Intel Alder Lake vs. Apple M1

[leman]

Alder Lake reviews are out, and given recent discussions on the topic I though it would be interesting to revisit this, this time with proper numbers in hand.

The bottom line is: yes, Alder Lake performance cores are faster than M1 performance cores... barely (by ~ 10%)... while consuming more than 10 times more power. In multi-core performance, the top of the line desktop i9 (8+8 cores, 24 threads) is up to 50% faster in integer workloads than M1 Max/Pro (8+2 cores, 10 threads), while consuming 6x as much power... and no performance advantage on SPEC fp workloads. But hey, Intel has overtaken Zen3... slightly... while still consuming 2x power on desktop. Thermally constrained i9 laptops will probably have 5% higher scores in single core compared to M1 chips (while revving up the fans like crazy) and likely at least 20% in sustained workloads. Or maybe even more, if the 45W TDP is a hard sustained ceiling (which is probably not going to be).

This again illustrates that Apple did the right thing switching. There is no meaningful innovation happening in x86 world. Intel CPUs run hotter than ever and the promises that the new E-cores perform like Skylake at much lower power consumption levels were of course greatly exaggerated. Intel is squeezing out some more performance by literally cranking up the burner. And let's hope your workflow is parallel enough to properly schedule 24 asymmetric hardware threads...

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

Thats all fine, but did they even bother checking hashcat scores or boot time?

 

[bobcomer]

Alder Lake reviews are out, and given recent discussions on the topic I though it would be interesting to revisit this, this time with proper numbers in hand.

The bottom line is: yes, Alder Lake performance cores are faster than M1 performance cores... barely (by ~ 10%)... while consuming more than 10 times more power. In multi-core performance, the top of the line desktop i9 (8+8 cores, 24 threads) is up to 50% faster in integer workloads than M1 Max/Pro (8+2 cores, 10 threads), while consuming 6x as much power... and no performance advantage on SPEC fp workloads. But hey, Intel has overtaken Zen3... slightly... while still consuming 2x power on desktop. Thermally constrained i9 laptops will probably have 5% higher scores in single core compared to M1 chips (while revving up the fans like crazy) and likely at least 20% in sustained workloads. Or maybe even more, if the 45W TDP is a hard sustained ceiling (which is probably not going to be).

This again illustrates that Apple did the right thing switching. There is no meaningful innovation happening in x86 world. Intel CPUs run hotter than ever and the promises that the new E-cores perform like Skylake at much lower power consumption levels were of course greatly exaggerated. Intel is squeezing out some more performance by literally cranking up the burner. And let's hope your workflow is parallel enough to properly schedule 24 asymmetric hardware threads...

Fascinating, thanks for the analysis. I still disagree with you conclusion about Apple making the right choice because of power savings.

Since I cancelled my M1 Max, I'll probably be ordering a Dell or Lenovo Alder lake laptop (probably i7 level) in not too long a time. I have to live in a windows world at work...

 

[jz0309]

Thanks for the summary, glad that Apple did go this way, esp when I see that my M1 MBA shows 20hrs of battery life and performs similar to the 2019 base 15 that I traded in for it

 

[TrueBlou]

When Intel beat Apple out on a performance to watt ratio, then I’ll be impressed. Until then, it looks like I’m stuck with giant coolers and a noisy system for my Windows server.

I really should just move everything over to the M1 Mac Mini I bought as a second server and turn my Windows rig into just a NAS. Or better yet, throw the bugger out and buy a couple of 8 bay NAS enclosures and save myself a fortune on electricity

 

[dgdosen]

There is no meaningful innovation happening in x86 world.

That won't be seen as a controversial statement.

 

[leman]

Fascinating, thanks for the analysis. I still disagree with you conclusion about Apple making the right choice because of power savings.

It's not just about power savings. Ultimately, it's about performance. Sure, an 8+8 Alder Lake at 280W is faster than the 8+2 M1 Pro at 40W. But then you try to put that thing in into a laptop... and suddenly you don't have 270W to play with. Maybe you have 60W if your laptop is large and toasty enough. So you have to scale your clocks down - by a wide margin.

 

[dgdosen]

Alder Lake performance cores are faster than M1 performance cores... barely (by ~ 10%)... while consuming more than 10 times more power.

This is a striking statement.

I don't see how Intel can ship a competitive Alder Lake laptop chip that can be air cooled and run on battery power.

 

[leman]

That won't be seen as a controversial statement.

Of course what I wrote is highly provocative. But then again, does adding a bunch of slower cores to help out with multicore performance really quality as innovation? You are treating the symptom, not the cause. While under the hood, the same old problems remain. Even after the massive ore redesign, they still need almost 80 watts of power to be competitive with Zen3 at 25W or M1 at 5W!!!

