i hope intel comes back to beat the m1

[dmccloud]

I just stated facts - i did not argue at all, why something is as it is - or if something is right or wrong
One of these facts was, that x64 emulation is much faster than x86 emulation - as we can clearly see with Windows on ARM, because we have both emulation technologies available there and can compare. So if we restrict ourself to x64 emulation, then x64 emulation under Windows and Rosetta 2 under MacOS are very comparable performance wise.

I still find it somewhat disturbing, that you are answering to my post and not to the guy with all the wrong facts - but yeah its an Apple forum after all...

x64 emulation for Windows on ARM is still only available in the Insider Preview builds. In fact, Microsoft has yet to even formally announce x64 emulation for release builds of WoA. I run the Insider builds via Parallels on my M1 Pro, and 64-bit support is still lacking in several key areas and applications, and in my opinion is nowhere near ready for widespread release. Any "comparisons" you can find would be based on incomplete data and preview versions of WoA. On my Mac, the Insider Preview runs almost as well as MacOS for most things. However, running the exact same build on a Surface Pro x is noticeably slower and laggier for both x86 and 64-bit emulation. Since WoA is only authorized by Microsoft themselves to run on specific hardware (and to date, Microsoft has made no moves to amend their licensing terms to allow installation of a retail version of WoA on Apple hardware), you have to compare the performance of x64 emulation on the Surface Pro X (or the Samsung and Lenovo laptops also running WoA) to an M1 Mac, and the Mac simply runs circles around anything on that side of the industry.

 

[Gerdi]

Yes, x86-64 emulation should be faster for various reasons than x86 emulation. Wasn’t trying to say you were wrong about anything. Just replying to you because you were the most recent post on that thread.

Ok, I see. Acknowledged

 

[Anarchy99]

dont get me wrong i love my m1 laptop its my most valued thing i own. but i love when we have these cpu makers fight ..it will only help us consumers get a better product

dont hold your breath they've been failing to compete with AMD since ryzen and by their own numbers are 3-4 years out (longer if they keep failing to make their own previously set deadlines for lower nm parts.)

I think intel talking about switching to a foundry model (being more like TSMC) willing to produce ARM chips among others is more telling, they are deversifing their revenue streams while they can because evidence is not looking good long term for them with there current X86 endeavours.

 

[4sallypat]

I would like ARM to displace the x86 instruction set. Early in my career I found myself writing x86 assembler. It was a pretty ugly architecture compared to 68000 (in the original Mac & Amiga) or the 6502 (Apple II, Commodore 64 & BBC Micro).

Hopefully Apple inspires Microsoft and PC manufactures to get serious about Windows on ARM. Linux on ARM is already in wide use on Chrome Books, Android phones and the Raspberry Pi and available on Cloud providers like AWS. I think once ARM Macs are common and Docker for the ARM Macs is production ready, more companies will deploy their cloud workloads on ARM VMs and Docker clusters.

Amen, from someone who is as old as I am!
Programming was vastly different agreed!

When Apple switched from the Motorola RISC chip to Intel - I remembered that it would be a mistake.
Sure enough, Apple switch back to RISC type architecture and leaving Intel behind....

 

[jdb8167]

Amen, from someone who is as old as I am!
Programming was vastly different agreed!

When Apple switched from the Motorola RISC chip to Intel - I remembered that it would be a mistake.
Sure enough, Apple switch back to RISC type architecture and leaving Intel behind....

It wasn’t a mistake at the time if you wanted high performing notebooks. No one was making high efficiency/high performance RISC CPUs at the time. I’m glad that RISC is living up to its potential finally.

 

[bobcomer]

Nope, Apple ditched 32-bit and went fully 64-bit. Most app developers recompiled their apps and they worked.

What nope?? That's what I said, Rosetta 2 doesn't run 32-bit Mac apps, and neither does an Intel Mac running Big sur.

