Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

exoticSpice

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,952
When the M1 was released it had the fastest single core out of any CPU in the world.

The question is can Apple do the same in 2022 or was it more because Apple had access to TSMC's 5nm node.

If Apple released the Firestorm and Icestorm on 7NP instead of 5nm would Apple been ahead of AMD in single thread?

We can see the upcoming uArchs from Muliple CPU/SoC vendors soon. I

Intel with Raptor Lake late 2022, Meteror Lake sometime late 2023. Meteor Lake is said to Intel's first tiled architecture similar to AMD's chiplets. What's interesting about Meteor lake is that some of the CPU will have a 192 Core Xe GPU, it will be interesting to see how Intel feeds those cores. Meteor Lake is where Intel is moving to a new node so I would expect some efficiency improvements on desktop and laptop.

As for AMD Zen 4 is going to be potentially great as it will be based on 5N from TSMC. But since Apple would likely never use AMD CPUs for Macs I have not focussed on them too much.

My pondering thought is when will Apple Mac users regret that Apple moved away from Intel? Maybe when Intel is beating Apple in performance per watt OR could it be that Intel when Intel has a 50% more performant CPUs. I know I would because is that came to fruition then I would be disappointed that if Apple would stayed with Intel I would had access to multiple OS with a wide range of applications just from Dual booting on a Mac.

The best course for Apple would have been to stick with Intel and also make their own chips. Apple certainly has enough capital to maintain both x86 and ARM.

I think by 2025 we will know if Apple's choice was right. People forget but Apple has always made big mistakes before some that threaten the reputation of a single product line ie trash can mac pro, 2016 macbooks.

Please tell me what you guys think of all this nonsense I wrote.
 
Last edited:

Sheepish-Lord

macrumors 68030
Oct 13, 2021
2,529
5,148
Intel has reportedly stated they want to earn back Apple’s business and Apple MAY still have an Intel option on something like a Mac Pro or whatever high end desktop they have planned that allows for properly cooling/power for Intel chips. However, Apple is very much efficiency minded vs throwing hardware specs at something and they’ve seemed to have brought both together with the M1 (iPads having 8gb ram). I just don’t see Intel getting near as efficient vs Apple SoC and very little issues have arisen with x86 translation especially when the bigger players are providing native apps. I mean, VLC even has a native version.

So while Intel may play a part in Apple systems that don’t get updated yearly it definitely won’t in their other devices. Part of the reason they left Intel was to dictate their own chip roadmap and let’s be honest, Intel had very little in mind until the world saw what the Apple chip could do. Hell, take a Windows laptop off power and watch the world burn but a MacBook still runs at full power and gets 18hrs of battery life…people seem to forget this.
 

Andropov

macrumors 6502a
May 3, 2012
746
990
Spain
perf-trajectory.png
 

Sheepish-Lord

macrumors 68030
Oct 13, 2021
2,529
5,148
That chart isn’t a fair representation since it doesn’t quantify what “performance” is. Apple prides itself on comparing itself to Intel up to a certain wattage but after that it’s a tough call. The more watts you throw at an Intel chip the stronger it performs.

I could be wrong but I don’t think Apple makes anything that can compete with the top end x86 processors at Single or Multi core tasks. This is primarily due to the power draw.
 
Last edited:

Sheepish-Lord

macrumors 68030
Oct 13, 2021
2,529
5,148
That's a good point. But I would keep it under Apple chips.

M1 Max is so brutal, what could Apple do better than it?
Improve on clock rates and cores. It’s a fine balance because you want to provide battery efficiency as well as power and people are expecting both year after year.

I would expect the biggest achievements to come from Apple’s unannounced Pro desktop. Now that Apple has found their way in function over form on Pro models the ability to throw in a huge power supply, massive cooling and whatever else they want could produce some mind blowing results. Apple still needs to beat the top end x86 processors so that will undoubtedly be next.
 

Gnattu

macrumors 65816
Sep 18, 2020
1,107
1,670
That chart isn’t a fair representation since it doesn’t quantify what “performance” is. Apple prides itself on comparing itself to Intel up to a certain wattage but after that it’s a tough call. The more watts you throw at an Intel chip the stronger it performs.