This is a striking statement.

I don't see how Intel can ship a competitive Alder Lake laptop chip that can be air cooled and run on battery power.

Ah, come on, don't be silly. Of course they can. It will just be not nearly as impressive or performant as claimed. No wonder Intel has been manipulating benchmarks. They have this impressive front, but the supports are rotten.

 

[crazy dave]

I’m wondering what the design bottleneck is to making the E-cores the new P-core as they are already >50% of the way there with far superior P/W and PPA to their P core counterparts. Mind you, they probably wouldn’t be quite so good on either front if they needed to become the P-cores but it seems like they’re the better core design. Obviously something about them doesn’t scale, at least this generation, since Intel didn’t go that route.

But then again, does adding a bunch of slower cores to help out with multicore performance really quality as innovation?

Although I’d argue that those E cores seem to have a really cool architecture. Maybe they’re the future?

 

[bobcomer]

It's not just about power savings. Ultimately, it's about performance. Sure, an 8+8 Alder Lake at 280W is faster than the 8+2 M1 Pro at 40W. But then you try to put that thing in into a laptop... and suddenly you don't have 270W to play with. Maybe you have 60W if your laptop is large and toasty enough. So you have to scale your clocks down - by a wide margin.

There's more than pure performance to worry about unfortunately, hence my choice of the i7 level.

I'll be getting something lighter that will run Windows apps, that happens to be almost as fast at most things. And most likely it will be cheaper too. Fair tradeoff!

 

[HughRR]

Well you have to give Intel their due; not many businesses can cram 30 years of necromancy in a product.

 

[crazy dave]

It's not just about power savings. Ultimately, it's about performance. Sure, an 8+8 Alder Lake at 280W is faster than the 8+2 M1 Pro at 40W. But then you try to put that thing in into a laptop... and suddenly you don't have 270W to play with. Maybe you have 60W if your laptop is large and toasty enough. So you have to scale your clocks down - by a wide margin.

Yeah somehow I’m thinking that the “leak” showing the laptop part beating the M1 Max is probably not real

 

[crazy dave]

There's than pure performance to worry about unfortunately, hence my choice of the i7 level.

I'll be getting something lighter that will runs Windows apps, that happens to be almost as fast at most things. And most likely it will be cheaper too. Fair tradeoff!

Wait … your previous posts on this subject was that raw power was paramount including for laptops. Don’t get me wrong I understand that you also need compatibility with the Wintel ecosystem, so this is less about M1 than it is about i7. You were very adamant about needing as much raw performance for yourself as you could get. What changed?

 

[zarathu]

How about we wait until see what Intel has actually made inside a real laptop, rather than what they say they are making outside of a real machine you can use?

 

[leman]

Although I’d argue that those E cores seem to have a really cool architecture. Maybe they’re the future?

Why would you say that? They are basically on par with some older ARM cores but still need much more power. There is nothing interesting here.

 

[crazy dave]

Why would you say that? They are basically on par with some older ARM cores but still need much more power. There is nothing interesting here.

I was thinking more along the lines of the future for Intel not in general. For Intel they’re a huge step in PPW and especially PPA. Intrinsically the microarchitecture is also kind of interesting. But yes ARM and especially Apple-ARM are ahead on both metrics still.

 

[CoffeeMacBook]

I don't want to derail this thread but, there's just something about how Intel held back the CPU industry for so long that rubs me the wrong way. I haven't kept up with CPU tech. Though competition is great for consumers, I just wished Intel would value innovation and excellence for it's own sake not simply because they're forced.

Can't help but feel a bit of lament in saying "couldn't you have done this 5 years ago?". I guess, in a way, if it wasn't for Intel standing by all these years perhaps Apple wouldn't have wanted to push those boundaries and into M1.

I'm excited to see what Apple has next year, and where ARM would go next.

 

[bobcomer]

Wait … your previous posts on this subject was that raw power was paramount including for laptops.

No, that was for all computers, but yes, there are tradeoffs in everything! I can still get computers a lot faster than the M1 Max, I just don't want to lug them around with me!

Put that Alder Lake in a desktop with ample cooling, and guess what, it has higher raw performance. Don't know if I'll upgrade my desktop though, cost is another thing one has to take into account.

Don’t get me wrong I understand that you also need compatibility with the Wintel ecosystem, so this is less about M1 than it is about i7.

Very true, but I did *want* the M1 Max laptop for home. It really all came down to weight, cost, and no clear direction for running Windows stuff in a VM. Even I have to take other things into account than raw performance, in spite of my insisting that was what I wanted the most. Not having a ship date for a month and a half also let me have time to talk myself out of it.