Apple isn't interested in supporting niche markets that rely on legacy software. If that is your use case, then you should go with Windows or Linux. Apple has made it very clear for over a decade now that they are willing to provide a bridge when technologies change, but they will not support legacy software in perpetuity.

I agree, I use Windows for making money. For home, the Mac is only here because it's different and I have lots of different things.

MS should go back to two versions of Windows: one that maintains backward compatibility and receives little more than security updates, and another consumer oriented version that will change and adapt as technology moves forward. The memo went out long ago that the age of releasing an application and then just leaving it alone is long past.

What does that buy them when they are already the market leader, and by a good margin? Backwards compatibility *is* important in the business space, and bragging rights to the fastest silicon is not, nor is introducing an OS to compete with themselves and fracture the market.

It's time for developers to get with the program.

It's time for people that think that to start thinking about ROI.

 

[robco74]

Rosetta 2 doesn't need to run 32-bit Mac apps because macOS no longer supports 32-bit. Neither does iOS. AFAIK, the only 32-bit device still sold by Apple is the Watch Series 3. But most consumer apps have been updated to 64-bit, even on Windows. No need to continue supporting both, it takes up a lot of engineering resources that can be utilized elsewhere. One of the frustrations reviewers of the Surface Pro X had was tracking down 32-bit apps to use. At some point however, you reach a point of diminishing returns and all the work to support older apps offers fewer benefits over time.

As for making money, a lot of money is made using Macs. A lot. As I said, if you want to keep running legacy programs outside a VM, then you should use Windows or Linux. The Mac is not a good option for people who need backward compatibility.

The latest and greatest hasn't been needed for business in a long time. A low-power Intel NUC or even a compute stick is more than powerful enough to run basic productivity apps. Hell, an iPad can run them without breaking a sweat. The biggest threat to Microsoft's dominance isn't the Mac, it's Chromebooks.

As for ROI, keeping your software current and secure is essential today. Unless you're running on a machine that has absolutely no network connection, or people plugging in external drives.

 

[Sydde]

they could take it down to 1 atom wide level and the first thing I'd ask is does it run my software...

The radius of a silicon atom is 210pm or about a fifth on a nm, so they are edging down on that.

 

[cmaier]

The radius of a silicon atom is 210pm or about a fifth on a nm, so they are edging down on that.

Except that the node name doesn’t represent the size of the transistor.

 

[bobcomer]

The latest and greatest hasn't been needed for business in a long time. A low-power Intel NUC or even a compute stick is more than powerful enough to run basic productivity apps. Hell, an iPad can run them without breaking a sweat. The biggest threat to Microsoft's dominance isn't the Mac, it's Chromebooks.

Only the Intel NUC runs windows though, so that's the only one that runs the apps we need. It's not a performance issue. (Other than the Chromebooks that also run Windows, I wouldn't have a problem with that.) I agree, Chromebooks are more of a threat than Apple, but that's all Apple's intention rather than Chromebooks having something better than them!

As for ROI, keeping your software current and secure is essential today. Unless you're running on a machine that has absolutely no network connection, or people plugging in external drives.

Uhh, no, you don't know how most businesses treat IT. It's not a for profit operation, and if it doesn't make money, they don't spend on it if they can help it, I know, I've tried. We upgrade to new PC's all the time and stay current with Windows, that's a given, but new critical software, no, that not only costs WAY too much, it doesn't return a thing.

 

[robco74]

Only the Intel NUC runs windows though, so that's the only one that runs the apps we need. It's not a performance issue. (Other than the Chromebooks that also run Windows, I wouldn't have a problem with that.) I agree, Chromebooks are more of a threat than Apple, but that's all Apple's intention rather than Chromebooks having something better than them!


Uhh, no, you don't know how most businesses treat IT. It's not a for profit operation, and if it doesn't make money, they don't spend on it if they can help it, I know, I've tried. We upgrade to new PC's all the time and stay current with Windows, that's a given, but new critical software, no, that not only costs WAY too much, it doesn't return a thing.

