Let's all enjoy the long-overdue party... Intel sucks.... and crushed so many much worthy historic competitors like the Motorola, DEC Alpha... only with their monopolistic behaviour... finally somebody can grab them by the horns!
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 Downplays Apple's M1 Chip With 'Carefully Crafted' Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is Apple's first low-end desktop CPU, and Intel is comparing it to a Core 7.
Intel still makes a ton of chips, and they perform well enough for most people. For Apple and its user base the future is somewhere else.
It's quite a big deal, because Apple has outsized mindshare, and used almost exclusively high-margin products from Intel. (They did not, for example, use the Pentium and Celeron models.)
So?
In part, yes, absolutely. Just like many are moving to Chromebooks.
But also: that other laptop manufacturers start wondering if their architecture needs to be x86 at all. See, for example, Surface Pro X.
You can bet enterprise customers are complaining to Dell, HP and others that the competition has better chips.
Other than hardware, what the hell are you talking about?
Everything he said is true. what the hell don't you understand?
M1 Macs don't require apps to go through the App Store.
The new CEO okayed the publishing of this PDF. This is a situation where NOT doing a thing would have been better than doing anything as it just shows the new CEO won’t be much different than the old CEO. Maybe his goal is to bring back a lot of his buddies and promise them nice sweet re-retirement packages when the well dries up.
The fact that we can’t clarify is just another reason why they should have left this one on the admin’s laptop.
Many windows users have already flocked to Apple by way of the iPhone and, in many cases, the iPad. They rightly haven’t given up Windows because, I mean it’s there and still useful. But that’s still an Apple sale. And, Apple sells more iPads than all laptops combined. That means that, today, Apple sells more mobile processors to customers than Intel.
His first day will be Feb 15. Are you sure he okay'ed it?The new CEO okayed the publishing of this PDF. This is a situation where NOT doing a thing would have been better than doing anything as it just shows the new CEO won’t be much different than the old CEO. Maybe his goal is to bring back a lot of his buddies and promise them nice sweet re-retirement packages when the well dries up.
It’s likely as you said because showing a comparison between two applications that are functionally not the same doesn’t even make sense. Then consider, what MOST folks will be doing in Office over 90% of the time will be entering data. And anyone who says that they can see a marked increase in performance when typing on either of those are making it up
If you ONLY focus on the Mac you miss the bigger picture where millions of POTENTIAL Intel system sales are instead going to Apple. These aren’t even people switching from Windows, these are people WITH Windows and decide to get an iPad because they can still access all the same web portals that’s most of their computer usage.
Makes sense. At minimum, Microsoft would need to start selling retail licenses for Windows on ARM, or let Parallels/VMWare sell licenses as an "OEM" so it would be officially supported.
No, I am not. Not one bit LOL! I wonder if he’ll retract publishing it, though? If he wanted to show a cut between the old leadership and him, that’s one way to do it.
As for MS Office, beyond Excel, there are no practical performance benefits between them as nobody is really pushing Office hard enough to matter.
Excel is a different story. Excel for Mac is like Excel Lite compared to Excel for windows and has been for quite a long time. Sure, Excel was originally a Mac App and early on it supported all functionality on the Mac, but in the 21st century the scientific and finance communities need a windows machine to run Excel for Windows due to all the features it lacks on the Mac these days. And they need it to be fast.
word 365 for mac os is also far inferior compared to word 365 for windows
(just try to search / replace format (i.e. standard to bold text) for any text between parenthesis like „*“ and there are many of such examples)
last bullet from Intel before the big M2/M1X Bazinga!
so unfair, that it claims desperation.
(very classic Microsoft/Samsung style, nobody but their fans care)
ARM is coming to Windows and servers yes or yes, and they will face the true enemy in their army.
We are in a world hungry for energy savings, X86 is so dead…
Can't understand how it was possible that Intel let AMD buying ARM
so unfair, that it claims desperation.
(very classic Microsoft/Samsung style, nobody but their fans care)
ARM is coming to Windows and servers yes or yes, and they will face the true enemy in their army.
We are in a world hungry for energy savings, X86 is so dead…
Can't understand how it was possible that Intel let AMD buying ARM
Intel is likely worried about the threat to x86 in general. Apple has shown that it is possible to produce a chip running a mainstream operating system based on another architecture (ARM) that can adequately run x86 code and smooth a transition. Technologically, there is nothing stopping Microsoft from working with Qualcomm, another ARM licensee, or even getting its own ARM license to try to do the same. Microsoft has certainly tried to make Windows on ARM a success. Apple showed them some new possible ways to make it work.
True, M1's performance is not solely or perhaps even primarily because of ARM, but it does show that a newcomer without the baggage of supporting all the legacy code can make inroads.
1)You're telling me that the M1 has been out for a few months and the enterprise players have already run to Intel to complain? No way. I will agree that in general, Intel has provided lackluster performance improvements (I don't care about battery life or power savings) over the past 5 years while AMD certainly has showed its might. And again, Intel has been battling AMD for 25+ years and there's always benchmark claims vs. reality vs. the competition. Give it a few years to see what Apple comes up with, where the Apple devices go, what Intel and AMD introduce, Mac overall adoption, etc. and then we'll see who and when the complaints start coming in to Intel. As many have said here, competition is good.
