Intel Alder Lake vs. Apple M1

[diamond.g]

They probably didn't think it was worth the hit to their BoM for a feature that so few would probably use (I mean do pros really hook their macs up via hdmi 2.1 tv's?)


Not that I don't agree, the should have gone with HDMI 2.1, but so far they are consistent, nothing they sell so far actually, natively supports the full spec).

 

[turbineseaplane]

They probably didn't think it was worth the hit to their BoM for a feature that so few would probably use (I mean do pros really hook their macs up via hdmi 2.1 tv's?)


Not that I don't agree, the should have gone with HDMI 2.1, but so far they are consistent, nothing they sell so far actually, natively supports the full spec).

That's certainly never stopped Apple from forcing adoption of forward looking things before..

 

[JMacHack]

I call it Octamax.

I want the “PowerMac” branding back.

 

[EntropyQ3]

They probably didn't think it was worth the hit to their BoM for a feature that so few would probably use (I mean do pros really hook their macs up via hdmi 2.1 tv's?)


Not that I don't agree, the should have gone with HDMI 2.1, but so far they are consistent, nothing they sell so far actually, natively supports the full spec).

Personally I find it a bit odd that the promote the MBPs by their ability to edit 7 simultaneous 8k video streams, but don’t have the ability to output a single one.
Understandable, sort of, but still weird.

 

[diamond.g]

Personally I find it a bit odd that the promote the MBPs by their ability to edit 7 simultaneous 8k video streams, but don’t have the ability to output a single one.
Understandable, sort of, but still weird.

Have to have something to sell us next year? ?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Personally I find it a bit odd that the promote the MBPs by their ability to edit 7 simultaneous 8k video streams, but don’t have the ability to output a single one.
Understandable, sort of, but still weird.

I do as well -- not really sure why anyone is defending the move on these machines with who they're targeted at and how they are priced.

I guess some are just conditioned to defend Apple all the time.
?‍♂️

 

[januarydrive7]

Personally I find it a bit odd that the promote the MBPs by their ability to edit 7 simultaneous 8k video streams, but don’t have the ability to output a single one.
Understandable, sort of, but still weird.

I do as well -- not really sure why anyone is defending the move on these machines with who they're targeted at and how they are priced.

AFAIK, 8k isn't terribly useful, yet, on consumer hardware. Unless you sit unreasonably close to your screen. Or perhaps for gaming, if you don't care about frame rates.

 

[theorist9]

...M1 only natively supports DisplayPort. All M1 Macs with a HDMI port drive it with a DP-to-HDMI converter chip....

I don't know whether Apple implemented DP Alt 2.0 in M1 Pro/Max, but they've got the physical layer for it....

But wait, you were really asking why HDMI 2.0. The glib answer is: that's what the DP-to-HDMI converter chip Apple selected provides. The real answer is that I suspect they regard the HDMI port as an auxiliary thing you use to drive a TV or projector in a conference room. For that purpose, 2.0 is probably fine for 99.9% of people. If you want a big high res display, they think you should be using some form of DisplayPort.

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to carefully address all my questions!

What you wrote about Apple's decision on HDMI 2.0 makes sense.

But, after reading your post, it occurred to me it's possible these might also have contributed:

1) Maybe Apple hasn't implemented DP Alt Mode 2.0. If so, wouldn't that preclude HDMI 2.1 since, to do DP->HDMI 2.1, it seems you'd need a DP stream that supports 48 Gb/s?

2) According to https://www.tweaktown.com/news/8103...verters-coming-the-first-dp-device/index.html, DP 2.0 ->HDMI converter chips were first released in August. So maybe Apple couldn't do HDMI 2.1 even if they wanted, b/c the chips weren't available soon enough to include in these machines. Or maybe converter commercial availability isn't an impediment by itself, since Apple could have commissioned custom converters. Rather (because HDMI is finicky), Apple didn't want to use a converter that had never been tested in the wild.

If you want a big high res display, they think you should be using some form of DisplayPort.

The reason I originally thought HDMI 2.1 would be nice is that Apple's TB4 implementation doesn't seem to support 8k*, but HDMI 2.1 does (with DSC), and I'd like the option to drive 8k once these monitors become more available. Currently I work with spreadsheets that I have to view at 50% on my 27" if I want to see all the columns. With 11 point text, they're readable, but it's not comfortable. A 43" 8k (that's the size at which 8k would have a "Retina" pixel density: ~220 ppi for external displays) would enable me to instead view them at 80%. [A 53" 10k would be even better ?.]

I also work with online tools that, at normal magnification, horizontally overflow my 27" display.

