But apples next chip should be compared to intels next chip too.
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.
Intel 12900HK is faster than M1 Max for both single and multi cores.
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good!
The stronger the competition the better it is for everyone...
The stronger the competition the better it is for everyone...
I do have one of those in laptop and it is not pleasant experience when it is under load. Runs hot and noisy.
Intel world fastest mobile CPU advert coming soon 
Also took them 4 more cores to do it and it will have half the battery life?
Also took them 4 more cores to do it and it will have half the battery life?
yes Apple will cone running back to buy your chips….. no they will not ?
Damn, a desktop level chip that will probably run at 200w+ at max load is beating a 30w laptop chip by a little bit.
In all seriousness, Intel will undoubtedly say this is the fastest CPU on the planet and they're right. Some people will fall for the marketing. But at the end of the day, it's mostly about performance/watt on mobile.
I do wish Apple would be aggressive to reclaiming the single thread though and it looks like they will as soon as the M2 Macbook Air.
If Apple does a 12-month update for the MBP, there is little chance Intel will catch Apple. If Apple does an 18-month cadence, Intel will certainly have the single-thread performance crown even if the TDP is significantly higher than Apple SoCs.
In all seriousness, Intel will undoubtedly say this is the fastest CPU on the planet and they're right. Some people will fall for the marketing. But at the end of the day, it's mostly about performance/watt on mobile.
I do wish Apple would be aggressive to reclaiming the single thread though and it looks like they will as soon as the M2 Macbook Air.
If Apple does a 12-month update for the MBP, there is little chance Intel will catch Apple. If Apple does an 18-month cadence, Intel will certainly have the single-thread performance crown even if the TDP is significantly higher than Apple SoCs.
Apple still have the Mac Pro and the iMac 27” as well as the remaining Intel Mac Mini to transition. We may yet be surprised again. Apple is getting hard to predict now.
It apparently is the mobile one but that still goes up to 65 Watt. Also memory-bus is about 8 times slower some other tests will be interesting to see and still waiting to see the M1 Max high performance mode.
Intel® Core™ i9-10980HK Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.30 GHz) Product Specifications
Intel® Core™ i9-10980HK Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.30 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.
It will most certainly use the A14 core because the core counts are 40/128. We didn't see any ST improvement for the Pro/Max even with much higher CPU TDP (10w to 30w). Also, the M2 MBA is coming out before the Mac Pro M1.
Then that's pretty impressive.It apparently is the mobile one but that still goes up to 65 Watt.
Intel® Core™ i9-10980HK Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.30 GHz) Product Specifications
Intel® Core™ i9-10980HK Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.30 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.ark.intel.com
However, Intel's 65w is like 100w when boosted. So M1 Pro/Max is still likely ~3x more efficient.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the Mac Pro will be M2 based.
Between 2006-2020 Intel had little to no incentive to improve tech or node process because they had all the PC OEM brands under their wing. They'll blame their inability to improve on technical issues but if they spent the R&D money they'd be able to match TSMC. Are they that incompetent or is it not a priority? But they did not preferring to keep the profit or give dividends to their shareholders.
AMD was not much of competition until recently when it was able to gain 20% market share.
It was only when M1 came on on a 5nm process did Intel suddenly want to compete.
When Steve Jobs popularized the concept of performance per Watt way back in 2005 that is how we should all determine a good chip from a less than good one.
You can compare a 1.5kW desktop workstation vs the M1 Max 32 GPU core 140W and declare the workstation as the winner but at over 10x the power consumption
Doubtful. The number of GPU cores doesn't line up. And it's supposed to be just 4 M1 Max dies glued together. If it's M2, then that means the M2 Max would have to be ready by then.
That’s quite an impressive benchmark! However, I find it hard to believe that this chip has the same TDP as the previous one. That would mean that Intel pulled a 45% YoY seemingly out of nowhere.
In fact, they didn’t only beat the M1 Pro/Max, they beat their latest DESKTOP CPU (11900K) with a mobile chip. How?
