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

141–150 of 368 posts

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

#141

Post by JoshTko »

jayd16 wrote: post #42
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.

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.

What reputable chip analyst expects Intel's fabs catch up to TSMC in the next 3 years?

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

#142

Post by BeefWellington »

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…

> his 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.

> a cursory look suggests that laptop is also around $800 (AUD) more expensive than the (complete overkill for most) M1 it's comparing to, this is absolutely not a win.

Regarding both points, the i9 laptop they tested has a 3080Ti in it, which would account for both the price difference and power draw just on its own. Even in CPU-only tests just having the discrete GPU on will chew power.

The article is making a poor comparison here: The customer of the M1 Max is not going to be the same target customer of the MSI Raider series. These are not in any way comparable laptops. We'll have to see what happens when someone gets to test a business-targeted Dell or Lenovo system with the Alder Lake CPUs. The M1 will no doubt win the iGPU tests but power consumption will be a more interesting measure.

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

#143

Post by ddingus »

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.

Still using a Note 8. This phone is awesome. I forget how many years...

I would be OK with my M1 Air performing in a similar way.

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

#144

Post by BeefWellington »

MBCook wrote: post #79
tims33 wrote: post #49

Hopefully this turns into a situation where consumers and technologists are the winners. Pat Gelsinger was pretty clear on how he felt about the situation with Apple when he joined Intel and it seems clear we'll see Intel continue to improve. Ultimately this competition should product better products and better prices.

It’s always great to have someone come in and give the market leader a good kick in the ass. Causes things to improve so much faster than they would have otherwise. Remember what AMD releasing the Hammer/Athlon64 architecture did to Intel? Got them off the P4 and eventually lead to the far faster and more efficient Core2 series.

The Ryzen series seems to have done that for Intel too recently. I'm hopeful that this new split-core design Intel is going with pays dividends for them. As a consumer it's good to have robust competition.

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

#145

Post by Miraste »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #128
addicted wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inexpensiv…

Apple is rather good at planned obsolescence. Intel handed them a few years of unusable machines on a platter (thanks Intel) but I’m sure they’ll find new reasons for MacOS updates to degrade performance on old machines regardless of hardware capability.

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

#146

Post by marricks »

Intel normally releases lowest end chips first (maybe because it's easier to get volume of them because of binning) but this year flipped that so we all talk about the highest benchmark chips first. Yes, that means chips meant to be paired with dedicated GPU.

Gives one the impression these are the most favorable comparisons with some benchmarks better than Apple. Then when we get to the lower wattage chips Intel will be able to claim they have just as good power draw too.

I'm not sure they'd do that inversion if they knew their chips were overall better.

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

#147

Post by neogodless »

Whether you're an Intel fan, an Apple fan, or just anti-Intel (or anti-Apple), I feel like there's not much effort here to see the complete picture.

First, yes Apple Silicon M1 (any variety) is, with 100% certainty more efficient than Intel's Alder Lake 12th generation CPUs. And the performance is often better than Intel's best for specific workloads.

Second, you can look at just a few benchmarks and pick winners. You can look at maximum power draw and pick losers.

Or you can look at a lot of other things. For one, Alder Lake is a big improvement over their previous "10nm" aka "Intel 7" CPUs, both in performance, and in efficiency. But they were coming from a pretty big deficit. Second, Alder Lake seems to be able to draw a lot of power out of the box. But, it also performs almost as well when limited somewhat. For more interesting benchmarks, see how it does limited to 75W[0].

If you want great battery life, and MacOS works for you, there's no reason to join this debate. You win, you get the M1 and all the goodness that comes with it. If you've got a very specific job that requires maximum performance, you really need to see how the performance is on that task, and whether you can afford to trade off on battery life, or just need limited portability.

Of course MacWorld is not incentivized to color Intel in the best light, and neither any Mac faithful. But it's also weird to ignore the massive improvements here over Intel's 11th gen. It's technology and engineering, and it's a better showing than we saw out of Intel for quite some time. They spent the early part of the previous decade making tiny improvements to their same 4 core CPUs over and over. Then they spent the second half making mistakes in their process nodes. Alder Lake isn't perfect, but I appreciate it for what it is.

[0] https://youtu.be/Ur3Y2vxpTWo?t=345

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

#148

Post by washadjeffmad »

jsiaajdsdaa wrote: post #15
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.

As someone who used to despise Apple-- the M1 chip has been such a pleasure to use. Completely silent, cold, and I haven't had any issues in my personal workflow.

I ordered an M1 Max at launch at work and use an M1 Pro, and I've been so impressed with the M1 Air that I bought... a $150 Chromebook. It's complicated.

My next mobile purchase (or build, I'm into cyberdecks lately) will have a different form factor display, like 4:3 or 3:2, and I hope Apple makes it. I really thought the Framework might be it until I used one, but it felt like they're only making laptops as an experiment in opex minimalism, and that they're planning to sell off as soon as they establish the value of the "overpriced semi-open eco-conscious DIY laptop" market.

I've talked two people into buying M1 Airs and one M1 Mac Mini from Costco on sale. I haven't recommended anyone buy a Mac since 2014, but these things are fantastic.

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

#149

Post by Miraste »

gnufied wrote: post #51
jagger27 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> During the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the Alder Lake laptop was consistently in the 100-watt range, with spikes between 130 and 140 watts. We haven’t tested the power draw of the M1 Pro/Max ourselves, but AnandTech did using Cinebench R23 and found that the M1 Max’s power draw was 39.7 watts versus over 100 for the 11th-gen MSI GE76 Raider. Cinebench is a pure CPU test though, so I feel the comparison is more o…

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.

It would’ve been nice if they specified but it was probably using the Intel iGPU for video playback. Those results would line up with last year’s laptops in integrated mode. Even with comparable hardware the MacBook is literally 3x as efficient.

In my experience if the dGPU is on at all it won’t get 6 hours of anything.

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

#150

Post by MBCook »

na85 wrote: post #100
MBCook wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

Oh, I meant GPU only. Sorry.

Yeah a well lit display can be a huge drain, but of course I can control that. I would hope WiFi/BT don’t use much relative to CPU/display, but I can’t claim to know.

Post reply on HN