Intel Alder Lake vs. Apple M1

[crazy dave]

How does it perform on respected benchmarks? Ones like spec or geekbench. The kind that a reputable reviewer would use. Anandtech etc.

CB23 is an okay benchmark that Anandtech does use. It however has some … performance quirks. Part of may be down to use of the Intel Embree library for CPU ray tracing, but I’m not sure that’s all of it. Andrei @ Anandtech has said he’s been in contact with the developers and he knows why the performance is what is (AMD can also suffer from issues in ST). However since it is a closed program and those were private discussions and Andrei is leaving Anandtech, we may never know.

But the larger issue here is that’s a top of the line processor against the bottom.

 

[robco74]

Comparing M1, a low-end 10w chip to the 5900HX, a high-end 45w chip isn't exactly fair. M1 Pro is a bit more competitive, I just ran this, on battery. The fans did kick in, but they weren't too loud. Doubt I could say that about the Razer 14.

 

[Leifi]

How does it perform on respected benchmarks? Ones like spec or geekbench. The kind that a reputable reviewer would use. Anandtech etc.

Geekbench is in my view a failed attemt to do cross platform benchmarks.. Have never really worked.. and sites founded by people who now work for Apple are hardly the best source of unbiased info about Apple HW these days.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/b2ell1

 

[Leifi]

Comparing M1, a low-end 10w chip to the 5900HX, a high-end 45w chip isn't exactly fair. M1 Pro is a bit more competitive, I just ran this, on battery. The fans did kick in, but they weren't too loud. Doubt I could say that about the Razer 14.

M1 Pro & Max are also slower it seems. despite not being cheaper than a 5900HX laptop with RTX 30xx GPU.. So whats "fair" really???? Price wise it is more fair to compare with Apples M1 laptops...

 

[crazy dave]

Geekbench is in my view a failed attemt to do cross platform benchmarks.. Have never really worked.. and sites founded by people who know work for Apple are hardly the best source of unbiased info about Apple HW these days.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/b2ell1

did you actually click those links? The AMD scores higher … you could argue it should score more, but GB isn’t a server test which is the market that Epyc is aimed at. Thus the Epyc not performing fantastic at peak compute is expected.

Also just because they came to a conclusion you didn’t like, doesn’t make someone biased. Anand hasn’t worked there in nearly a decade.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

Geekbench is in my view a failed attemt to do cross platform benchmarks.. Have never really worked.. and sites founded by people who know work for Apple are hardly the best source of unbiased info about Apple HW these days.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/b2ell1 b

Both geekbench and anandtech are well respected. While no benchmark is perfect, geekbench is better than the alternatives you support, and many honest reviewers and benchmarkers use it. Your attack on anandtech is ludicrous. Unless you can find a flaw in their methodology, your comments are baseless.

The simple truth is you chose your results selectively to support your trolling. You ignore the dev from stockfish, and compare the entry level M1 against a high end amd chip.

I have no idea why macrumors supports this kind of trolling, but I’d guess traffic is something to do with it.

 

[crazy dave]

M1 Pro & Max are also slower it seems. despite not being cheaper than a 5900HX laptop with RTX 30xx GPU.. So whats "fair" really???? Price wise it is more fair to compare with Apples M1 laptops...

No it isn’t. And I know you won’t care but

Intel Alder Lake vs. Apple M1

CB23 is an okay benchmark that Anandtech does use. It however has some … performance quirks. Part of may be down to use of the Intel Embree library for CPU ray tracing, but I’m not sure that’s all of it. Andrei @ Anandtech has said he’s been in contact with the developers and he knows why the...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Leifi]

Odd then that the industry has recognized the M1 chips as groundbreaking and breatthtakingly fast.
In most cases on par with or even exceeding Alder Lake.
But the laptops are "slow" according to you.
And "overpriced"? You can pay significantly more money for Intel based laptops of similar specifications to a fully loaded M1 Max Pro.

Yes, Yes and Yes..