*TB4, even without DP Alt Mode 2.0, supports 8k@60 Hz (with DSC). So perhaps the reason they didn't claim 8k TB4 support is because there are no 8k TB4 monitors on the market yet, so there was no way for them to verify this. [The Dell 8k requires two cables, and the upcoming Viewsonic 8k hasn't yet been released.] By contrast, there are 8k HDMI 2.1 TV's so, if they did offer HDMI 2.1, 8k support could be verified for that port.

 

[JouniS]

AFAIK, 8k isn't terribly useful, yet, on consumer hardware. Unless you sit unreasonably close to your screen. Or perhaps for gaming, if you don't care about frame rates.

8k is only good for ultrawide displays. If your viewing angle is wide enough to benefit from 8k, a 16:9 display would be uncomfortably high.

I think 8k would be the retina resolution for a 38" 21:9 display. If Apple decides to release an iMac in that form factor, it will probably be the first reasonable consumer application for 8k.

 

[theorist9]

AFAIK, 8k isn't terribly useful, yet, on consumer hardware. Unless you sit unreasonably close to your screen. Or perhaps for gaming, if you don't care about frame rates.

8k is only good for ultrawide displays. If your viewing angle is wide enough to benefit from 8k, a 16:9 display would be uncomfortably high.

I think 8k would be the retina resolution for a 38" 21:9 display. If Apple decides to release an iMac in that form factor, it will probably be the first reasonable consumer application for 8k.

I sit a normal distance from my screen and, as I mentioned in my post above, 8k @ 43" (which would be an 8k retina at 16:9) would be great for me. It would enable me to see all columns of the spreadsheets I work with, without having to downsize them to tiny effective font sizes.

I also wouldn't mind the extra height of a 16:9 43". When I'm coding, or editing complicated Word documents, I'll often put my 27" in Portrait Mode, which is great, because I can see so much vertical real estate at once. A 43" 16:9 would give me 90% of the height my 27" 16:9 has in Portrait Mode, so I woudn't need to rotate my screen anymore.

Having said that, a somewhat higher aspect ratio (giving up some height for more width) would also work, particularly if the screen were curved to avoid high viewing angles at the edges. Though the difference in width between a 16:9 8k (43") and a 21:9 8k (38") is only 2.5". The difference in height, OTOH, is 6".

@JouniS: Agreed, in 21:9, a 38" display with Retina ppi would be 8k horizontally. It would also be easier to drive than than a 16:9 8k, since it would only have ~66% as many pixels. So if you could drive a 16:9 8k then, if you were go go 21:9, and if you allowed the same no. of pixels as the 16:9, you could increase the diagonal to 47" ?. That would give you 6" more horizontal width than a 16:9 43", and be just 2.5" shorter.

 

[januarydrive7]

I sit a normal distance from my screen and, as I mentioned in my post above, 8k @ 43" (which would be an 8k retina at 16:9) would be great for me. It would enable me to see all columns of the spreadsheets I work with, without having to downsize them to tiny effective font sizes.

I also wouldn't mind the extra height of a 16:9 43". When I'm coding, or editing complicated Word documents, I'll often put my 27" in Portrait Mode, which is great, because I can see so much vertical real estate at once. A 43" 16:9 would give me 90% of the height my 27" 16:9 has in Portrait Mode, so I woudn't need to rotate my screen anymore.

Having said that, a somewhat higher aspect ratio (giving up some height for more width) would also work, particularly if the screen were curved to avoid high viewing angles at the edges.

Is 8k @ 43" a common display setup?

 

[theorist9]

Is 8k @ 43" a common display setup?

I don't think it currently exists as a computer display. But, as I mentioned in my original post on this (#483), I am thinking about the future, as manufacturers start to release more 8k displays.

But I think I misunderstood your post when I replied to it. When you said "8k isn't terribly useful, yet, on consumer hardware", I thought you meant 8k displays (like the Dell 8k, which can be driven with a GTX 1080) weren't terribly useful; but you instead meant 8k ports. I agree with the latter--currently, there are no computer displays (as opposed to TV's) that need an 8k port (the Dell uses two older-spec TB ports).

 

[januarydrive7]

I don't think it currently exists as a computer display. But, as I mentioned in my original post on this (#483), I am thinking about the future, as manufacturers start to release more 8k displays.

Ahh -- I was suggesting that 8k isn't useful, yet. I agree that in the future we'll see this start to show up. I'm betting future display output from M-series MBs will be able to target future displays.

 

[JouniS]

Having said that, a somewhat higher aspect ratio (giving up some height for more width) would also work, particularly if the screen were curved to avoid high viewing angles at the edges. Though the difference in width between a 16:9 8k (43") and a 21:9 8k (38") is only 2.5". The difference in height, OTOH, is 6".

The difference in height is probably the reason why large displays are usually ultrawide instead of keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. Human field of vision is wide, and rotating you head side-to-side is more ergonomic in the long term than looking up and down.

