Intel 12900HK is faster than M1 Max for both single and multi cores.

[Magnetar]

I don't get this debate - the laptops currently actually making decent use of a 11980hk which I guess this 12900hk will be replacing are something like the Alienware x17 - a 3+kg heavy brick which I wouldn't even call a laptop - it's more like a desktop that you can occasionally relocate, certainly not something for actually working on the go. Something like the M16 which is at least portable runs an 11900h which is 20% slower than the 11980hk in Geekbench, so any 12th gen chip replacing that will likely still be slower than the M1 Max. And we are just focusing on the chip here - more importantly, the new MacBooks give you an SSD that's faster than the 980 Pro which I frankly haven't even seen in any standard laptop config, great, if not best-in-class screen, great trackpad, and best-in-class durability. The only laptops that come close to that are the XPS and Thinkpad X1 (Extreme) line and while I love the XPS design, it's been plagued with QC for literally the best part of the decade, and you essentially only get 50-70% performance out of your chip due to thermal constraints.

I am no fan of MacOS and have actually never owned anything from Apple other than an iPod touch ages ago, but I really don't see any feasible alternative to get what I currently want in a laptop other than waiting for another 1-2 iterations of Intel or AMD chips, and I don't think my ThinkPad will make it that long.

 

[leman]

The way it beats M1 Max by a tiny bit while using over 4x the wattage (and that’s just going by the stated TDP; it’s likely closer to 6-7x the wattage)… Yep x86 is dead

It should also be noted that an x86 machine is going to feel much less smooth regardless of raw power due to architectural differences.

I think that Anandtech's benchmarks show very clearly that the small distance between Apple and leading x86 shown by Geekbench widens to a huge gap when you consider more demanding sustained workloads. For example, i9-11980HK (current Intel's top mobile CPU) at 65W TDP is essentially identical to M1 Max in multicore GB5, but once you start looking at SPEC where the computations don't take mere seconds, Tiger Lake cannot maintain it's turbo and M1 Max gets ahead by a considerable margin (2x faster in computation-heavy workloads).

 

[ilikewhey]

Apple is on 5nm while Intel is 7nm. Apple has an advantage anyway.

you can't just compare nm, thats a rookie error,

 

[AltecX]

I don't get this debate - the laptops currently actually making decent use of a 11980hk which I guess this 12900hk will be replacing are something like the Alienware x17 - a 3+kg heavy brick which I wouldn't even call a laptop - it's more like a desktop that you can occasionally relocate, certainly not something for actually working on the go. Something like the M16 which is at least portable runs an 11900h which is 20% slower than the 11980hk in Geekbench, so any 12th gen chip replacing that will likely still be slower than the M1 Max. And we are just focusing on the chip here - more importantly, the new MacBooks give you an SSD that's faster than the 980 Pro which I frankly haven't even seen in any standard laptop config, great, if not best-in-class screen, great trackpad, and best-in-class durability. The only laptops that come close to that are the XPS and Thinkpad X1 (Extreme) line and while I love the XPS design, it's been plagued with QC for literally the best part of the decade, and you essentially only get 50-70% performance out of your chip due to thermal constraints.

I am no fan of MacOS and have actually never owned anything from Apple other than an iPod touch ages ago, but I really don't see any feasible alternative to get what I currently want in a laptop other than waiting for another 1-2 iterations of Intel or AMD chips, and I don't think my ThinkPad will make it that long.

I've not seen any benchmarks of the SSD cracking over 6,500 yet, most reviews have the 1TB in 5,700-6,200 range. Let alone near the 7400 claimed. The 980 Pro has been seen 7,138 in benchmarks, also for 1TB.

That said, 4K r/w is more important than peak burst. Thats why in for example in games a good SATA 3 drive is barely out performance by a new NVMe. Unless you are moving single MASSIVE files you're not going to see much, if any, tangible performance change between any solid brand name drive.

