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

121–130 of 368 posts

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

#121

Post by jeswin »

crims0n wrote: post #30
fartcannon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used a 2011 Core i7 Asus N53SV till last year - full hd and had 4 ddr3 slots. I was able to run the latest Linux, and the latest Windows on it. Apple meanwhile has dropped support for 2014 macbooks. There are apps which won't run on them today, and Apple will stop supporting Catalina this year.

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

#122

Post by rvz »

sys_64738 wrote: post #17

Performance Per Watt matters to Intel except when it doesn't. But really when you have to dissipate so much heat then the chip will be throttled. Apple's ARM chips are only getting started.

Exactly. Apple is not even trying and Intel only just caught up.

This year, they will find out that the M2 will set them back another 2 years.

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

#123

Post by filmgirlcw »

smoldesu wrote: post #99
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?

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.

Yeah, Xe isn’t bad but it’s not anything close to what Apple is doing on the M1 Max or what AMD and Nvidia are doing on the discrete side for laptops.

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

#124

Post by adam_arthur »

halpert wrote: post #107
adam_arthur wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Intel famously followed a "tik-tock" development cycle where they would move their existing designs to their next gen fabs, before updating the design.

So yes, you absolutely can separate them, and that's how it was historically done. Though Intel fell behind on this philosophy.

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

#125

Post by nielsbot »

chias wrote: post #113
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…

Overclocking isn't just limited by heat dissipation, and dealing with the additional heat generation is one of the easier issues to overcome. Much more limiting is the fact that the electronic components in the hardware (everything from RAM to the more "integrated" components on the PCBs) have certain amounts of time which they need to take in order to tie voltages high or low, to either read or output a bit. This am…

cryogenic cooling tho?

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

#126

Post by KennyBlanken »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #55
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.

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…

> in single-threaded performance, it's really no faster than a dippy little Macbook Air.

Maybe in terms of raw FLOPS or something, but more importantly it has enormous levels of memory and storage bandwidth, which is what's actually important for most user workloads these days.

That's not even accounting for the performance of the GPU cores which can be used for a ton of multimedia workloads.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

adam_arthur wrote: post #120
shawnz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your comment is unclear. Apple's contribution to M1 was the design. TSMC built the next gen fabs, and gets credit for the manufacturing. You can't compare viability or success of the processor design when you compare cross fab generations. It's apples to oranges. You can state that M1 is better, which is true, but it doesn't follow at all that it's due to the design component. It could very well be that moving Intel'…

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by washadjeffmad »

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'm not arguing for or against, but we've hit a fairly stable period of diminishing returns on specs.

We've solved the storage latency and throughout bottlenecks, scheduling, and CPU core counts, so we don't really need beaucoups of RAM for a functional laptop.

RAM bandwidth doubles with each generation and throughout and latency improve, so less is needed for the same performance.

Batteries are relatively inexpensive to replace through the vendor are improved in energy density, energy density, and cycles, so there's not a big advantage to buying aftermarket even though you can.

For 2014-2016 Macs with flash storage, they're still pretty great to excellent machines. The greatest detriment to the longevity of 2017-2019 Macs is that they contain Intel components, and that every release of MacOS since High Sierra has been designed adversarial against their security flaws. Costco was practically giving away Intel iMacs recently, offering them almost half off.

Also, I remember benchmarking on apfs post-mitigations and seeing up to a 40% performance loss on some syscalls, which translated to an unusable computer on dual core Intels or anything with mechanical storage. How would upgrading components have helped then?

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

#129

Post by WatchDog »

mmmBacon wrote: post #57
gpm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Same processor really just a yield thing.

There are 3 M1 series chips, the M1, the M1 Pro, and the M1 Max. The M1 is a different die to the M1 Pro and M1 Max.

I believe the Pro and Max are the same die binned differently as you alluded to.

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

#130

Post by qbasic_forever »

adam_arthur wrote: post #77
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.

But the Intel chip is a fab generation behind. Not apples to apples

Ok, it's Apples to Intels then. :)
Post reply on HN