 

[EntropyQ3]

AFAIK, 8k isn't terribly useful, yet, on consumer hardware. Unless you sit unreasonably close to your screen. Or perhaps for gaming, if you don't care about frame rates.

We are not talking about consumer hardware though - we are talking about the Macbook Pros.

The people shooting/editing film, or photos, are quite likely to consider their imagery longer term, beyond immediate consumption and are far more likely to have screens capable of displaying high resolution material. It’s not even particularly expensive anymore, nevermind the levels prices will drop to over the lifetime of these computers.

Regard 8k as a means of removing resolution as a major consideration. Kind of like retina screens. Do we really want to see those pixels any more?

 

[JMacHack]

The difference in height is probably the reason why large displays are usually ultrawide instead of keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio. Human field of vision is wide, and rotating you head side-to-side is more ergonomic in the long term than looking up and down.

Well the origin of 16:9 is that it was halfway between 4:3 and theatric screen ratios.

3:2 is the best ratio and I will fight anyone that says otherwise.

 

[falainber]

Well the origin of 16:9 is that it was halfway between 4:3 and theatric screen ratios.

3:2 is the best ratio and I will fight anyone that says otherwise.

3:2 is good only for small displays.

 

[bombardier10]

Power of the new Intel Adler CPU is amazing . Here is a benchmark from i7-12700K - price about 470$ per unit...
More Faster than any M1 Max or Pro. More faster than mac Pro with 16 cores Xeon.

 

[tmoerel]

Power of the new Intel Adler CPU is amazing . Here is a benchmark from i7-12700K - price about 470$ per unit...
More Faster than any M1 Max or Pro. More faster than mac Pro with 16 cores Xeon.

But does it run macOS? No? OK, discussion closed due to irrelevance!

 

[Icelus]

i7-12700H mobile CPU leaked?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459111560211832839

 

[leman]

Power of the new Intel Adler CPU is amazing . Here is a benchmark from i7-12700K - price about 470$ per unit...
More Faster than any M1 Max or Pro. More faster than mac Pro with 16 cores Xeon.

Performance is good, yes. Power - not so much. But of course, if you are after a desktop, ADL looks very good.

i7-12700H mobile CPU leaked?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459111560211832839

I would be very surprised if these very accurate. I can’t imagine ADL signe core being slower than Tiger Lake

 

[EntropyQ3]

Performance is good, yes. Power - not so much. But of course, if you are after a desktop, ADL looks very good.



I would be very surprised if these very accurate. I can’t imagine ADL signe core being slower than Tiger Lake

It’s tricky because the GN5 benchmark results for these processors depend so much on the specifics of power limits and turbo modes. Unless you know the exact setup, evaluating scores is difficult. This example seems as if the single core power draw (which can exceed 50W(!) on the desktop) has a decidedly non-desktop limit. If so, how representative that will be for shipping laptops is anybodys guess.
All these pre-release benchmarks lack the necessary context for interpretation. Alder Lake looked good - until the power draws started getting reported.

 

[leman]

It’s tricky because the GN5 benchmark results for these processors depend so much on the specifics of power limits and turbo modes. Unless you know the exact setup, evaluating scores is difficult. This example seems as if the single core power draw (which can exceed 50W(!) on the desktop) has a decidedly non-desktop limit. If so, how representative that will be for shipping laptops is anybodys guess.
All these pre-release benchmarks lack the necessary context for interpretation. Alder Lake looked good - until the power draws started getting reported.

Yep. GB5 benefits a lot from very high burst power limits on ADL. Looking forward to seeing ADL mobile in the real world. Frankly, the CPU can be very efficient, as is evident from gaming benchmarks, it’s just that Intel uses a very aggressive performance profile for marketing reasons.

 

[diamond.g]

Does anyone know if GB5 uses avx512 for any of its tests?


Disregard. GB does support avx512 but it seems to only help the crypto score. So never mind.

 

[januarydrive7]

We are not talking about consumer hardware though - we are talking about the Macbook Pros.

The people shooting/editing film, or photos, are quite likely to consider their imagery longer term, beyond immediate consumption and are far more likely to have screens capable of displaying high resolution material. It’s not even particularly expensive anymore, nevermind the levels prices will drop to over the lifetime of these computers.

Regard 8k as a means of removing resolution as a major consideration. Kind of like retina screens. Do we really want to see those pixels any more?

This doesn't make sense --- we're talking about consumer hardware (i.e., displays that actually exist can that find usefulness of 8k output). If we want to arbitrarily say "well, it's the MacBook pro, so it should do X" --- then why not 10k? or 50k? perhaps it should do 100k output, because it's the MacBook pro? Obviously, that doesn't make sense, because there aren't 100k displays out there. The same goes with 8k, it seems.