I could be wrong but I don’t think Apple makes anything that can compete with the top end x86 processors at Single or Multi core tasks. This is primarily due to the power draw.
It did, in the y axis. It measures the spec2006 int score. This does not limit how much power a CPU could use. In other words, the A14 Firestorm is THAT fast.
 

Fravin

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2017
803
1,059
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
I would expect the biggest achievements to come from Apple’s unannounced Pro desktop.

Do you think that the arrangement on M1 Ultra can be done with any Apple silicon?

I mean, could Apple "ultrafusion" any M1 chip?

Seeing the chart bellow, leads me to think if 3 or 4 M1s could be "fusioned" together...
Screen Shot 2022-05-08 at 12.19.43.png


I think Apple did something really great in the M1 Ultra.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Argoduck

Gnattu

macrumors 65816
Sep 18, 2020
1,107
1,670
I mean, could Apple "ultrafusion" any M1 chip?

View attachment 2002459

I think Apple did something really great in the M1 Ultra.
No, not at all, the M1 Ultra is a special one, designed to be "ultrafusioned together" in mind. You cannot do this with M1 Pro, you cannot do this with M1, you can only do this with M1 Max and you can only fuse two M1 Max together due to the constraints from the design and the packaging technique. If Apple wants to make something larger they need a new design, and it will not likely happen on the M1 generation.
 

Darkseth

macrumors member
Aug 28, 2020
50
89
What could Apple do to keep the M2 better than the competition?
Sit back and enjoy their Tea - since even the 12th Gen can't hold a Candle to the 1 1/2 year old M1 architecture.

Yes, Intel can beat it in Multicore. But tbh, Intel's best i9 Alder Lake-H having +50% Performance of a M1 Pro/Max while consuming +300% (4 times!!) as much Power is not "beating Apple".

And viewing how Alder Lake P is, Intel can't compete either. i7 1280p in a Dell XPS 13 Plus gets like 11k Cinebench R23 points with like 37 Watt (and short bursts above 60 Watt), while a <34w M1 Pro/Max gets 12500 points, and stays much cooler and quieter.

This "better than the competition" should be way more than the highest benchmark Numbers. Especially, since "100% Load" is extremely Rare in most real world usage.

Let's be practical here: I still use my m1 Macbook Pro 13" from late 2020. I can use a Windows 11 VM, updating stuff, joining a Zoom Session, doing some Anaconda Jupyter Notebooks, and maybe doing some SQL Server stuff inside the Windows 11 VM (business intelligence Apps like Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio or Visual Studio SSDT, because it's Windows Only), and it's 100% Silent because it stays cool. Batterylife doesn't want to drop at all. I have literaly no Idea how i could kill the battery within 12 hours or so, unless i'm playing Cinebench the whole Day.
And it doesn't feel like it's throttling, it's just fast.
I would really like the M1 Pro upgrade, but i can't even get the M1 to it's limit.

Or let me take it shorter: I can do all my work without issues, battery lasts forever, and i. never. hear. a. noise.*
Not even for a single Second in those 1,5 years the Fan turned on - unless i did Benchmark Tests.
As long Intel and AMD can't hit THIS Standard, even the M1 series will be better than the Competition.
(naturally, ignoring Applications like Gaming or windows-only / x86 only Applications someone might need).
Sorry Intel. But if you need to put 4,5 Ghz on 12 Cores when i'm just playing a Youtube video or moving the Mouse around, you're doing it wrong.


* My Thinkpad T14 G2 i7 from Work... well.. I do almost nothing literaly. Writing some Numbers into Excel, scrolling though Outlook, and Batteryplan is on "better Batterylife" (1 away from the lowest, 2 away from max performance), and i can't get this thing to consume less than 15% per Hour when CPU Usage is <4%.
I don't touch it for 30 minutes, and 7% battery are just gone.
Sometimes Fans turn on. Sometimes i don't touch it, and Fans don't want to stop.
It's so annoying.

Who has the "Benchmark-Crown" is not really important in the real World, it's simply 1 single Factor out of many others.
 

Sheepish-Lord

macrumors 68030
Oct 13, 2021
2,529
5,148
Sit back and enjoy their Tea - since even the 12th Gen can't hold a Candle to the 1 1/2 year old M1 architecture.

Yes, Intel can beat it in Multicore. But tbh, Intel's best i9 Alder Lake-H having +50% Performance of a M1 Pro/Max while consuming +300% (4 times!!) as much Power is not "beating Apple".