 

[crazy dave]

I think that Anandtech's benchmarks show very clearly that the small distance between Apple and leading x86 shown by Geekbench widens to a huge gap when you consider more demanding sustained workloads. For example, i9-11980HK (current Intel's top mobile CPU) at 65W TDP is essentially identical to M1 Max in multicore GB5, but once you start looking at SPEC where the computations don't take mere seconds, Tiger Lake cannot maintain it's turbo and M1 Max gets ahead by a considerable margin (2x faster in computation-heavy workloads).

And the M1 Max CPU is simply ridiculous in memory bound workloads ... as in not fair.

 

[leman]

And the M1 Max CPU is simply ridiculous in memory bound workloads ... as in not fair.

Yeah, 100GB/s single core memcpy() is insane. My R code is likely to be 2-3 times faster than my Intel i9...

 

[EugW]

I think that Anandtech's benchmarks show very clearly that the small distance between Apple and leading x86 shown by Geekbench widens to a huge gap when you consider more demanding sustained workloads. For example, i9-11980HK (current Intel's top mobile CPU) at 65W TDP is essentially identical to M1 Max in multicore GB5, but once you start looking at SPEC where the computations don't take mere seconds, Tiger Lake cannot maintain it's turbo and M1 Max gets ahead by a considerable margin (2x faster in computation-heavy workloads).

Perhaps even more important may be the combined CPU/GPU power utilization:

M1 Max: 92 Watts
i9-11980HK: 220 Watts

 

[leman]

Perhaps even more important may be the combined CPU/GPU power utilization:

This probably won't impact current software (as it's fairly uncommon to push both at the same time), but Apple Silicon architecture will allow new approaches to software that better utilize its hybrid nature. I am very exited

 

[magbarn]

Definitely not a gaming laptop. Nowhere close to 3080. Anandtech said at 1080P it's CPU limited!
but at UHD it's the GPU holding it back. Maybe that's why Apple didn't mention gaming performance in their presentation

Of course for work, this laptop is just awesome. Sad I'll still need to lug around my Asus gaming laptop when I want to work and play on the road. Or just keep my i9 MBP 16....

 

[Andropov]

Definitely not a gaming laptop. Nowhere close to 3080. Anandtech said at 1080P it's CPU limited!
but at UHD it's the GPU holding it back. Maybe that's why Apple didn't mention gaming performance in their presentation

It could be a gaming laptop, if only developers invested in the platform. The Aztec benchmark is very good, just a bit short of the 3080, so the games tested have a huge room for improvement. They're not even compiled for Apple Silicon, they're running under Rosetta.

 

[magbarn]

It could be a gaming laptop, if only developers invested in the platform. The Aztec benchmark is very good, just a bit short of the 3080, so the games tested have a huge room for improvement. They're not even compiled for Apple Silicon, they're running under Rosetta.

What's interesting is that in Geekbench the M1 Max slots around the 3060 which matches its gaming performance. Anandtech tried to take emulation out of the picture by benching at 4K which takes makes the test much more GPU bound.

 

[Andropov]

What's interesting is that in Geekbench the M1 Max slots around the 3060 which matches its gaming performance. Anandtech tried to take emulation out of the picture by benching at 4K which takes makes the test much more GPU bound.

Andrei said the 32 core M1 Max Geekbench compute score was too low because the test was too short to get the GPU to reach max frequency. Hence why other tests (like Aztec) fare so much better to the M1 Max.

 

[Krevnik]

Definitely not a gaming laptop. Nowhere close to 3080. Anandtech said at 1080P it's CPU limited!
but at UHD it's the GPU holding it back. Maybe that's why Apple didn't mention gaming performance in their presentation

Of course for work, this laptop is just awesome. Sad I'll still need to lug around my Asus gaming laptop when I want to work and play on the road. Or just keep my i9 MBP 16....

I wish they had included the Intel 16” MBP in the gaming comparisons. I’m interested in the uplift from the 15“/16” models for gaming, much as others are interested in the comparison to Windows gaming laptops.

I don’t use the MBP for Windows gaming. I mostly use it for a few indie titles. I’d be curious what sort of uplight I can expect on the Mac side of things without going in and digging up old reviews. In terms of productivity, I already have a pretty good idea what to expect, and if anything I wish the 24-core Max wasn’t a BTO-only option.