The MBA left a bad taste in my mouth performance-wise, and that probably is why I was so insistent in those posts. I'm absolutely positive than the M1 Max 32G would have covered everything I wanted except for x86 emulation.

What changed is I'm now shopping for a new laptop, the old XPS-15 was getting kind of slow in comparison, even though it has the best display, and I wanted to trade in my M1 MBA for something else.

Before I was comparing all PCs because I wasn't shopping for a particular type.

 

[crazy dave]

No, that was for all computers, but yes, there are tradeoffs in everything! I can still get computers a lot faster than the M1 Max, I just don't want to lug them around with me!

Put that Alder Lake in a desktop with ample cooling, and guess what, it has higher raw performance. Don't know if I'll upgrade my desktop though, cost is another thing one has to take into account.


Very true, but I did *want* the M1 Max laptop for home. It really all came down to weight, cost, and no clear direction for running Windows stuff in a VM. Even I have to take other things into account than raw performance, in spite of my insisting that was what I wanted the most. Not having a ship date for a month and a half also let me have time to talk myself out of it.

The MBA left a bad taste in my mouth performance-wise, and that probably is why I was so insistent in those posts. I'm absolutely positive than the M1 Max 32G would have covered everything I wanted except for x86 emulation.

What changed is I'm now shopping for a new laptop, the old XPS-15 was getting kind of slow in comparison, even though it has the best display, and I wanted to trade in my M1 MBA for something else.

Before I was comparing all PCs because I wasn't shopping for a particular type.

I see … that’s still a little unfair as a comparison point though

 

[bobcomer]

I see … that’s still a little unfair as a comparison point though

Only if you count weight (portability) in the comparison!

 

[Rigby]

In multi-core performance, the top of the line desktop i9 (8+8 cores, 24 threads) is up to 50% faster in integer workloads than M1 Max/Pro (8+2 cores, 10 threads), while consuming 6x as much power...

These power comparisons aren't all that meaningful, given that power consumption grows super-linearly with clock rate and voltage. The desktop CPUs are tuned for absolutely highest performance, because they wanted to clearly beat AMD. But there are some indications that you can reduce the power consumption very significantly without losing much performance, see e.g.:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455961649282752525

Also, while the i9-12900K guzzles power when all cores are fully loaded, it actually seems more power efficient than AMD when running more realistic workloads, probably because of the E-cores. See e.g. here (scroll down to the power consumption section near the end):

Intel Core i9-12900K review: Intel. Is. Back.

Intel achieves a stunning come back for the ages with Alder Lake and the Core i9-12900K.

www.pcworld.com

Considering that Intel is still at a disadvantage on the manufacturing process I think those are very good results. If they manage to catch up to TSMC, they'll probably take a clear lead.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what the upcoming laptop versions of the CPU can do.

 

[crazy dave]

Only if you count weight (portability) in the comparison!

In a laptop? Kinda yeah it’s sort of the point!

 

[zarathu]

Alder Lake reviews are out, and given recent discussions on the topic I though it would be interesting to revisit this, this time with proper numbers in hand.

Probably would be better to wait and see what Intel actually produces and when they actually materialize, and when these potential materializations actually show up in a laptop that can be compared to the Mac’s that are actually out there.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I don't want to derail this thread but, there's just something about how Intel held back the CPU industry for so long that rubs me the wrong way. I haven't kept up with CPU tech. Though competition is great for consumers, I just wished Intel would value innovation and excellence for it's own sake not simply because they're forced.

Can't help but feel a bit of lament in saying "couldn't you have done this 5 years ago?". I guess, in a way, if it wasn't for Intel standing by all these years perhaps Apple wouldn't have wanted to push those boundaries and into M1.

I'm excited to see what Apple has next year, and where ARM would go next.

Because for so long Intel had no real competition from AMD due to inept management. Although I am still somewhat skeptical of AMD’s success long term, they took market share away from Intel. Apple started on a course and after a while got enough confidence to venture outside of reference designs. Now look at where they are. Perhaps I should thank Intel for their laziness, hubris and ineptitude since it definitely pushed Apple to try harder with SoCs and look at what we’ve got now and to look forward to in the future. After the cornucopia of CPUs in the 1990s, to have to face a future where Intel was really the only player was depressing as hell. The way Intel acted as gatekeeper and dragged out generations of CPUs with little progress or innovation was certainly a catalyst for Apple and others to start moving away from Intel. I hope it continues until Intel is a niche player. Goodbye Chipzilla, I won’t miss your sorry ass.