Right and if you only care about spending as little as possible, then Apple has zero interest in having you as a customer and you should stick with Windows. MS tolerates this because of volume sales and support contracts, Apple does not. When it comes to IT, most businesses are penny wise and pound foolish. If your computers aren't connected to the internet, it's not a problem, if they are, then it's just asking for trouble.

If you're just supporting a bunch of office drones, then that might work. I've worked in fields where you have professionals making considerable amounts of money. Newer technology that allows them to do more work in less time usually pays for itself rather quickly.

 

[Sydde]

Except that the node name doesn’t represent the size of the transistor.

Most logic is mosfet, right? I was under the impression that the size was the width of the gap between the e/d/c leads on the substrate.

 

[cmaier]

Most logic is mosfet, right? I was under the impression that the size was the width of the gap between the e/d/c leads on the substrate.

Nothing is mosfet anymore. It’s all finfet. And fets don’t have emitters or collectors (which is what I assume ”e” and “c” refer to) - those are bipolar transistors. (And in bipolar transistors, the base (the element used to switch the transistor) is vertical, so its lateral size is typically huge.

Anyway, fets have sources, gates and drains. The “gate” width to length ratio determines the drive strength of the FET. But., for example, on a 5nm process neither the gate width or length is ever 5nm. It’s always much bigger. The 5nm refers to the smallest possible theoretical dimension (sort of. It’s actually more marketing-speak than that, nowadays), not to the size of the transistor gate.

 

[bobcomer]

Right and if you only care about spending as little as possible,

That's business!

then Apple has zero interest in having you as a customer and you should stick with Windows.

I agree. And Apple wont be getting any of our money -- they really wouldn't anyway given their penchant for deprecating their own hardware and software, and not caring about anyone else's software. But Microsoft, who understands backwards compatibility with OS's, will continue to get the money, as will Intel.

When it comes to IT, most businesses are penny wise and pound foolish

I don't disagree, but business, at least in the U.S., is VERY bottom line conscious. They have to see a money benefit, and that's just the way it is.

If your computers aren't connected to the internet, it's not a problem, if they are, then it's just asking for trouble.

It depends on what you mean connected to the internet. Access from outside is limited to a couple servers, and very securely. We only have one server exposed to the internet, and it's not easily crackable and it's watched. (it's not a web server) We have a very good firewall over everything

If you mean can the PC's access the internet, yes, they can, but they're as safe as they can be, just like MacOS and Linux. They're not out of date just because you think Intel is so far behind.

If you're just supporting a bunch of office drones, then that might work.

It's more than that, but it *will* work, not might, better than if it were MacOS at a much cheaper cost.

I've worked in fields where you have professionals making considerable amounts of money. Newer technology that allows them to do more work in less time usually pays for itself rather quickly.

That's pretty rare, but we take advantage of newer tech too, when there's an obvious payoff!

 

[Hexley]

And it doesn't matter to me at all, they could take it down to 1 atom wide level and the first thing I'd ask is does it run my software...

Any computer released today can run software. It's just how fast it can run, how much it cost, how much is it to operate and how much heat does it generate.

Law of diminishing returns comes into play when you go beyond base models.

 

[bobcomer]

Any computer released today can run software. It's just how fast it can run, how much it cost, how much is it to operate and how much heat does it generate.

Which kind of software is the most important criteria... (i.e. "my software") A Mac M1 doesn't when it comes to where I work.

 

[Hexley]

Which kind of software is the most important criteria... (i.e. "my software") A Mac M1 doesn't when it comes to where I work.

You are aware you're on a Mac forum, right?

Software that does not run on macOS isn't soemthing we care about

 

[madonnaragu]

I never thought I'd switch to a Mac. But Intel/AMD and Windows laptop manufacturers haven't been able to produce what Apple has done: a thin, fast, completely fanless laptop with good battery life. Hopefully, this pushes Intel to do better.

