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

91–100 of 368 posts

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

#91

Post by MBCook »

p1necone wrote: post #76
MBCook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing this is the first laptop Anandtech could get their hands on with this new chip. That said I’ve been out of the PC space for quite a while. Do mobile discrete GPUs greatly draw much power when mostly idle (such as general desktop work)? Did others give up on switching the discrete GPU on and off a needed as Apple used to do (and gave up on IIRC)?

I believe there are laptops you can buy that do that well, but it's not universal. Software support in Windows and Linux for swapping between a low power integrated GPU and a dedicated one on demand was rather spotty last time I had a system like that, but things might have changed since then (~6 years ago).

I had one of the Apple ones and while it worked well the software was spotty there too. It tried to guess when the discrete was needed but turned it on far too often. Which quickly made it hot and killed the battery.

Since I rarely gamed I ended up using a 3rd party utility to force the discrete GPU off 98% of the time and the laptop was much better for it.

I understand why Apple did that (power draw when GPU on) and why they gave up (didn’t work well at all).

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

#92

Post by nkellenicki »

addicted wrote: post #41
crims0n wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not true of the current Macs though. I still have a 2011 era MacBook that I can use, and was very pleasant to use until an OS update a couple of years ago. But that was because I was able to upgrade the RAM, the SSD, and replace the battery. None of those things are possible with macs from the last few years, so their longevity is much more likely to resemble phones than older macs.

I bought my 2013 MacBook Pro with a 1TB SSD and 32GB of RAM, with the highest specced i7 at the time.

I sold it last month to pick up a new 2021 MacBook Pro M1 Max. I bought it with 32GB RAM and a 1TB SSD because I don't need anymore, 8 years later. And the i7 I had still beat out last years base model on Geekbench.

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

#93

Post by michaelmrose »

johnklos wrote: post #62

Hold on - it's 2022, and an extremely high end $4000 laptop with the latest Intel CPU and an NVIDIA 3080Ti comes with a display that's... 1080 resolution? My 2008 17" MacBook Pro has a screen that's 1920 x 1200. My iPhone 6+ is 1920 x 1080. What am I missing? Is the non-Apple world really fine with stagnant resolutions?

Yes basically 95% of PC monitors are < 100 DPI.

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

#94

Post by smoldesu »

wmf wrote: post #74
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think this is going to happen, but: It would be extremely funny if Apple strapped a heavy copper heatsink and a turbo fan to an M1 and just overclocked the ever-lasting crap out of it. The crazy thing about using a Macbook Pro (with an M1 Pro or M1 Max CPU) is that, in single-threaded performance, it's really no faster than a dippy little Macbook Air. And at the end of the day, single-thread performance is mo…

Sadly, I don't think the M1 family will clock any higher than it's already going. The rumored M1 Max Duo and M1 Max Quadro will have more cores but they'll still trail Intel in single-thread performance (although not enough for most people to notice).

Precisely. ARM has traditionally had issues scaling it's clock speed even when given ample cooling and power, history suggests that the only way they'll significantly improve performance is with new fab technology, engineering a better design, or expanding horizontally (eg. adding more cores).

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

#95

Post by MBCook »

wmf wrote: post #75
olliej wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously why can’t Intel make a decent igpu? My understanding is that the M1 GPU is just “ok” and isn’t competing with AMD or nvidia?

Intel refuses to go beyond 128-bit memory which starves the iGPU.

Don’t they have their own new GPU that people expected them to announce around now but got “delayed”?

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

#96

Post by kitsunesoba »

olliej wrote: post #67
MBCook wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seriously why can’t Intel make a decent igpu? My understanding is that the M1 GPU is just “ok” and isn’t competing with AMD or nvidia?

The M-series GPUs are pretty great for what they are. I haven't tried a ton of games on it, but my 16" M1 Pro handles WoW about as well as a desktop with an RTX 2070 or so, and does it without the machine turning into a jet turbine. It's not destroying discrete video cards or anything, but it's universes beyond your typical integrated offering.

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

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)

[deleted]

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

#98

Post by kmeisthax »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #69
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think this is going to happen, but: It would be extremely funny if Apple strapped a heavy copper heatsink and a turbo fan to an M1 and just overclocked the ever-lasting crap out of it. The crazy thing about using a Macbook Pro (with an M1 Pro or M1 Max CPU) is that, in single-threaded performance, it's really no faster than a dippy little Macbook Air. And at the end of the day, single-thread performance is mo…

> I don’t think this is going to happen, but: It would be extremely funny if Apple strapped a heavy copper heatsink and a turbo fan to an M1 and just overclocked the ever-lasting crap out of it. I fully expect this is what the new Mac Pro will look like, probably with multiple M1s.

M1 Max has a cross-die interconnect they photoshopped out of the marketing die shots, so I fully expect Apple to ship dual-Max configs on the Pro.

(Also, RIP one of the most tinkerer-friendly Mac configs in a very long time.)

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

#99

Post by smoldesu »

olliej wrote: post #67
MBCook wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seriously why can’t Intel make a decent igpu? My understanding is that the M1 GPU is just “ok” and isn’t competing with AMD or nvidia?

Your understanding is correct, for the most part. Supposedly the new Xe graphics aren't all that bad, but I haven't used them enough to know for sure. AMD's still the king for iGPU performance, and Nvidia (as usual) takes the dGPU performance crown.

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

#100

Post by na85 »

MBCook wrote: post #72
gnufied wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about video playback tests. Unless they disabled discrete GPUs during the test,a laptop using 3080Ti for video playback is not going to be efficient.

This article is about the Intel comparison but isn’t that one Nvidia’s fault? We all know GPUs burn watts when being heavily used. But when a laptop GPU is just showing a video shouldn’t it be able to scale down pretty far? If I’m just surfing the web or working in Word I wouldn’t want my laptop GPU using 15-20 watts. Surely it can get down to like 2 watts right? Or less?

2 watts total? I doubt it. The display is a major drain. I went down this rabbit hole years ago and on a 2012-vintage X220 with an i7 I could get it down to just under 6W with the display on minimum brightness, the wifi and Bluetooth off, and a host of configuration options including but not limited to what's available through Powertop and TLP.

I'm sure it's better than 5W and change nowadays but the display is by far the biggest draw and I don't think you'll get down to 2W.

Post reply on HN