* Apple Silicon are beaten by both Alder-lake and AMDs mobile CPU offerings in performance.
* Alder-lake i9-12900H simply crushes the M1 and is way faster than the Max.. Paired with an 3080ti it just stomps everything apple has to offer regardless of price.
* You can buy a cheap 4800 based laptop for less than half the price of an M1 Max/Pro and get similar or better performance.
* Overpriced... Yes.. If you pay similar amount you will get more memory, ssd, expandability, better screens and faster GPU. if you buy new AMDs or Intel based laptops. A fully loaded 16-inch macbook is like 4.500 US. and in europe itseven more (5.500 euro)

 

[robco74]

M1 Pro & Max are also slower it seems. despite not being cheaper than a 5900HX laptop with RTX 30xx GPU.. So whats "fair" really???? Price wise it is more fair to compare with Apples M1 laptops...

M1 Pro was slower, but not by a lot. I ran the test, on battery, and it barely made a dent in battery life. The Razer Blade 14 isn't much less expensive, and of course, it's geared more toward gaming so component choices reflect that.

But you are correct, if all you care about is having the largest virtual member, then you should settle for nothing less than a 5900HX with 3080. Go buy one and play with it.

 

[Tagbert]

I would not say M1 is a killer on cinebench r23... (compared to current fast laptops)

View attachment 1925268

Again, you are comparing the lowest spec M1 to a top line AMD chip. D'uh!
Did you happen to hear that Apple has now released some higher spec M1 versions?

Obviously this whole thread has outlived its usefulness.

 

[Leifi]

Again, you are comparing the lowest spec M1 to a top line AMD chip. D'uh!
Did you happen to hear that Apple has now released some higher spec M1 versions?

 

[Tagbert]

View attachment 1925298

Now you are at least up to date.
the next conversation would be around whether Cinebench is optimized for Apple Silicon or is just a naive translation from x86, but I'm bored by the question and have other things to do.

 

[robco74]

Cinebench is available from the MAS, and is universal.

 

[crazy dave]

Cinebench is available from the MAS, and is universal.

We had a huge discussion about it earlier but TLDR:

Intel Alder Lake vs. Apple M1

CB23 is an okay benchmark that Anandtech does use. It however has some … performance quirks. Part of may be down to use of the Intel Embree library for CPU ray tracing, but I’m not sure that’s all of it. Andrei @ Anandtech has said he’s been in contact with the developers and he knows why the...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[mi7chy]

Cinebench is irrelevant since nobody renders with CPU anymore. It's all GPU.

 

[Leifi]

Cinebench is irrelevant since nobody renders with CPU anymore. It's all GPU.

I completely agree with you on this.. It was brought up by someone earlier to show how much better M1 is (and the argument kind of fell flat, so then people started digging up everything wrong with the bench )..

The best Rendering machines are the one who have the ability to use discrete CPU and even eGPUs to render.. Apples latest CPUs/laptops support neither.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

I completely agree with you on this.. It was brought up by someone earlier to show how much better M1 is (and the argument kind of fell flat, so then people started digging up everything wrong with the bench )..

The best Rendering machines are the one who have the ability to use discrete CPU and even eGPUs to render.. Apples latest CPUs/laptops support neither.

Again wrong.

 

[TiggrToo]

Yes, Yes and Yes..

* Apple Silicon are beaten by both Alder-lake and AMDs mobile CPU offerings in performance.
* Alder-lake i9-12900H simply crushes the M1 and is way faster than the Max.. Paired with an 3080ti it just stomps everything apple has to offer regardless of price.
* You can buy a cheap 4800 based laptop for less than half the price of an M1 Max/Pro and get similar or better performance.
* Overpriced... Yes.. If you pay similar amount you will get more memory, ssd, expandability, better screens and faster GPU. if you buy new AMDs or Intel based laptops. A fully loaded 16-inch macbook is like 4.500 US. and in europe itseven more (5.500 euro)

Alder Lake: desktop class CPU, 10nm fab, 125W. No integrated graphics.

M1 Pro Max: mobile class CPU/GPU, 5nm Fab, 30w.

'nuff said.

As for prices: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...ro-16-oled-is-a-5000-macbook-pro-alternative/

$5,000 for this Xeon powered beast - almost the same price for a similarly configured M1 Max.