2)Chromebooks are a joke for anyone doing anything that requires decent horsepower. Yes, Chromebooks have their place just like desktops, laptops, ipads, and other devices. But to imply the general enterprise workforce is moving to Chromebooks is laughable. Middle of the road Chromebooks are $650 while high end ones float around $1000 for non-customizeable machines configured at 256GB drives, 8GB RAM, and an almost-2-year-old i5 cpu. Why would anyone who currently owns a $1500+, nicely configured laptop with far more ram, easily an i7 chip, and a larger drive save a few bucks to drop down a few notches on 3 major technology pieces? Example: 1.5 years ago I bought a Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 2 for just under $1300 that included 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, and the 9th Gen Intel Core i7-9750H. I'm not saving $300 for a watered-down "high end" Chromebook because I want and need the better performance and I also understand I'm not the average laptop user. So sure, there are definitely people out there that can (or want to) only spend $700 and/or are going to only use the laptop for a browser and streaming and a Chromebook is a good option in those circumstances.
3)Your comment about "So?" missed my point which is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHY INTEL IS NO LONGER SUPPLYING APPLE. It could be money, it could be timing of availability, it could be Apple trying to convince/force Intel to start making non-X86 chip technology which would/could ultimately make X86 technology irrelevant and hence Intel now loses power/control to Apple. It could be a lot of things. Take some time and think before the snarky replies.
That is my thinking, too. But it's been much longer than the last few years of Apple. It started back with the browser wars and their popularity and cross platform...both Microsoft and Intel were worried that browsers could become the next operating system and thus eat Microsoft's lunch as well as Intel's if the browsers ran on multiple CPUs.
Apple made Intel worry more with the popularity of the iPad and iPhone and non-X86 technology...and now the Macs are/will be more and more tightly integrated to the iOS technologies. Intel likely sees the plan Apple is trying to do: get the iPhone and iPad apps to only run on Apple architecture (already done) and now get the apps to only run on Apple Mac non-X86 architecture. Doing this (which Apple is now starting) sets the stage for Intel to lose control of the apps and operating systems in the Apple Mac world. If, and that's a big if, Macs ever become so popular to get 20%+ marketshare, Intel will be deeply concerned.
Both Apple and Intel are monopolies in their own ways and neither is backing down on this architecture change.
It likely was inevitable, given that Apple likes to be in control over everything it does. However, had Intel been able to deliver on its original schedule (and be on the 2nd refinement of 7nm by now), would Apple have switched in 2020? Perhaps not. We do know how Apple designed the thermals of its MacBook line since 2015. Every MacBook/Air/Pro released since then (with the possible exception of the 16" MacBook Pro) appears to have been designed with cooler running chips in mind.
We also know that Apple chose to make the switch in 2020, knowing that Tiger Lake was coming.
Does this surprise anyone?
Every manufacturer will carefully select data points that make their products look better. Apple does the same thing too.
Manufacturer advertising and marketing materials are not an objective source of truth and never were. It is kind of disturbing to me that so many people think they are, or should be.
Every manufacturer will carefully select data points that make their products look better. Apple does the same thing too.
Manufacturer advertising and marketing materials are not an objective source of truth and never were. It is kind of disturbing to me that so many people think they are, or should be.
Feel sorry for Intel, even AMD chips are better and more efficient than Intel.
“We can cherry pick processors and results and show how we sometimes compare favourably to Apple’s first generation Mac entry-level mobile processor.”
1) Losing 9% of the market for an important product line is certainly "a big deal."
2) Apple is just the first. I had to fight back against thousands of posts on here that were absolutely positive that Arm was somehow congenitally incapable of competing with the majestic x86 instruction set architecture. Even if Intel's direct customers are not as ill-informed as the majority of macrumors forum posters, the customers of those customers were. Apple has now disproven this silly conjecture. I absolutely guarantee you that Apple will not be the last Intel customer to switch to Arm. Stay tuned.
3) Apple has no control over the developer pricing model on Macs. It controls only one of many app stores. Linux runs on M1, so Apple does not have complete control over what you run, either.
Absolutely, sure.
If you're an enterprise customer paying Intel prices and now Apple and AMD are making more compelling offers, you're going to complain to your sales rep.
Competition is good indeed.
You're moving your goalposts here. This is literally what I responded to: "That a sea of Windows users are going to go buy Apple devices and learn a completely new environment to theoretically get a 20% performance gain on MS Office or web surfing or streaming?"
MS Office, web surfing and streaming will run fine on a Chromebook.
The general enterprise workforce doesn't need much horsepower. By and large, they run MS Office (if even that) and a bunch of web apps. Dynamics, SAP, Google Workspace, etc. largely don't run locally, so local horsepower doesn't matter.
Your 9750H isn't representative of what the enterprise workforce uses, so I'm not sure why you would bring it up. Also, a MacBook Air eats its lunch in most workloads — even in multi-core ones. While using a fraction of the energy.
Sure, but you're not the target audience here. You were talking about, again, "MS Office or web surfing or streaming", and you don't need a 9750H for it (nor is it a compelling choice for it, as it burns far too much energy).
Right.
(Typing this on a 4750HQ, for whatever that's worth.)
Luckily, this place isn't called "MacFactCheck.com", then?
We can speculate and extrapolate based on Tim Cook's ethos. He likes to control the whole widget, and Apple's own chip design has become more than good enough that there's no need to rely on a third party. That's the entire story right there. It makes them more agile in their product design decisions; they don't have to beg for Intel to make a suitable CPU (see e.g. the ill-fated 12-inch MacBook which never got quite fast enough), or wait for the next scheduled product release. The cherry on top is that, at least right now, their chip design is actually better than Intel's, but that's really just icing on the cake; they did it for control.
Apple is only making chips for Apple notebooks which means x86 is still very much important for Window machines. Intel losing Apple as a customer is a big blow but that is far from being a coup de grace.
Intel should be more worried about AMD at this point because they are making superior silicone for both desktops and laptops.
Intel should be more worried about AMD at this point because they are making superior silicone for both desktops and laptops.