And viewing how Alder Lake P is, Intel can't compete either. i7 1280p in a Dell XPS 13 Plus gets like 11k Cinebench R23 points with like 37 Watt (and short bursts above 60 Watt), while a <34w M1 Pro/Max gets 12500 points, and stays much cooler and quieter.

This "better than the competition" should be way more than the highest benchmark Numbers. Especially, since "100% Load" is extremely Rare in most real world usage.

Let's be practical here: I still use my m1 Macbook Pro 13" from late 2020. I can use a Windows 11 VM, updating stuff, joining a Zoom Session, doing some Anaconda Jupyter Notebooks, and maybe doing some SQL Server stuff inside the Windows 11 VM (business intelligence Apps like Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio or Visual Studio SSDT, because it's Windows Only), and it's 100% Silent because it stays cool. Batterylife doesn't want to drop at all. I have literaly no Idea how i could kill the battery within 12 hours or so, unless i'm playing Cinebench the whole Day.
And it doesn't feel like it's throttling, it's just fast.
I would really like the M1 Pro upgrade, but i can't even get the M1 to it's limit.

Or let me take it shorter: I can do all my work without issues, battery lasts forever, and i. never. hear. a. noise.*
Not even for a single Second in those 1,5 years the Fan turned on - unless i did Benchmark Tests.
As long Intel and AMD can't hit THIS Standard, even the M1 series will be better than the Competition.
(naturally, ignoring Applications like Gaming or windows-only / x86 only Applications someone might need).
Sorry Intel. But if you need to put 4,5 Ghz on 12 Cores when i'm just playing a Youtube video or moving the Mouse around, you're doing it wrong.


* My Thinkpad T14 G2 i7 from Work... well.. I do almost nothing literaly. Writing some Numbers into Excel, scrolling though Outlook, and Batteryplan is on "better Batterylife" (1 away from the lowest, 2 away from max performance), and i can't get this thing to consume less than 15% per Hour when CPU Usage is <4%.
I don't touch it for 30 minutes, and 7% battery are just gone.
Sometimes Fans turn on. Sometimes i don't touch it, and Fans don't want to stop.
It's so annoying.

Who has the "Benchmark-Crown" is not really important in the real World, it's simply 1 single Factor out of many others.
Good take. I 100% can’t go back to a device that makes fan noises randomly regardless of what I’m doing. I love working in my now silent office and being able to listen to audiophile tower speakers to their full potential instead of headphones.
 

jdb8167

macrumors 601
Nov 17, 2008
4,859
4,599
I just started a new software contract. It is my first on-site job since COVID and since getting the M1 MacBook Air. I spend 8 hours writing REACT software where the development environment uses NodeJS and a transpiler to convert REACT to pure JavaScript. In other words, I’m not just typing into documents all day.

I don’t bother bringing a charger to work. When I leave I have over 65% battery remaining. My M1 MBA never feels slow—everything is nearly instant.

This is what Intel is competing against. They’ve never had anything that can do what my M1 MBA can do and I doubt that anything they create in the next few years will change that.
 

theluggage

macrumors G3
Jul 29, 2011
8,013
8,445
The question is can Apple do the same in 2022 or was it more because Apple had access to TSMC's 5nm node.
I don't think they need to stay ahead - just not get left too badly behind like they did with the 68k and the PPC.

The important thing is that Apple can now make the exact SoCs they need to power the Macs they want to make and optimise them to run MacOS. It's already the case that M1 delivers the most impressive performances when (a) it's running well-optimised MacOS apps and (b) when you factor in power consumption/heat/battery life/size/weight (all connected). Raw single-core speed is only one small part of the equation, and Apple have chosen to go with on-chip GPUs so the PC world will always be able to offer graphics cards that beat Apple on OpenGL/CL/CUDA/DirectX (ignoring size and power consumption, of course).

Apple have got thus far without Macs being consistently faster (on raw speed tests) than PCs. People buy Macs to run MacOS and MacOS Apps (even during the x86 era, buying a Mac to use primarily as a Windows or Linux machine was an... interesting decision). It only got embarrassing when Apple couldn't make a G5 portable, couldn't use the latest generation of x86 chips because Intel hadn't released a model with the right power/cores/GPU combination, or couldn't update the trashcan because AMD hadn't made a suitable GPU (not the only trashcan problem there, of course).
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,521
19,677
The question is can Apple do the same in 2022 or was it more because Apple had access to TSMC's 5nm node.

