Apple's new m1 chips are met with universal praise.
And rightly so: They completely outclass the intel chips in previous macs.
But I feel like there is some misrepresentation going on here.
Was this made possible by the move from x86 to ARM?
Or is it about engineering innovations and good chip design - that could also be had on the x86 platform?
If you look at cpu benchmarks, amd is already outperforming the m1.
Cinebench R23 shows a clear lead of the r4700u over the m1. This is comparing a macbook pro against a similar fan-cooled laptop.
Both the peak and sustained performance of the ryzen mobile chip are better than the m1.
Is this a fair comparison? Hard to say.
For a mobile chip, it's important to look at performance per watt.
And I think the fan-cooled m1 in the macbook pro is in a very similar power bracket as the amd ryzen chips.
So I would argue that yes, this is a fair comparison.
The ryzen 4xxxu chips are based on amds zen 2 architecture.
The newer version of this is called zen 3 and offers about 20% more performance per clock, plus slightly higher clocks, and less power draw.
So the new Ryzen 5000 mobile chips, based on zen 3 and soon to be released, will be a very serious competition to apple.
I would say that at least the current m1 will be very clearly outclassed by them.
Of course, by then I'd expect an m1x. Maybe with 12 cores in total, 8 performance cores?
That would be quite a battle then, between amd and apple
(tip: don't buy a macbook pro now. I would predict a refreshed macbook pro 16 and a new macbook pro 14, with an m1x chip)
Also very important: The m1 is manufactured in a 5nm process. Amd is using 7nm.
The manufacturing process has a significant influence on power efficiency.
This is very much connected to business politics and striking good deals with the manufacturing companies.
It is not directly related to x86 vs arm.
Long story short:
People say the move from intel x86 to arm is monumental and a huge technical breakthrough.
But I just don't see it.
Yes, these new Apple chips are awesome.
But amd is proving that you can do the same on x86.
Why did Apple ditch Intel then?
Because Intel was sleeping for years and just didn't provide innovation.
Why did Apple not move to amd?
Because back when this decision was made, amd didn't have anything good on the horizon.
Don't get me wrong. This is not about demeaning apple's engineering efforts.
It's great to see competition.
I think the new apple silicon is amazing for two reasons:
1) It scales down very well and delivers excellent performance in a fanless design.
This is something I haven't seen from the amd chips.
I have the impression that the sweet spot for operating an m1 is at lower wattage.
You still get very competitive performance at much lower power consumption.
But when pushed to higher clockrates and higher TDP, there are diminishing returns.
2) The gpu is great. It vastly outperforms any integrated gpu from either amd or intel.
Something noteworthy:
Two years ago, apple released the a12 for iphones and the a12x for ipads.
The a12 has 2 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 4 core gpu.
The a12x has 4 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 7 core gpu.
Now we have the a14.
It has 2 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 4 core gpu.
There is no a14x. The ipad pro this year was released with a very outdated a12z.
But there is the m1. With 4 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 7/8 core gpu.
Small improvements of the m1: Apple has given it a more generous l2 cache and has increased the max clock frequency from 3 to 3.2 Ghz.
Now look at tests of the ipad pro from the last two years (a12x and a12z).
The max power draw is about 15 to 20 watts.
Sustained load around 10 watts.
This is exactly what we're seeing from the macbook air now.
This new m1 chip is a mobile chip, put in a notebook.
Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect sense.
What we see here is convergence of apple's mobile and desktop chips.
EDIT:
Adding some sources:
And rightly so: They completely outclass the intel chips in previous macs.
But I feel like there is some misrepresentation going on here.
Was this made possible by the move from x86 to ARM?
Or is it about engineering innovations and good chip design - that could also be had on the x86 platform?
If you look at cpu benchmarks, amd is already outperforming the m1.
Cinebench R23 shows a clear lead of the r4700u over the m1. This is comparing a macbook pro against a similar fan-cooled laptop.
Both the peak and sustained performance of the ryzen mobile chip are better than the m1.
Is this a fair comparison? Hard to say.
For a mobile chip, it's important to look at performance per watt.
And I think the fan-cooled m1 in the macbook pro is in a very similar power bracket as the amd ryzen chips.
So I would argue that yes, this is a fair comparison.
The ryzen 4xxxu chips are based on amds zen 2 architecture.
The newer version of this is called zen 3 and offers about 20% more performance per clock, plus slightly higher clocks, and less power draw.
So the new Ryzen 5000 mobile chips, based on zen 3 and soon to be released, will be a very serious competition to apple.
I would say that at least the current m1 will be very clearly outclassed by them.
Of course, by then I'd expect an m1x. Maybe with 12 cores in total, 8 performance cores?
That would be quite a battle then, between amd and apple
(tip: don't buy a macbook pro now. I would predict a refreshed macbook pro 16 and a new macbook pro 14, with an m1x chip)
Also very important: The m1 is manufactured in a 5nm process. Amd is using 7nm.
The manufacturing process has a significant influence on power efficiency.
This is very much connected to business politics and striking good deals with the manufacturing companies.
It is not directly related to x86 vs arm.
Long story short:
People say the move from intel x86 to arm is monumental and a huge technical breakthrough.
But I just don't see it.
Yes, these new Apple chips are awesome.
But amd is proving that you can do the same on x86.
Why did Apple ditch Intel then?
Because Intel was sleeping for years and just didn't provide innovation.
Why did Apple not move to amd?
Because back when this decision was made, amd didn't have anything good on the horizon.
Don't get me wrong. This is not about demeaning apple's engineering efforts.
It's great to see competition.
I think the new apple silicon is amazing for two reasons:
1) It scales down very well and delivers excellent performance in a fanless design.
This is something I haven't seen from the amd chips.
I have the impression that the sweet spot for operating an m1 is at lower wattage.
You still get very competitive performance at much lower power consumption.
But when pushed to higher clockrates and higher TDP, there are diminishing returns.
2) The gpu is great. It vastly outperforms any integrated gpu from either amd or intel.
Something noteworthy:
Two years ago, apple released the a12 for iphones and the a12x for ipads.
The a12 has 2 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 4 core gpu.
The a12x has 4 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 7 core gpu.
Now we have the a14.
It has 2 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 4 core gpu.
There is no a14x. The ipad pro this year was released with a very outdated a12z.
But there is the m1. With 4 big and 4 small cpu cores, plus a 7/8 core gpu.
Small improvements of the m1: Apple has given it a more generous l2 cache and has increased the max clock frequency from 3 to 3.2 Ghz.
Now look at tests of the ipad pro from the last two years (a12x and a12z).
The max power draw is about 15 to 20 watts.
Sustained load around 10 watts.
This is exactly what we're seeing from the macbook air now.
This new m1 chip is a mobile chip, put in a notebook.
Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect sense.
What we see here is convergence of apple's mobile and desktop chips.
EDIT:
Adding some sources:
- ipad pro power consumption: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...nergy-management-long-battery-life-guaranteed
- m1 power consumption: I know that I saw a detailed comparison in a youtube video, but can't find the link anymore.
For now, I'll just link to wikipedia. It lists a max power draw of the m1 chip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_M1 - cpu benchmarks of m1 macbook air/pro and comparable intel/amd chips:
Last edited:
