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

Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

macworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 368 posts

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#21

Post by MBCook »

dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

Not only that but the Apple GPU is around double the strength of the Intel integrated GPU.

Obviously the 3080 smashes the Apple GPU but that comes at a huge power cost.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#22

Post by MBCook »

p1necone wrote: post #16
dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

This article is benchmarking the CPU alone but measuring the wattage of the whole machine, including a dedicated 3080ti which is obviously not relevant to a CPU benchmark. It would make more sense to do this benchmark on a laptop with an integrated GPU.

Perhaps that isn’t available yet, or maybe no one will ship the high end Intel chip w/o a discrete GPU because they don’t think anyone would want that combo.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#23

Post by p1necone »

A lot of people are misinterpreting the results here (understandably, the article is pretty bad).

They're benchmarking the CPU, but measuring the power draw of a whole laptop - including a dedicated 3080ti GPU which will still be drawing a decent amount of power even at idle.

This benchmark is useful for measuring the speed and power draw of /this specific laptop/ vs an m1 MacBook, but not so much this new i9 in general.

Laptop CPU performance also varies massively even across the exact same chip depending on thermal design, so this chip on average could potentially be either much slower or much faster than this benchmark suggests.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#24

Post by carbocation »

sydthrowaway wrote: post #18
dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

Intel is a process node behind When you normalize for that, isn’t the power usage they equal?

As a consumer, I would not normalize for that.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#25

Post by victorronin »

I switched about half a year ago from a MacBook Pro with an Intel processor to MacBook Pro with an M1 processor. My overall impression was "when the hell will it run out of power"? I spent the whole working day (without a charger) and it was still at 60%, while I was constantly stressed before when I had to do something without a charger for more than 3-4 hours.

I don't care what any test, but tripling battery life with no visible performance degradation is a huge win in my book.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#26

Post by kitsunesoba »

gpm wrote: post #12
dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

> was released 14 months ago The M1 Max was only released 3 months ago... (Your other points stand though)

The CPU cores on the Max are identical to those of the original M1, though.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#27

Post by anuragsoni »

p1necone wrote: post #16
dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

This article is benchmarking the CPU alone but measuring the wattage of the whole machine, including a dedicated 3080ti which is obviously not relevant to a CPU benchmark. It would make more sense to do this benchmark on a laptop with an integrated GPU.

Knowing intel and PC manufacturers you most likely won't find this CPU in a laptop without a dedicated GPU. I gave up the last time I was looking for a new laptop (I ended up with a MacBook Air), but it was surprisingly hard to find a laptop that had a beefy CPU but no discrete GPU. Lenovo had a couple of think pads that had some offerings but they would make you jump to the intel CPU with vPRO and that would come with a huge price increase.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#28

Post by MBCook »

chii wrote: post #11
dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

the fact is, apple hardware is not _that_ expensive relative to what you get for the money. Their supply chain is super optimized, and it's hard to beat them on price if a competitor decides to try (at the same quality that is).

Note that the PC that pulled off these numbers cost almost double what the Mac did. $2500 vs $4000. It includes the GPU (not cheap these days) but still a big difference.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#29

Post by JoshTko »

sydthrowaway wrote: post #18
dijit wrote: post #3

3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage, for a chip that is not in consumers hands against a chip that basically hasn't changed and was released 14 months ago~ This is not the victory that the title implies. It's also a _little_ bit funny that the i9 laptop was double the price, given people usually rant loudly about how expensive Apple computers are.

Intel is a process node behind When you normalize for that, isn’t the power usage they equal?

What is your point? Intel failed to execute on their own Fabs? That intel needs to use TSMC's fabs to get parity? That Intel can't get access to TSMC's best fabs? The end result is the same. Intel has chips that are 3 years behind in power efficiency.

Re: Alder Lake Core i9 processor is faster than the M1 Max

#30

Post by crims0n »

fartcannon wrote: post #20
chii wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact is, apple hardware is not _that_ expensive relative to what you get for the money. Their supply chain is super optimized, and it's hard to beat them on price if a competitor decides to try (at the same quality that is).

Yeah but it's locked down, unupgradable future e-waste.

I would argue the opposite, still using my 2012 15” MacBook Pro… a decade later. Go to Walmart and look at the laptops on display, and tell me any of those are capable lasting near a decade.
Post reply on HN