx Pro/Max. The i5 is usually the best comparison, because the design philosophy is similar: get as much performance from the chip as you can without using excessive power.
Apple has no chips comparable to the i3, and Intel's low-powered i5 / i7 can't really compete against the plain Mx. Intel has nothing that compares to the Mx Ultra, because it's a weird chip. Apple took two high-end consumer chips and glued them together. The pricing and performance are in the Xeon territory, clearly above the i9, but the chip lacks features that are common in workstation chips, such as memory capacity, ECC memory, and large number of PCIe lanes.
So many people claiming the Apple chips are still ahead because they offer better performance per Watt than AMD and Intel. This is the complete list of all the pro users in the world who care about performance per Watt over actual outright performance:
Does matter for laptop users. For many CPU-constrained workloads M1 Pro is the fastest mobile CPU currently on the market. And it doesn’t throttle on battery while delivering full work day battery life. If you are a pro on the go, this is a killer product.
Use same gif but for “list of intelligent pro customers who compare a low end chip from one manufacturer to the high end chip of another.”So many people claiming the Apple chips are still ahead because they offer better performance per Watt than AMD and Intel. This is the complete list of all the pro users in the world who care about performance per Watt over actual outright performance:
There’s of course a benefit for laptop users. But generally you’re right.
It’s also funny that geekbench etc only matter (a lot even) if it’s fitting certain people‘s agenda and suddenly when something else seems to be ahead they suddenly don’t anymore.
And last but not least, Windows (and most likely Linux too) has quite a few things things where it’s way ahead of MacOS and most users would be happy if Mac finally caught up in those regards.
But are either too proud or blinded to admit that something from that “crappy MS company“ could avtually lead to something good sometimes