 

[magbarn]

Andrei said the 32 core M1 Max Geekbench compute score was too low because the test was too short to get the GPU to reach max frequency. Hence why other tests (like Aztec) fare so much better to the M1 Max.

So there's some kind of limiter keeping the M1 Max from going max frequency in gaming tests?

 

[Andropov]

So there's some kind of limiter keeping the M1 Max from going max frequency in gaming tests?

No, the Geekbench score is bad because of the short duration of the test. The gaming test are terrible for a whole different reason: they're not neither native (x86 under Rosetta) nor optimized for Metal/Apple Silicon (but they should reach max GPU frequency).

 

[leman]

Definitely not a gaming laptop. Nowhere close to 3080. Anandtech said at 1080P it's CPU limited!
but at UHD it's the GPU holding it back. Maybe that's why Apple didn't mention gaming performance in their presentation

Of course for work, this laptop is just awesome. Sad I'll still need to lug around my Asus gaming laptop when I want to work and play on the road. Or just keep my i9 MBP 16....

It's not CPU limited, it simply that these ports suck. Graphical benchmarks show it very clearly. I would love a more modern port such as Metro to be benchmarked, I expect results similar to 3070 mobile.

 

[zarathu]

I may be off here, but it’s been a long time since Apple has been the “fastest” in terms of CPU stuff.

Kinda hard to be the fastest when everyone is buying the same chips from the same company. Unless they are making them only for you, everyone will be the fastest as everyone else. Enforced mediocrity.

 

[vir]

Rosetta is the norm.

 

[zarathu]

Tomorrow is the day that we get all the benchmarks and see the M1 Pro and M1 Max MacBook Pro tested.

Here are the leaked developer benchmarks from Friday:

 

[Andropov]

Games being under Rosetta is the overwhelming norm on macOS, and will continue to be (until they wipe that out too). There aren't even 10 native AAA desktop-class non-iOS games ported to M1 yet after a year. Yes, this is the correct way to benchmark. We live in the real world, after all. Not the wishful thinking one.

We get it, you don't like Macs very much. You've made that abundantly clear by now.

 

[GumaRodak]

What gpu has this intel inside? Can it match the one in M max?

 

[Freeangel1]

I love how people are putting down Intel.
Wait until Alder Lake gets released and is MUCH CHEAPER than APPLE
It will EAT APPLE ARM for LUNCH.
Especially the 16 core version which is not out yet.

 

[zarathu]

Intel is still on 10nm at the moment.

Actually no. They have had almost 90% throwaways on the 10 nm process and have to go back to 14 nm.

 

[zarathu]

No. Apple's penchant for throwing backwards compatibility under the bus is not something corporate America likes. It costs big time money to rewrite for a new architecture, and it has absolutely no ROI.

You are apparently not aware how far back Windows 11 goes.

 

[zarathu]

I don't get this debate - the laptops currently actually making decent use of a 11980hk which I guess this 12900hk will be replacing are something like the Alienware x17 - a 3+kg heavy brick which I wouldn't even call a laptop - it's more like a desktop that you can occasionally relocate, certainly not something for actually working on the go. Something like the M16 which is at least portable runs an 11900h which is 20% slower than the 11980hk in Geekbench, so any 12th gen chip replacing that will likely still be slower than the M1 Max. And we are just focusing on the chip here - more importantly, the new MacBooks give you an SSD that's faster than the 980 Pro which I frankly haven't even seen in any standard laptop config, great, if not best-in-class screen, great trackpad, and best-in-class durability. The only laptops that come close to that are the XPS and Thinkpad X1 (Extreme) line and while I love the XPS design, it's been plagued with QC for literally the best part of the decade, and you essentially only get 50-70% performance out of your chip due to thermal constraints.

I am no fan of MacOS and have actually never owned anything from Apple other than an iPod touch ages ago, but I really don't see any feasible alternative to get what I currently want in a laptop other than waiting for another 1-2 iterations of Intel or AMD chips, and I don't think my ThinkPad will make it that long.

I fail to understand why you are on this forum, or why anyone here should bother responding to you. Go home.