On the other hand, maybe the inclusion of the efficiency cores in Intel’s architecture was that good. Maybe that meant they could afford higher clocks for the performance cores without an outrageous power consumption. But, if that’s the case, they can’t do that next year, the efficiency cores are already there It’s kind of like when they increased the core count for mobile CPUs (2017-2018, I believe). Multicore performance got a sizable boost but then they went back to 2-4% performance/watt increases YoY.
Apple has been getting regular 20% improvements YoY for their CPUs, let’s not get too excited because Intel has managed to do that a *single* year.
In fact, they didn’t only beat the M1 Pro/Max, they beat their latest DESKTOP CPU (11900K) with a mobile chip. How?
On the other hand, maybe the inclusion of the efficiency cores in Intel’s architecture was that good. Maybe that meant they could afford higher clocks for the performance cores without an outrageous power consumption. But, if that’s the case, they can’t do that next year, the efficiency cores are already there
It’s kind of like when they increased the core count for mobile CPUs (2017-2018, I believe). Multicore performance got a sizable boost but then they went back to 2-4% performance/watt increases YoY.Apple has been getting regular 20% improvements YoY for their CPUs, let’s not get too excited because Intel has managed to do that a *single* year.
Last edited:
As I said, competition is a good thing
That depends on what the performance delta is between the two and the application for which the chip will be used.
I’d rather have usable stable performance in my hand rather than boast a marginally higher performance that is not reachable without major drawbacks. How many 13/14“ laptops will feature that i9 CPU? How long can it sustain that turbo? How big a hit do you take when operating on battery? What is real world performance in complex tasks (mind, the base M1 already matches the Coffee Lake i9 for tasks like software development, even though the i9 is much faster in benchmarks).
I don’t feel like I lost anything, but I did get a very healthy performance and portability boost. Of course, if you heavily rely on all those legacy things you mention, it’s great that x86 offers high-performance alternatives. I think it’s great that we consumers have choice.
True. Maybe mode shrink + efficiency cores? Seems like too much of an improvement for node shrink alone.
They did significantly redesign the P-cores, making them wider. Also, the med-power Gracemont cores bring a large multi-core boost without breaking the power budget. Since Intel is clearly unable to make their performance cores consume less power, they are betting on a hybrid architecture with power hungry P cores and more efficient throughtput-oriented M cores. So I don’t find it surprising that their multicore performance has improved a lot.
But yes, power consumption is still an issue. TDP levels for Alder Lake were leaked a while ago, and these mobile CPUs have short term boosts approaching 200W. The sustained TDP is 45W, but I suspect that the i9 will have 60+W like Tiger Lake. Given short duration of Geekbench, the CPU in this article probably runs at 80W or more. Not something a thin laptop chassis can sustain for a while.
The thing is, even if Intel takes the performance crown for their top crop i9 CPU, this has little practical significance. The vast majority of Adler Lake laptops, especially those in compact laptops, are going to be considerably less impressive.
Personally I am taking these benchmarks with a grain of salt. First I dislike Geekbench as a benchmark and second I want to see shipping chips in real systems which can be benchmarked.
Hmm, at what, 45W or 65W TDP? Still toasty. Meanwhile Apple set the M1 Pro and Max at what, 30W max? The M1 in the MacBook Air has like what, 10W TDP?
I cannot deny that Intel is really putting an effort. Their 11th Gen is already a much better product than the 10th Gen. But enough is enough. If I were to buy a new laptop, my benchmark will be the cool running and fanless M1 MacBook Air. Intel's performance is rather pointless if it's the same toasty chip and has to be plugged in.
I cannot deny that Intel is really putting an effort. Their 11th Gen is already a much better product than the 10th Gen. But enough is enough. If I were to buy a new laptop, my benchmark will be the cool running and fanless M1 MacBook Air. Intel's performance is rather pointless if it's the same toasty chip and has to be plugged in.