 

[cmaier]

I never thought I'd switch to a Mac. But Intel/AMD and Windows laptop manufacturers haven't been able to produce what Apple has done: a thin, fast, completely fanless laptop with good battery life. Hopefully, this pushes Intel to do better.

It’s not like Intel hasn’t been trying. They just can’t get it done.

 

[bobcomer]

You are aware you're on a Mac forum, right?

Yep. I even own Macs, including an M1.

Software that does not run on macOS isn't soemthing we care about

Unless you're me.

 

[skaertus]

It’s not like Intel hasn’t been trying. They just can’t get it done.

For now. Intel is trying to rebound. There is a new CEO to conduct a deeper restructuring.

Intel has been struggling for some time now. At one point it got so much ahead of competition that it became too lazy and inefficient.

Then AMD, which is a much smaller company making Intel clones, managed to beat Intel at its own game in recent years.

Then Qualcomm, a manufacturer of processors for smartphones, decided to put its toe on the water and make processors for PCs.

And Apple decided that its own smartphone processors became more powerful and power-efficient than Intel's, and decided to put them in all the line-up.

Intel is in a bad place, but it is a large company and it is fighting back. The 11th gen Intel processors are significantly better than the 10th gen. And the 12th gen is expected to bring several improvements.

It is not on the same level as Apple, but the gap may reduce. That will also depend on how Apple manages to improve the M1 into the M2 or something.

Competition is always good. Apple is so comfortable now that the M1 iMac seems far less worth it than the M1 MacBook Air released last year. Perhaps this is because no competitor managed to provide similar performance in the past five months since the release of M1?

Leave Apple alone with its M1 and we will get decreasing performance improvements for increasing price adjustments.

 

[Abazigal]

It is not on the same level as Apple, but the gap may reduce. That will also depend on how Apple manages to improve the M1 into the M2 or something.

Right now, the power of the M1 chip is that Apple has somehow managed to essentially do away with the conventional drawbacks that we had been conditioned to accept under Intel. The M1 chip allows for longer battery life, great performance, and thin form factors due to the little heat produced. It's really the best of all worlds as far as I can see, with very little drawbacks (at least none that matter to Apple).

I am not writing Intel out of the race yet, but I really have a hard time seeing how they plan to compete.

 

[quarkysg]

Leave Apple alone with its M1 and we will get decreasing performance improvements for increasing price adjustments.

IMHO the M1’s potential has yet to be fully realized by existing software, since its only 5 months old. There’re yet more performance to be unleashed for the M1 once developers understand how to make better use of the UMA and the currently unused cores locked within the SoC.

As for Intel, it has been Apple pushing them to deliver on mobile solution CPUs, which resulted in the original MB Air. Intel just couldn’t keep the momentum going, probably because Apple is just a tiny fraction of their business and the other manufacturers are just fine with whatever Intel is dishing out.

Going further back, I think it’s due to Apple switching to the PowerPC and initially having a performance advantage over x86 that got Intel into shape. When Apple switched to Intel, this likely made Intel conceited and that made them lost their drive to improve.

So the way I see it, unless Apple has changed their culture of pushing the boundary, I think we’ll continue to get surprises from them in the foreseeable future. Apple, IMHO, has always competed against itself, and this will likely continue.

 

[skaertus]

Right now, the power of the M1 chip is that Apple has somehow managed to essentially do away with the conventional drawbacks that we had been conditioned to accept under Intel. The M1 chip allows for longer battery life, great performance, and thin form factors due to the little heat produced. It's really the best of all worlds as far as I can see, with very little drawbacks (at least none that matter to Apple).

I am not writing Intel out of the race yet, but I really have a hard time seeing how they plan to compete.

Well, I cannot say for the technical aspects as I have limited knowledge.

However, perhaps Intel does not have to do away with all the drawbacks, as long as consumers are satisfied with what they get. I looked into some reviews I found on the Internet.

I looked at the tests conducted by Notebookcheck, as detailed below.

