I have been arguing with all kinds of people who are making claims the M1 is junk but they are comparing the M1 to i7, i9s and AMDs 4000 series chips. Am I wrong that the M1 is Apples base chip? So fair comparing would be i3s and I have no clue what AMDs base chips are. I actually got banned from Reddit page. Or are they just really scared of the M1 and upcoming AS chips?
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.
M1 Comparison reviews....
- Thread starter AdamNC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope you're not wrong.
I just visited Reddit's homepage and guess what the very first advert I saw was?
Yep, Microsoft.
Might be an answer there.
I just visited Reddit's homepage and guess what the very first advert I saw was?
Yep, Microsoft.
Might be an answer there.
I don't see anything wrong with comparing the M1 to the i7, i9, or any others.
If I plan on buying a computer, I would like to know how the M1 performs compared to the competition. Even if it is considered the "base chip", I think it is important to know how it stacks up.
Think of it this way, in the past when a new intel Mac was released the base Intel chips were often compared to past Macs' mid and higher tier chips. This shows the improvements (or lack of) of the chips and the Macs that the chips are in. It also helps people decide what Mac to get based off of the performance they need.
Another thing to consider is that the M1 is now in the MacBook Pro. If it is a MacBook Pro and if Apple still considers it a "Pro" computer, then it is fair game to compare the chip to higher tier chips.
If I plan on buying a computer, I would like to know how the M1 performs compared to the competition. Even if it is considered the "base chip", I think it is important to know how it stacks up.
Think of it this way, in the past when a new intel Mac was released the base Intel chips were often compared to past Macs' mid and higher tier chips. This shows the improvements (or lack of) of the chips and the Macs that the chips are in. It also helps people decide what Mac to get based off of the performance they need.
Another thing to consider is that the M1 is now in the MacBook Pro. If it is a MacBook Pro and if Apple still considers it a "Pro" computer, then it is fair game to compare the chip to higher tier chips.
Honestly...hard to compare. What should be compared? CPU benchmarks? Or APU? Power use/heat generated/efficiency? Space/portability? Number of cores? Or just price point? Or where the models fit in the line (entry/base)?
And yes, considering there is only one model at this point, how to place it in a line...before there is a line?
Hopefully, it will be more clear once we see the full line of Macs (or at least everything besides the replacement for the Mac Pro) with the corresponding updates. Will they get M1? M1+...M1 Extreme? M2?
I am not arguing at this point...just saying: Hold on to your hat; when we see the entire line, it may change the standards across PC land.
And yes, considering there is only one model at this point, how to place it in a line...before there is a line?
Hopefully, it will be more clear once we see the full line of Macs (or at least everything besides the replacement for the Mac Pro) with the corresponding updates. Will they get M1? M1+...M1 Extreme? M2?
I am not arguing at this point...just saying: Hold on to your hat; when we see the entire line, it may change the standards across PC land.
I see your point but to make claims it’s junk and because of the statement Apple said of this being this their best the PC fan boys think this is the only chip Apple is going to make. And that’s their rationale for saying it sucks. This is what has them making all these claims. https://www.pcworld.com/article/360...gainst-intel-11th-gen-and-amd-ryzen-4000.html
Well, even if it's the base of Apple's chips I don't think it's necessarily unfair to compare to i7 and even i9 chips, considering it performs on par with them on certain metrics. I think fairness can come into play when comparing the power each chip runs at or even the number of effective cores (according to Anandtech the 4P cores give a comparable cost in performance that SMT does for Intel/AMD chips so it would be a bit unfair to consider the M1 and 8 core chip fr those comparisons).
By the way, what subreddit was that?
Anyone making those claims is nuts. I have the base M1 MBA and it is smoking my MBP 16 that runs the 2.3 GHz i9 with 16GB RAM and a 1TB SSD.
Well, an AMD 4800U APU is certainly faster than M1 in multi core. By about 30-40%. While having double the amount of CPU cores and consuming 2-2.5 times more power. And being impossible to buy. I’d say those “people on Reddit” are a bit incompetent.
I think it’s fair enough to compare it to laptops of a similar price.
when apple claimed: “M1 is faster than the chips in 98 percent of PC laptops sold in the past year.” I believe that to include i7/i9's so I think it's a fair comparison. On the other hand those yah hoo's are compairing the top 2% to the M1, and proclaiming it's junk.
Got a link to the Reddit discussion? I'd like to see for myself.
I have a i7-10700 desktop and the Geekbench 5 numbers are 1,261/8,251 compared to the M1 at 1,732/7,600. So in my mind, the M1 has neck-snapping response time but my system could do more work overall - but my CPU has 8 performance cores and uses 65 Watts while the M1 only had 4 performance cores but uses 25 watts. An M1X with 8 performance cores would smoke my desktop at lower power consumption.
A good comparison would be Intel's 11th generation mobile chips with 4 cores (because their yields were bad and they couldn't do anymore). Their scores are a lot closer, even though they use twice the power of the M1. Yes, the M1 is Apple's low-end chip. They are talking 2, 3, 4, 8, 16 times the power of the M1 in upcoming chips. And their core architecture will improve by double-digits every single year - they only need to take the gains from their A-series chips.