I doubt it had much to do with 5nm node. Sure, the node helps with efficiency, but the gap is just too wide.

Apples design philosophy is very different from Intel or AMD. Apple relies on very wide execution backends and extremely large caches. They start with low power consumption and extend it to performance. Intel does it exactly the other way round.


My pondering thought is when will Apple Mac users regret that Apple moved away from Intel? Maybe when Intel is beating Apple in performance per watt OR could it be that Intel when Intel has a 50% more performant CPUs. I know I would because is that came to fruition then I would be disappointed that if Apple would stayed with Intel I would had access to multiple OS with a wide range of applications just from Dual booting on a Mac.

There is no indication that Intel is any close in reaching M1 in efficiency, so unless they come out with radically new core design that takes lessons from how Apple does things I wouldn’t worry about it. Similarly, Intels fastest enthusiast CPUs are around 20% faster in single core than M1 - while consuming close to 10x power. There is not much spare room left there and it’s not a method you can utilize for laptops (and you can clearly see that premium mobile Alder Lake barely outperforms even the old M1).

So yeah, first I want to see Intel getting anywhere, because so far, they are not. Alder Lake is Great of course, but it doesn’t bring any noteworthy increases in efficiency and it’s praised performance improvements boil down to the massive increase in cores which gives you good results in some popular benchmarks. If that’s where the wild is blowing, well, Apple can easily add a couple of CPU cores to the next gen and get back ahead. The real trick is getting thst kind of per-core perf at 5watts, and so far only Apple can do that.

The best course for Apple would have been to stick with Intel and also make their own chips. Apple certainly has enough capital to maintain both x86 and ARM.

That would have been a terrible choice. Sure, sticking with Intel could give us marginally faster desktops (and even that’s not guaranteed) today. But the real strength of Apple Silicon is a new unified programming model. CPU, GPU, vector coprocessors, ML coprocessors, unified memory. Developing and testing becomes simpler and unlocks new programming paradigms. Apple Silicon is a truly heterogeneous system with multiple programmable processors thst can work in unison. Can’t really do that with x86 - yet. There are indications that they feel the pressure and want to get there. Like they have been discussing multi-chip standards so that one can build complex systems from components made by different vendors. We will see how that will go.

I think by 2025 we will know if Apple's choice was right.

Agreed. There is a lot new tech coming and it’s unclear how it will change computing. I am looking forward to the new innovations!
 

DarthVader!

Cancelled
Oct 3, 2013
185
190
Mustafar
Apple's m1 is an engineering marvel to be sure, but its a design based on the mobile world, of iPhones and iPads. This heritage can be seen as to its phenomenal performance while on battery. I don't know of too many other modern laptops that can run just as fast on battery or on the mains.

I wonder if we'll be seeing a divergence of processors moving forward where the M2, or M3 or what ever will be strictly mac processors and thus able to use more power and generate more performance.

One thing that I think Apple has to improve on, is the GPU and throwing cores into the SOC isn't the answer. They need to be able to compete toe to toe with Nividia and AMD, if they want to grow marketshare beyond content creators and students. Its not that the graphic processing power is poor, but they need to up their game in the up and coming generations.
 

Sheepish-Lord

macrumors 68030
Oct 13, 2021
2,529
5,148
Apple's m1 is an engineering marvel to be sure, but its a design based on the mobile world, of iPhones and iPads. This heritage can be seen as to its phenomenal performance while on battery. I don't know of too many other modern laptops that can run just as fast on battery or on the mains.

I wonder if we'll be seeing a divergence of processors moving forward where the M2, or M3 or what ever will be strictly mac processors and thus able to use more power and generate more performance.

One thing that I think Apple has to improve on, is the GPU and throwing cores into the SOC isn't the answer. They need to be able to compete toe to toe with Nividia and AMD, if they want to grow marketshare beyond content creators and students. Its not that the graphic processing power is poor, but they need to up their game in the up and coming generations.
Expecting Apple silicone to not only compete with Intel/AMD BUT dedicated graphics cards as well is absolutely insane and this is the problem with folks who have this mindset. First it was, "Apple silicone would never be able to compete with Intel/AMD", then not only did it but mostly bested it and now people are saying, "well it can't beat dedicated graphics cards" so it's sucks. This is partly Apple's fault for showing graphs competing with dedicated GPU's but they do this when referencing the creative crowd which is one of their main demographics and from all the things I've seen it kicks some serious butt.

