Intel has improved much faster these last few years. The i7 has improved from 10th to 12th generation as much as from 4th to 10th generation.
By the time you wiped the M5 off, I would be waving goodbye in my M7 Ultra MAX + Chip
Actually, because the performance increases compound, I think if the total improvement over 7 years was 37%, the average annual improvement was 4.6%. It’s geometric, not arithmetic. (1.046^7=1.37)
19 months
I was using Apple's self-reported 18% single-core improvement over 18 months to get the ~10% number, but with the official Ars Technica review out with actual GeekBench 5 scores (what I was comparing the iMacs with) it looks like overall single-core gains on that specific metric are indeed ~10% from M1 to M2.
Yep, they definitely played some long-overdue catch-up with Alder Lake, but given how much they increased TDP to achieve that I highly doubt that rate of improvement is sustainable. Intel's track record over the past 20 years is to release major architectural improvements with huge performance gains (Core 2 Duo, Core i3/i5/i7) and then make incremental improvements over the better part of the decade until the next architecture shift. Unless they've got some serious tricks up their sleeve, I don't expect the next few generations of Intel CPUs to break from that pattern.
I’m convinced that their TDP was directly related to their desire to just put up better total performance numbers than Apple’s solution at all costs. One unforeseen outcome from Apple Silicon could be Intel has TDP spikes at every generation.
I’m wondering when Apple is going to start to become willing to let their chips get hot. The fact that the Mac Studio Ultra basically just sits there at room temp suggests they have some headroom. I’ve heard indications that the AS parts aren’t designed to just clock up at higher voltages, I suspect they’re optimized for the clock they run at. So if they‘re willing to run hotter, it would probably mean not scaling the exact same design from MBA to MacStudio and beyond.I’m convinced that their TDP was directly related to their desire to just put up better total performance numbers than Apple’s solution at all costs. One unforeseen outcome from Apple Silicon could be Intel has TDP spikes at every generation.
IMHO, I would think Apple would also want to have software consistency that scales from their entry level all the way to their top of the line Macs. So I would think its quite unlikely that the high end Macs would have vastly better single core performance compared to their entry level Macs. The differentiating factor across the scale would just be more cores.
Never. Intel/AMD’s have to get hot because they’re in a back and forth running the same code and one has to provide a faster result than the other. Apple’s completely out of that arena now, they only have to be more performant than the last released Mac of a given type. I’d imagine at some point, Intel and AMD processors could reach double digit gigahertz and pulling insane amounts of power. While Apple will chart out steady improvements year over year.
That’s just because of what chip vendors that make general purpose solutions have trained folks to think. When you really think about it, if all the chips are built from the same basic foundations, shouldn’t they all offer similar single threaded performance? The cheapest Apple Silicon offers amazing single threaded performance because it’s a derivative of the top end with fewer corses. The cheapest Intel is intentionally created to not encroach on the single threaded performance of their high end.
It's Apple's SOC... they can call it whatever they want... since the beginning of the personal computer, processors have made incremental advances, so nothing to get worked up about... I have an M1 Max in my Mac Studio and an M1 in my MBA... both perform extremely well for my use, so I will "limp" along until I need a new computer and then buy what ever Apple makes available, regardless of what they call it.
That's cause they got complacent and when AMD and Apple came strong into the market they reacted; late reaction.
Good point, so the M series improved 11% per year: 1.11^(19/12) = 1.18
that's not how it works.
Apple still competes with other PC vendors. Obviously some people will make some compromises to run MacOS and keep their familiar workflows, but in the end people have jobs to do and if Intel can do those jobs significantly faster then they will leave Apple— just as people are leaving Intel now to move to the M1 series laptops.
Not going to give that video a view, but based on the click-me thumbnail it looks like the M2 is running at 104C. I seem to remember that M1 ran at 100C. Are we supposed to get up in arms that M2 is running 1% hotter?
Of course anytime someone makes an ill advised snarky complaint about price they always seem to neglect that comparable windows machines seem to cost more, why is that? Maybe SSD, CPU, display quality, build quality don’t matter? I mean this is way more money than a cheap Chromebook or a cheap low power windows craptop