It's an absolute given that this system will scarf on the battery and be dead long after the M1 Max is just hitting its stride.

 

[TiggrToo]

Here you go : webbrowsing 16.5 hours without fan.. Video playback 25.14h.. 156h runtime.. of an Galaxy M51.. Much more power efficient than a macbook for basic computing needs. all on battery fanless.

View attachment 1925324

Zero reference to the MacBook there.

None of that backs up your claim. You need to show figures for BOTH platforms.

 

[cmaier]

Here you go : webbrowsing 16.5 hours without fan.. Video playback 25.14h.. 156h runtime.. of an Galaxy M51.. Much more power efficient than a macbook for basic computing needs. all on battery fanless.

View attachment 1925324

Aside from not mentioning the MacBooks, tht doesn’t tell us a single thing about efficiency. You need to know the work done per watt, because that’s the definition of efficiency. This just tells us how long these tasks can go before the battery dies. For all we know they have bigger batteries, and accomplish less than a MacBook in the same time.

 

[TiggrToo]

Here you go : webbrowsing 16.5 hours without fan.. Video playback 25.14h.. 156h runtime.. of an Galaxy M51.. Much more power efficient than a macbook for basic computing needs. all on battery fanless.

View attachment 1925324

Also, you need to show battery consumption, screen size, power usage, and a whole heap of other figures.

 

[TiggrToo]

Aside from not mentioning the MacBooks, tht doesn’t tell us a single thing about efficiency. You need to know the work done per watt, because that’s the definition of efficiency. This just tells us how long these tasks can go before the battery dies. For all we know they have bigger batteries, and accomplish less than a MacBook in the same time.

Damn, snapped me there!

 

[Leifi]

Aside from not mentioning the MacBooks, tht doesn’t tell us a single thing about efficiency. You need to know the work done per watt, because that’s the definition of efficiency. This just tells us how long these tasks can go before the battery dies. For all we know they have bigger batteries, and accomplish less than a MacBook in the same time.

We do know the work done per watt in these tests.. webbrowsing and video watching. And we do know Macbook 14-inch has a 70wh battery and the Note7 has a 12Wh battery (the M51 has 7000mAh so roughly 20+Wh.

So for these use-cases clearly the Phone are more energy efficient.

If you beleive my references are wrong or my conclusions are wrong, i would pass it onto you to prove your point.

 

[JimmyjamesEU]

If you beleive my references are wrong or my conclusions are wrong, i would pass it onto you to prove your point.

This is special. Which references? You want to pass the non-existent references to the person who disproved them...to prove their point.

 

[mr_roboto]

Here you go : webbrowsing 16.5 hours without fan.. Video playback 25.14h.. 156h runtime.. of an Galaxy M51.. Much more power efficient than a macbook for basic computing needs. all on battery fanless with a very small battery.

View attachment 1925324

You can also check out https://www.anandtech.com/show/10559/the-samsung-galaxy-note7-s820-review/3
The phone as close to M1 MAx singel core performance (1500 vs 1700 geekbench, look it up).. Battery is only 12.3 Wh on the samsung, a macbook pro has... 5 times as big battery (70Wh). so yes.. it is obivous that the Note 7 is more energy efficient. thatn the Mac. just look at the references and do the calculus.

I looked up the first two of those phones and they're offbrand chunky bois (literally thicker than the thickest part of a MacBook Air) with batteries in the same size class as a MacBook Air (about 50 Wh). I doubt many people are buying these, but whatever.

Apple rates the MBA for about 15 hours web browsing, 18 hours video playback. So if you're a deliberately obtuse @Leifi, you might try to treat this as if it's a result which proves your point.

But complaining that a laptop has worse video playback time than a phone is silly. Both have SoCs which handle all the computation required for video playback in a dedicated video decompression block which needs only a few milliwatts. For both, the main drain on the battery during video playback is the display.

And guess what? Display power is proportional to screen area. You simply cannot expect a laptop with ~4x the display area to light up to have the same battery life as a phone with roughly the same battery capacity. Not unless you expect the physically impossible, that is.