Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

intc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#71

Post by rsynnott »

jeroenhd wrote: post #15
schappim wrote: post #9

But at what thermal, power and monetary price? Edit: @deepnotderp[1] found the power adjusted basis: https://mobile.twitter.com/witeken/status/147844103741682893... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29802359#29803502

Depending on the workload: does it need to? Most people I've seen use laptops near chargers, or at least within 2 hours of the nearest charging opportunity. Sometimes people travel and need more, but I don't think it's that common to need eight hours of charge at maximum performance. Don't get me wrong, the M1 is an engineering marvel and as Apple's competitors move to a similar node size I hope they too will get the…

> at two thirds the price

I wouldn't necessarily bet on that. RRP for the chip they're talking about is $635; it's the top end. M1 Pro machines (the Max is a red herring; the cheaper Pros have the same CPU performance) start at $2k. Generally, laptops containing Intel's most expensive mobile chips cost more than that.

Like, it's probably in principle possible to produce a laptop containing the offending chip for $1320, but I doubt you'll see many of them.

Power use also has implications for the thermal envelope. Most laptops using Intel's current top-end chips can't sustain the top-end performance for long at all; they need to throttle to avoid melting.

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#72

Post by dasil003 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #56
howdydoo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Apple is the best regardless of which product is better?

I think that’s what he’s trying to say? It doesn’t make sense though because having your own architecture isn’t that useful if no one else wants to use it. The goal is to 10X your profits by licensing out your designs. Designing your own architecture is a 1X move if only you use it and that’s not counting the cost of maintenance and marketing. Counterpoint: Apple has sunk an incredible amount of money into an archite…

What you are saying is antithetical to the entire Apple strategy, which is to create the best vertically integrated hardware and software and charge a premium for it. The strategy you're suggesting is to commoditize yourself, which they already tried (do you remember the Mac clone era), and is also the same reason IBM lost the PC market to Microsoft and none of the resulting hardware OEMs have even a fraction of Apple's market cap.

Also, to suggest that Apple Silicon has very few tangible benefits is laughable. The power / performance are incredible, and the deep integration provides tons of optimizations that no other manufacturer can match. This ranges from seemingly simple things like M1 Macs waking up faster than you can open the lid, to long-term strategic advantages such as cross-compiling single binaries to both Mac OS and iOS, or adding custom silicon to cover software features with unprecedented efficiency with a guarantee that every single machine running it will have access to that hardware (over time).

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#73

Post by rstupek »

abledon wrote: post #33
carlycue wrote: post #28

Apple has already won. Even if Intel catches up in efficiency, it doesn't matter. Even if they're 30% faster, it doesn't matter. Apple is in charge of their own destiny with Apple Silicon. That's invaluable.

isnt it TSMC's silicon with a printing recipe sent over from apple?

Doesn't AMD similarly send their recipe to TSMC to be printed?

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#74

Post by blackoil »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #42
userbinator wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. x86 has its roots in the PC, which was an open and relatively standardised platform. ARM's rise to popularity came later, and there are literally thousands if not tens of thousands of different SoCs with an ARM core, which have nothing in common but the core. All the locked-down mobile devices are in this category, and their SoC manufacturers have been extremely reluctant to release much in the way of documentati…

> x86 has its roots in the PC, which was an open and relatively standardised platform. x86 was and is proprietary (ARM's ISAs and designs are as well). The wider x86 platform is somewhat standardized, but that doesn't mean it's open any more than Apple computers using Thunderbolt or PCI or USB or DDR standards mean they are open.

Can you build an ARM computer of the components from Newegg?

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#75

Post by jeffbee »

Gigachad wrote: post #70
jeffbee wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an M1, M1 Pro, and Core i7-12700K on my desk. The Intel part is the fastest on single and multi-threaded workloads I care about, and it does not come with the rosetta nonsense that makes it difficult to manage your compilers and libs on macOS. It does come with a different kind of nonsense, namely that Linux doesn't know what to do with the efficiency cores of the Intel part, so you have to either disable them…

The M1 is probably the first time a lot of people have had to deal with cross compiling so the tooling kind of sucks right now but I imagine in a few years it will be seamless.

There's been a heck of a lot of friction though. It turns out that there are lots of open source builds that believe darwin but not x86 implies powerpc, and there are lots of python programs that believe they are entitled to build and install .so libraries, overwriting one arch with the other. Also fortran continues to be a mess.

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#76

Post by kumarvvr »

Wow. Intel has shifted from being a leader to a follower.

It doesn't matter if this particular chip is better than that particular chip.

Apple will come up with an M2 or M2X that will be better or faster or cheaper.

Apple is focusing on its products. Make then quieter, make them faster, make them last longer, make them lighter. The M1 design goals would be tuned to that.

Seems like Intels goals are tuned to whatever beats M1.

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#77

Post by pjscott »

abledon wrote: post #33
carlycue wrote: post #28

Apple has already won. Even if Intel catches up in efficiency, it doesn't matter. Even if they're 30% faster, it doesn't matter. Apple is in charge of their own destiny with Apple Silicon. That's invaluable.

isnt it TSMC's silicon with a printing recipe sent over from apple?

That’s correct, but (a) the recipe is extremely non-trivial and (b) Apple could take that recipe to Samsung and get mostly comparable results for something in the double-digit millions of dollars range for design conversion, so they have leverage.

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#78

Post by wmf »

freediver wrote: post #14

Apart from what others already said (performance per watt) this PR fails to acknowledge that M1 also has a built-in Neural Engine cores for accelerating machine learning, which is going to become the main feature of many apps. Indeed, M1 is unique in the respect that you get CPU, GPU and ML cores in a single chip, with incredible performance and minimal power utilization.

Intel has GNA.

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#79

Post by foxes »

Even though the facility testing the new Intel CPU was submerged kilometres underwater, the blinding flash and mushroom cloud from the core meltdown was visible from orbit. In an instant hundreds of cubic kilometres of ocean boiled off. In the hours and days that followed, the mega tsunamis and earthquakes reduced most cities to scrambled ruins, the lands poisoned with radioactive salt rain.

Re: Intel claims new i9 is faster than M1 Max

#80

Post by throwawaylinux »

blackoil wrote: post #74
throwawaylinux wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> x86 has its roots in the PC, which was an open and relatively standardised platform. x86 was and is proprietary (ARM's ISAs and designs are as well). The wider x86 platform is somewhat standardized, but that doesn't mean it's open any more than Apple computers using Thunderbolt or PCI or USB or DDR standards mean they are open.

Can you build an ARM computer of the components from Newegg?

Well that's a logical fallacy if ever I've seen one, but I'll humor you. Yes, you can.

https://www.newegg.com/acer-cp513-1h-s60f/p/2S3-0008-003J5?I...

https://www.newegg.com/p/1HD-005N-00048

https://www.newegg.com/nvidia-945-13541-0000-000/p/N82E16813...

Etc.

Post reply on HN