Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

crazy dave

macrumors 65816
Sep 9, 2010
1,453
1,228
Yeah, leaving the fans off remains nice, though the new display eats into the CPU battery gains. Having the option to quadruple single-thread speeds would really impress me, though.

Sure, if you max out the XPS to attempt rivaling Apple on its own high-end turf, the Mac looks more appealing. However, just like with ADL, PC value lies in the base configurations, which Apple largely leaves uncontested here. Dell marked down the base XPS 17 I saw by a reasonable 15-20% to $1700. I imagine Apple has refrained from making a 15" MBA over the years to avoid cannibalizing base 15" MBP sales from many non-power users like myself.

You could similarly argue the M1 Mac mini & MBA leave the new MBPs behind in perf/$, besides some annoying flaws like external display support.

With Apple going big, literally, on the Pros, I strongly suspect that there will be bigger Airs in the future to compensate and fill that niche. Apple actually doesn’t have a problem cannibalizing from the bottom - they view their own product stack as designed to do that and the new machines are a reflection of that. Each product is designed to fight for its existence from the product below it. That in my opinion is one reason why the new pros are the way they are. The M1’s are good enough that the Pro and Max have to go big to justify existing at all.

My supposition is that Apple views the regular M1 as it’s answer to both the i3 and i5 machines, and as you said are good value for the money. But I’ll grant you it is lacking in the ability to pair it with more powerful GPUs for a more middle-ground machine. But Apple probably feels that not enough distinction to make another product line.

But that’s also why I’d still say the M1 Pro and Max are good value for the money, yes you have to spend more but you’d also have to spend similarly for a comparable PC. So competing in the same product category is what we’re comparing here. As you said we’ll see how Intel mobile devices are priced with ADL and their performance, but it makes sense to compare top of the stacks to top of the stacks when they do drop sometime next year.
 

dgdosen

macrumors 68030
Dec 13, 2003
2,817
1,463
Seattle
I realize I am a very stupid person, thank you for more hurtful posts, but I wanted to focus on the fan noise and battery life of the video, nothing more.
I'd put more faith in anandtech reviews and one's personal use.

In general, the M1 pro/max laptops have much less power draw for a given level of performance. Do you dispute that?

I think it's already been established that this is not the ideal gaming platform as most titles are not native to Apple silicon. Let's see what the future holds.
 

ADGrant

macrumors 68000
Mar 26, 2018
1,689
1,059
You could similarly argue the M1 Mac mini & MBA leave the new MBPs behind in perf/$, besides some annoying flaws like external display support.
If you spec the MBA with 16gb of RAM, a 512GB SSD and the 8 core GPU it costs $1500. For only $500 more, the base MBP M1 Pro gives you 50% more performance cores and 75% more GPU cores. It also gives you a proper cooling system and a much better display.
 

singhs.apps

macrumors 6502a
Oct 27, 2016
660
400
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.:


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):


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.
Interesting. So 150-160w is the sweet spot for all core work without loosing too much performance.

The CB performance is impressive, though when you check other benchmarks, blender, Corona etc… the 5960x pulls ahead…the charts are all over the place.

By the looks of it, Intel’s 12900k seems desperate, just like it’s 7980xe (my current CPU) was.
I would wait to see the laptop CPUs performance to get a true picture of Intel’s 12th gen.
 

ADGrant

macrumors 68000
Mar 26, 2018
1,689
1,059
Nope, and I said as much. They definitely take the crown here. But when I see the M1 Max in the smaller chassis of the 14" giving abysmal results during stressful use (the software being a game doesn't matter, any software has the potential to max out the CPU, the device is engineered to handle this), it doesn't fill me with awe for the future. I believe the landscape will remain competitive.

The real competition and star of the show for pure thermals is the vanilla M1, THAT is the chip to beat.

The M1 Max provides desktop level of performance in a 14" laptop. No Intel MBP could do that.
 

dgdosen

macrumors 68030
Dec 13, 2003
2,817
1,463
Seattle
Nope, and I said as much. They definitely take the crown here. But when I see the M1 Max in the smaller chassis of the 14" giving abysmal results during stressful use (the software being a game doesn't matter, any software has the potential to max out the CPU, the device is engineered to handle this), it doesn't fill me with awe for the future. I believe the landscape will remain competitive.

The real competition and star of the show for pure thermals is the vanilla M1, THAT is the chip to beat.
Or you could see that the results of using software that is optimized for Apple Silicon is real and it's spectacular. So much so that they do fill one with a bit of awe for the future.

I'll agree to be hopeful for a competitive landscape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuruZac and hagjohn

crazy dave

macrumors 65816
Sep 9, 2010
1,453
1,228
Boot time? You mean cold boot of a computer running the 12900K? Who cares? How is that relevant to anything?

