Query about comparable windows laptops

[tt4442]

I just placed an order for a MacBook Pro m1 8 core.

For some reason I was under the impression it was top or near the top of cpu speed compared to windows laptops.

However while I’m sure it’ll be fast enough, I do feel I’ve been misled having looked at cpu comparison charts. Such as

PassMark Software - New Laptop CPUs Performance

Benchmarks of the CPUs classified to be used in laptops. This chart compares CPUs designed for laptop is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.

www.cpubenchmark.net

The ryzen is coming out at 58k points compared to 17k on the m1’s.

This is suggestive it’s far, far slower. Shockingly slow really. Even the latest greatest m2 is only 26k points.

What’s happening here? Has apple just got really good at deceiving? Is the benchmark biased?

Bear in mind this ryzen in laptops are coming out cheaper too.

 

[pshufd]

Here's a comparison between powerful Windows laptop and a Mac laptop:

The M1 was close to the top when it launched. Intel and AMD responded with big performance improvements, though often at the expense of far more power consumption.

 

[SnoFlo]

I owned the M1 Max MacBook Pro 16 and I now have a 12th gen Intel HP ZBook Fury 16 G9. Yes, the HP seems marginally faster in similar tasks compared to the MacBook Pro (like in Capture One Pro use etc.), but will someone notice a real-world difference in everyday use? I didn't. I wouldn't worry about the test-bench stats; just buy the laptop that you feel will serve you best outside of benchmarking.

 

[Homy]

I just placed an order for a MacBook Pro m1 8 core.

For some reason I was under the impression it was top or near the top of cpu speed compared to windows laptops.

However while I’m sure it’ll be fast enough, I do feel I’ve been misled having looked at cpu comparison charts. Such as

PassMark Software - New Laptop CPUs Performance

Benchmarks of the CPUs classified to be used in laptops. This chart compares CPUs designed for laptop is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.

www.cpubenchmark.net

The ryzen is coming out at 58k points compared to 17k on the m1’s.

This is suggestive it’s far, far slower. Shockingly slow really. Even the latest greatest m2 is only 26k points.

What’s happening here? Has apple just got really good at deceiving? Is the benchmark biased?

Bear in mind this ryzen in laptops are coming out cheaper too.

Are you planning to run PassMark tests all day long on your new laptop? Then buy a PC, or else enjoy your Mac and don't blindly stare at such test results which often don't represent real-world work loads. And if you care so much why did you order the MBP M1 first and then did research about its performance? A well-informed person like you wouldn't do that and then make a post about PC laptops being cheaper and faster.

You can always cancel your order or send it back if you've made such a disappointing discovery. And why do you compare a M1 8c from 2020 with 30W max power consumption with a Ryzen 9 16c/32t or i9 24c/32t from 2023 that use up to 157W? Talk about misleading! A fairer comparison would be to M1 Ultra 20c which only draws 60W and gets 40943. Yes, it's not a laptop CPU but still uses less power than the latest PC laptops while being 14 months old.

 

[tt4442]

So I did my research from youtube videos outlining how fast m1 was. I also made sure it was the same speed or faster than my 8700k desktop, as I'm happy with that.

I ordered because I was/am confident in it being fast enough and I made sure to order from a shop where I can send it back.

I have since done more research and now it makes sense about the 2-3 years apart. With that said, my post did also include the fact about m2 compared to the other x86 cpu's which I honestly thought would be more comparable to the results of the other top cpu's.

I suppose what they should include is release date, then it would be more logical when looking at the results.

Again I have also seen that the passmark included some tests which I don't deem to be overly related, such as the visual/graphic tests, and other benchmarks show a more balanced view than the passmark one, with more balanced results.

Anyway, thanks for the insight from all posts. It is also clear that quite a lot of these cpu's don't favour longevity running on battery and it is true that it makes sense to favour battery over power - it is a laptop afterall.

I am looking forward to my purchase, but I still wanted to get opinions, it has informed me further.

Thanks.

 

[dmccloud]

Here's what NONE of those head-to-head tests will admit, let alone actually test themselves. The vast majority of x86 based systems will see a massive performance drop on battery power, and can only achieve those higher benchmarks/results plugged into AC power. But Apple Silicon can maintain those performance levels on battery, WITHOUT major drops in battery life. The tests are conducted on AC power for two reasons: the aforementioned performance drops on battery, and the fact that laptop performance is often compared to desktop PCs (which always run off AC power and therefore do not have the throttling on battery power).

 

[pshufd]

Here's what NONE of those head-to-head tests will admit, let alone actually test themselves. The vast majority of x86 based systems will see a massive performance drop on battery power, and can only achieve those higher benchmarks/results plugged into AC power. But Apple Silicon can maintain those performance levels on battery, WITHOUT major drops in battery life. The tests are conducted on AC power for two reasons: the aforementioned performance drops on battery, and the fact that laptop performance is often compared to desktop PCs (which always run off AC power and therefore do not have the throttling on battery power).

I generally find that the video comparisons do talk about battery life and they often even run the Windows laptop on battery to see what the performance drop is.

 

[Basic75]

The ryzen is coming out at 58k points compared to 17k on the m1’s.

That's a multi-threaded all-core score, right? For many everyday tasks single-threaded performance is still the more important metric. Unless you are a heavy multi-tasker (multiple non-idle applications) or use software that can use more than 4 fast cores the higher multi-core speeds are pretty irrelevant. For people that need massive parallel power of course the latest and greatest Intel and AMD chips are faster, they have a lot more cores.