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

101–110 of 368 posts

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

#101

Post by neogodless »

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?

> Is the non-Apple world really fine with stagnant resolutions?

Exactly one specific version of one exact laptop has 1080p, and you jump to that conclusion? You are missing 99.999% of the picture here!

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

#102

Post by shawnz »

adam_arthur wrote: post #86
JoshTko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is obvious. M1 is not more powerful due to a better design, but simply due to more modern manufacturing process. Otherwise you would see a much larger gap in performance.

So it's merely equally as good as the previous market leader's flagship product in every way except litography, where it exceeds them?

Are you implying that's not something to be impressed about just because lithography is not a property of the architecture?

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

#103

Post by smoldesu »

MBCook wrote: post #36
RandomBK wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, I missed that. In that case it sounds like the comparison itself was flawed by comparing two devices in such different perf envelopes. Nevertheless, it's not a great first showing.

It’s an attempt to show top of the line CPU performance. To get that you need a very power hungry setup on the Intel side and they only win by single digit percentages. Intel’s lower power chips may be able to match/beat the M1 range’s power draw, but one would assume they can’t keep up that level of performance while doing it. Apple seems to have the best of both worlds at the moment. It can perform very well or go…

It honestly depends on the benchmarks you're using. Dave2D posted multicore Cinebench scores[0] the other day that compared M1 Max to this same laptop, and it was really a blowout.

Apple's foiree into ARM has been going better than it could have gone, but recommending an ARM chip still comes with several asterisks, which make it kinda hard to recommend for people who don't make a living out of reading/writing words on a screen and highly specific creative work that may-or-may-not benefit from the architecture of the chip. Regardless, they've got their work cut out for them, and it should be interesting to see how Apple responds.

[0] https://youtu.be/VHUF8A2vpos?t=423

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

#104

Post by jtian »

For sure, it's not honorable to beat M1 Max (or M1 Pro, as they share exactly the same CPU part) at high wattage. I am genuinely curious if someone can verify the 35w-case (see https://www.zdnet.com/article/ces-2022-intel-says-it-has-a-m...).

Also, it may derail: it seems that we could never have all good things at the same time:

1. Apple and NVIDIA: previously, what do you expect when two control freaks meet? And now Apple has its in-house GPU, we will never see an all-around Mac anyway.

2. Even if Intel makes M*-like chips, its customer (OEMs) won't afford it anyway: 200 GB/s memory for CPU is simply server grade (e.g., the memory bandwidth is like Xeon Sapphire Rapids'), too expensive for consumer use.

(edited for formatting)

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

#105

Post by zucker42 »

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.

For one, the only power numbers in this article are from a benchmark where the i9-12900hk has a 29% performance advantage (and the power numbers weren't even measured under controlled conditions using consistent methodology). Second, you can't extrapolate from the numbers in the article to a fair comparison, since performance scaling with extra power is non-linear. You must compare the systems at iso-power or iso-performance, or even compare them over the whole power/performance range.

Probably a more fair comparison of the architectures will be between the M1X and the i7-1280p, since they have similar power specs. It wouldn't surprise me if the M1X comes out on top since it's on a superior process node (TSMC 5nm vs Intel 7) and on-chip memory is faster, but I think they'll definitely be comparable.

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

#106

Post by MBCook »

vmception wrote: post #80
DimmieMan wrote: post #47

This focus on raw performance makes sense when comparing desktop workstations but for laptops it misses the point and I hope it goes out of fashion. My MacBook Air runs Jetbrains + a couple containers just fine for almost a couple of work days on battery. Is this i9 faster? Yes but at a 6 hour battery life and 2.9Kg of weight it might as well be a desktop (just save money and buy/build a better desktop or get a conso…

My M1 Max has insane battery life! I already take it for granted but I was just thinking about it the other day.

When I first got my M1 air I had it charged all the way and then had to put it aside for a few days. It wasn’t plugged in.

I came back and it had lost like 3%. My Intel Mac it replaced would have used up most of not all of its battery.

And that’s to say nothing of the crazy battery life in use.

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

#107

Post by halpert »

adam_arthur wrote: post #86
JoshTko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is obvious. M1 is not more powerful due to a better design, but simply due to more modern manufacturing process. Otherwise you would see a much larger gap in performance.

Can you really separate the “design” from how it’s manufactured?

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

#109

Post by MBCook »

neogodless wrote: post #101
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?

> Is the non-Apple world really fine with stagnant resolutions? Exactly one specific version of one exact laptop has 1080p, and you jump to that conclusion? You are missing 99.999% of the picture here!

It’s one laptop. But it’s not a $350 laptop. It’s $4000. It has the top of the line Intel chip and (what I believe) is the top of the line GPU out now.

If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one.

Nope. $1100 Air has a better screen.

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

#110

Post by bob29 »

na85 wrote: post #82
jayd16 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the point is that they're neck and neck while being a fab behind. If the fab catches up they might be greatly ahead. Its a big if but it adds context.

The power consumption is a critical issue on a laptop, unless you're one of those laptop users that never works on battery in which case you could get a lot more bang for your buck with a desktop.

LISTEN YOU GEN Z PUNK, YOU DONT KNOW ABOU TTHE REAL TIK TOK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model

Post reply on HN