Performance (Geekbench 5.3):

Model	Processor	Single-core	Multi-core
MacBook Air	M1	1727	7578
MacBook Pro	M1	1740	7590
MacBook Air	Core i5-1030NG7	1167	2881
Dell XPS 9310	Core i7-1165G7	1547	5682
Microsoft Surface Pro 7 Plus	Core i5-1135G7	1334	4866
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1	Core i7-1160G7	1427	4991
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Carbon	Core i7-1165G7	1564	5588
HP Spectre x360	Core i7-1165G7	1515	5374
Lenovo ThinkPad X13 Yoga	Core i7-10510U	1209	3637

Battery:

Model	Processor	Battery runtime (WiFi v1.3, in minutes)
MacBook Air	M1	960
MacBook Pro	M1	1223
MacBook Air	Core i5-1030NG7	617.7
Dell XPS 9310	Core i7-1165G7	657
Microsoft Surface Pro 7 Plus	Core i5-1135G7	483
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga G1	Core i7-1160G7	506
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i Carbon	Core i7-1165G7	480
HP Spectre x360	Core i7-1165G7	707

The M1 is superior to Intel Tiger Lake in both performance and battery life. But the gap in battery life has reduced significantly from Ice Lake (10th gen) to Tiger Lake (11th gen).

Apple's latest Intel processors were Ice Lake. As you can see, M1 is more than two times faster in multi-core tasks than Intel's 10th gen. However, Ice Lake is a 2019 processor, and Intel made significant improvements in the following year.

Apple's M1 is faster than Intel's 11th gen processors, but the difference is smaller. M1 is about 11-12% faster than i7-1165G7 in single-core tasks, and about 30-40% faster in multi-core tasks, according to Geekbench 5.3. The M1 is still faster, but not by such a huge margin.

There are leaks according to which Intel's Alder Lake (12th gen) could be 20% faster in single-core tasks and twice as fast in multi-core tasks than Tiger Lake. This is yet to be seen, as such leaks tend to be inaccurate. If these leaks confirm to be true, then some of Intel's Alder Lake mobile processors can be even faster than the M1. There is a lot to play here, obviously.

These leaked benchmarks are probably highly inaccurate and do not reflect the truth. Plus, Apple is going to release the M2 (or whatever they call it) this year, which will be the rightful competitor to Intel's Alder Lake.

However, it is undeniable that Intel is finally making leaps in performance, as we had not seen in the last 5 or maybe 10 years. Intel is finally catching up or at least trying to. The differences in performance from 10th to 11th gen Intel chips are already big. And the 12th gen will get a big.LITTLE design (just like ARM chips), so it should bring Intel's most significant improvements yet.

Battery life is another story. Apple M1 is still far ahead of Intel. Intel made improvements in Tiger Lake, compared to previous generations. The Surface Laptop 4, for instance, reportedly has much better battery life than the Surface Laptop 3. However, Apple is miles ahead. A big.LITTLE design may benefit battery life, which may help Intel processors fare better.

But one cannot deny that the superiority of Apple's M1 over Intel is now less than the one announced in the November 2020 event.

So, it seems to me that the processors' war is heating up. AMD and Qualcomm are also making their moves.

 

[UBS28]

Which kind of software is the most important criteria... (i.e. "my software") A Mac M1 doesn't when it comes to where I work.

Exactly. And the route Apple has been taking, is Apple is now dictating what software we can run, rather than providing the enviroment where we can run all the software we need. If your software is still in 32-bit, sorry, Apple says you cannot run it anymore and Apple doesn't offer the possibility to downgrade OS X, because my machine is too new.

People here defend Apple by calling it "legacy software", that we are "using the Mac wrong".

The iPad Pro never reached it full potential not due to hardware, but due to software. Time will tell if this is going to be the case for ARM Mac's too. Because Rosetta 2 will be removed at some point too and I will be curious to see which software remains then.

AMD would have been the best choice imo.