Boot time? That’s only relevant running windows which has to boot often? Otherwise who cares?

I know the poster (not personally, just from his other posts), he’s being sarcastic
 
Last edited:

dgdosen

macrumors 68030
Dec 13, 2003
2,817
1,463
Seattle
That is why I continue to believe that the Apple Silicon platform is a very curated and focused experience. When you go in knowing that, you're going to get an exceptional product. I would like to see more of these 14" M1 Max battery stress tests though, hopefully a larger outlet does them soon.
Curious, other than 'AAA gaming', what's out of focus?
 

grilledcheesesandwich

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2021
64
251
If you spec the MBA with 16gb of RAM, a 512GB SSD and the 8 core GPU it costs $1500. For only $500 more, the base MBP M1 Pro gives you 50% more performance cores and 75% more GPU cores. It also gives you a proper cooling system and a much better display.
Sure, but I would challenge you to compare perf/$ between base models, as less straightforward as that may seem.

I don't consider Dell to be a premium brand.
Mass-market Dell, no. XPS, Alienware & Precision, yes.
 

Zdigital2015

macrumors 601
Jul 14, 2015
4,143
5,622
East Coast, United States
Up to 241w for the CPU!? Really, Intel…it’s called “Performance per Watt not “Watts per Performance”!

I assume the core i9-12980HK is going to have a 65w TDP and level out at 100w-125W TDP during normal medium to heavy use, along with an NVIDIA 3060 GPU with an 80w TDP, so we’re looking at a bare minimum of 145w TDP and going up from there?!? WTF?!? So like 1.5 hours on battery will be the norm? Say it with me - Leadership!!! What a joke.
 

ADGrant

macrumors 68000
Mar 26, 2018
1,689
1,059
Sure, but I would challenge you to compare perf/$ between base models, as less straightforward as that may seem.

I prefer to compare comparable specs. I wouldn't ever buy myself a laptop with less than 16GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD so the base M1 models are of no interest to me.

Mass-market Dell, no. XPS, Alienware & Precision, yes.
The mass market Dell stuff is such garbage, I would never spend Apple levels of money on any product from Dell.
 

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
9,199
7,354
Perth, Western Australia
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...

The other take-way from this is that for the target market, the big processing requirement on Pro-used Macs is video encoding and 3d/AI/ML performance.

And Alder lake's integrated GPU is a joke. So.... to be anywhere near what the Mac M1 Pro/Max provides, you also need to take into account the discrete GPU required.

Oh and there's currently no alternative on PC to the SOC's afterburner type capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zdigital2015

Zdigital2015

macrumors 601
Jul 14, 2015
4,143
5,622
East Coast, United States
Also, let me get this straight…Intel took 5 years after Apple (A10 Fusion) to add Efficiency cores to their CPUs and chose to debut this technology not in a mobile CPU, but in their desktop line and their K-Series unlocked enthusiast chips? ROFLMAO? Am I missing something here? I checked the ARK and it doesn’t look like Tiger Lake has E-Cores in the H-Series, so 12th Gen is the introduction of P-Cores and E-Cores? Good job Intel, like a gamer using a K-Series cares about E-Cores. And they think they’ll ever earn Apple’s business back?!? What a joke.
 

Digital_Sousaphone

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2019
64
63
The shift in here to "omg power savings" is hilarious. Last week it was about being the king of the hill, but now we're back to stroking our "power savings." ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobcomer

Bandaman

Cancelled
Aug 28, 2019
2,005
4,091
The shift in here to "omg power savings" is hilarious. Last week it was about being the king of the hill, but now we're back to stroking our "power savings." ?
It's because consuming 10 tens more power for the same task is relevant both for heat and battery life. It's also a mobile CPU being compared to a desktop-class CPU which will need ridiculous cooling so that it won't throttle. From what I've seen in reviews for this Intel chip, it needs the absolute best desktop-class cooling not to throttle at max performance. These numbers will very much change when crammed into a laptop and we have yet to see what desktop chips Apple is going to come up with. What Apple has done is impressive. The power/performance/heat narrative hasn't changed. It's very much relevant to this topic. And these Alder Lakes numbers are irrelevant because they are desktop numbers, not laptop numbers.
 

grilledcheesesandwich

macrumors member
Jun 10, 2021
64
251
But that’s also why I’d still say the M1 Pro and Max are good value for the money, yes you have to spend more but you’d also have to spend similarly for a comparable PC.
I don't disagree, but I would suggest the single-thread parity alone between the base M1, Pro & Max makes upgrading less valuable for non-power users. For such tasks, the Max actually appears to slightly underperform the lesser models.

I would never spend Apple levels of money on any product from Dell.
Thanks to the considerable discount for Dell, you would not have to. Dell's premium lines serve their respective niches quite well.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.