You said they need to expand beyond creators and students so I assume you're referring to gamers? Apple doesn't need to compete in a market they don't aspire to be in (AAA games) so expecting their silicone to beat Intel/AMD and dedicated GPU's is once again, absurd. Maybe Apple makes a dedicated GPU or maybe eventually their silicone does get there but y'all need to relax. I enjoy all tech and the fact the whole industry took notice of what Apple did and it has barely been 2yrs deserves some credit so enjoy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBN

Bug-Creator

macrumors 68000
May 30, 2011
1,783
4,717
Germany
My pondering thought is when will Apple Mac users regret that Apple moved away from Intel? Maybe when Intel is beating Apple in performance per watt OR could it be that Intel when Intel has a 50% more performant CPUs. I know I would because is that came to fruition then I would be disappointed that if Apple would stayed with Intel I would had access to multiple OS with a wide range of applications just from Dual booting on a Mac.

Intel (and AMD) need to stick with the suboptimal x86 ISA and can't afford to cut out 32Bit (or even 16Bit) out, so if everything else is the same, same production node, same skill-level in the designers, same size of chips.... they will stay behind.

They can pull a pyrrhic victory be cranking up the clocks&watts but that also means those cores won't be as fast as the could be at more moderate clocks.

So I expect both sides to be able to claim victory by just shifting goal posts with Intel/AMD always running a bit louder/hotter at a given performance.
 

Xiao_Xi

macrumors 68000
Oct 27, 2021
1,627
1,101
Intel (and AMD) need to stick with the suboptimal x86 ISA and can't afford to cut out 32Bit (or even 16Bit) out, so if everything else is the same, same production node, same skill-level in the designers, same size of chips.... they will stay behind.

They can pull a pyrrhic victory be cranking up the clocks&watts but that also means those cores won't be as fast as the could be at more moderate clocks.
AMD and Intel care about gamers, so they fight for the best CPU for gaming.
 

w5jck

Suspended
Nov 9, 2013
1,516
1,934
At the end of the day, I could care less whether my computer can beat your computer, or whether your computer can beat mine. The only thing (computer related) I care about is whether my computer is capable of doing everything I need it to within an acceptable timeframe. As long as the answer to that question is "yes", I'm happy. I'm currently happy, and likely will be for at least a few years to come. :cool:
 

aidler

macrumors 6502a
Jun 18, 2009
532
1,278
Honestly don’t care. I’m a pure consumer and I‘d rather see Apple make good, affordable and inspiring products for consumers than have the fastest CPU. As a consumer there is very little benefit in Apple making the fastest CPU.
 

s.g.w

macrumors newbie
Mar 29, 2011
14
25
It isn't always about "Max Power!!!!" as a certain Jemery Clarkson would say.

At times - it is about efficiency.

For what most mere mortals do......( search the web.... write an email etc ) the efficiency cores will suffice most of the time.

Just increase the efficiency - and hoof up the processing power when connected to the grid.
 

Fravin

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2017
803
1,059
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
No, not at all, the M1 Ultra is a special one, designed to be "ultrafusioned together" in mind. You cannot do this with M1 Pro, you cannot do this with M1, you can only do this with M1 Max and you can only fuse two M1 Max together due to the constraints from the design and the packaging technique. If Apple wants to make something larger they need a new design, and it will not likely happen on the M1 generation.
Thank you. Sad thing, it would be something!

AMD and Intel care about gamers, so they fight for the best CPU for gaming.

In fact, they are into the gaming business, but both has GPUs and drivers exclusively for graphic creation. Did you know Quadro and Radeon Pro?

Nvidia worked closely with Adobe to provide drivers for its RTX series that boost Adobe Creative apps.


One thing that I think Apple has to improve on, is the GPU and throwing cores into the SOC isn't the answer.

Apple has writing its own drivers for AMD and Intel GPUs. Maybe that can be the bottleneck on Macs GPU power.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.