Microsoft announced this week that they are going to design their own ARM chips. Microsoft seriously feels the heat. And Intel feels it even more. Intel dropped 6% on the news. That is a BIG drop for a big cap tech company. I have wondered what would have happened if Apple had waited to around April 2021 and released the M1, M1X with 12, 16 and 20 cores in the Air, Pros, Mini and iMac at the same time. I think that the waiting list for these things would have been out four or five months. Intel, Dell, HP, Microsoft and AMD would have had their jaws drop on the ground.
They released the M1 to generate a ton of revenue as there's good money to be made in the best volume markets. A lot of people have bought M1 systems because they are useful, if not ideal, right now. And when the M1X systems come out, they will place orders for the on day 1 and then sell their M1 systems. I'm waiting for their M1X systems to come out but I know that I need to get my order in quickly given the response on the M1 systems.
And most of Wall Street and the typical user doesn't know any of this stuff. I wrote about this starting in November in one of my trading groups. Nobody cared. I wrote and wrote and wrote about it. Then Apple plunged to $113 and I started buying. Then they acknowledged what I wrote when it hit $125. The M1 is still a well-kept secret. The people here are fans so they knew about it ages ago. And Apple isn't really doing any advertising.
Apple saying that it beats 98% of all other laptops automatically means that 2% of all current laptops will beat the M1 chip.
Instead of screaming about how a huge Wintel system beats an M1, we should instead be looking at how the M1 is in the top 2%.
Instead of screaming about how a huge Wintel system beats an M1, we should instead be looking at how the M1 is in the top 2%.
The Apple category for the M1 is Ultrabooks. It should be compared to Ultrabooks, not 10-pound desktop replacements with 350 Watt PSUs.
This is hilarious.
I would love to be in the room when all these computers are tested, and do the following :
1. Test for heat
2. Test for fan noise
3. Test for running off battery.
All the above in my recent experience, would show the PC’s to be a hot noisy and slow mess.
My other test would be run the Cinebench test whilst the computer is actually on your lap
I'll give you 1 2 and 3, but slow mess is not one of them, these monster laptops can be quite fast with their dedicated graphics, and 8 to 12 cores with 16 to 24 threads.This is hilarious.
I would love to be in the room when all these computers are tested, and do the following :
1. Test for heat
2. Test for fan noise
3. Test for running off battery.
All the above in my recent experience, would show the PC’s to be a hot noisy and slow mess.
My other test would be run the Cinebench test whilst the computer is actually on your lap
I agree they are not slow at all, but the user experience is terrible. Also given they are mobile devices, I feel they fail.
I have first hand experience in using this type of laptop, an M1 MBP and a 16” MBP, so am comfortable in my opinions.
Edit - the difference in speed from plugged in to on battery is quite significant in my experience.
Last edited:
i agree, my last work laptop was a zbook G5, it was an awful laptop, I was lucky if I got 2 hours on a full charge. Sadly for work I can't use an M1 laptop, as it can't run Revit Architecture, and Inventor, I've got a 13" pro on order, and will probably order a 16" M series when they get released.
I hear you - I have a Zbook Studio G7 in a box waiting to go back to HP as it is terrible, for all the reasons I mentioned.
I got it for Revit...... sounds like we use the same apps.
I ended up getting a maxed out 16” MBP and currently run bootcamp, and it is probably 10% slower than the Z book but vastly better in every other way [GPU is the main difference, but not enough to stress about as it is a secondary machine for me].
Never again will I buy a PC laptop. My partners M1 MBP is an amazing computer - it just doesnt run Revit.....
FWIW she runs revit through Remote Desktop and seems to be fine. I will be doing the same from my desktop PC at the office, once we go all M.
Last edited:
Picking cinebench in particular, when it's not optimized for ARM instructions, is kind of dishonest, especially if you don't also run other benchmarks that are multiplatform and are available for ARM.
Also, i'd like to see benchmarks run on battery, not just for the battery drain, but the fact that a lot of laptops downclock automatically when running on battery. M1 clearly does not.
Also, i'd like to see benchmarks run on battery, not just for the battery drain, but the fact that a lot of laptops downclock automatically when running on battery. M1 clearly does not.
I bought AAPL after I saw the WWDC demo. Then I bought again when the product shipped, and price still not reflecting the coming M1 juggernaut of value+performane+margin. I bought TSCM too. All undervalued. Hard to NOT see it...but folks did not, and many still don't.
I guess it’s still that the mac is a relatively low percentage of apples overall business. Alongside paid services, it might offset the fact that people aren’t upgrading their phones and iPads as often as they once did but im not sure it’s going to result in exponential growth for the company overall
It is even worse, they compare a Ryzen 5800X vs a M1 here:
Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25481143
Ryzen 5800X vs. M1: Programming benchmarks via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25481143
Well, not the subreddit I guessed but I'm not surprised. I've seen some hostility to M1 Macs from there too.