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

151–160 of 368 posts

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

#151

Post by MBCook »

skavi wrote: post #140
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)?

Based on The Verge's article, this is the laptop that Intel is providing to everyone.

I hadn’t seen that. Thanks, makes sense.

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

#152

Post by speed_spread »

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.

At least this CPU can run more than a single OS.

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

#153

Post by ajross »

RandomBK wrote: post #4

> During the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the Alder Lake laptop was consistently in the 100-watt range, [...] M1 Max’s power draw was 39.7 watts Ouch. > MSI GE76 Raider got 6 hours of offline video playback, a far cry from the MacBook Pro’s 17 hours. Double ouch. That's a huge gap, and 6 is low even in absolute terms. It's still a nice beefy chip, but still a far cry from the engineering marvel that Apple pulled of…

> Double ouch. That's a huge gap [6 vs. 17 hours of "offline video playback"], and 6 is low even in absolute terms.

That test is measuring backlight consumption, not SOC efficiency. It's a huge display tuned for gaming vs. Apple's famous system power optimization on a panel about half the size. All CPUs on both systems are effectively at idle here, it says nothing beyond the fact that MSI isn't going to (or capable of, frankly) spend their time optimizing idle power draw on a gaming rig.

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

#154

Post by KennyBlanken »

Gigachad wrote: post #68
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).

What gives people the perception of apple being expensive is that other OEMs play tricks to boost numbers on a spec sheet that the common person checks while cheeping out massively on parts that don’t show on the spec sheet. I know someone who got an MSI laptop recently and it’s complete garbage. The screen casing cracked from the force of the hinge within months, the trackpad is borderline unusable, wifi is spotty,…

> What gives people the perception of apple being expensive is that other OEMs play tricks to boost numbers on a spec sheet that the common person checks while cheeping out massively on parts that don’t show on the spec sheet.

Yep! Like with dell: non-standard power supply size, non-standard motherboard size. And with most of the companies: a motherboard that uses whatever the cheapest USB, sound, SATA chipsets were in the bin that week.

The boards are designed and reworked constantly by the factories...as opposed to Apple who pour enormous engineering effort into refining, testing, etc each revision.

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

#155

Post by MBCook »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #96
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?

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.

I believe they are somewhere between equal to and a quantum leap over what Apple was shipping before depending on the task/machine.

But as we all know what Apple is/was shipping and the best you can get in a PC laptop are very different things.

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

#156

Post by gjsman-1000 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #136
smoldesu wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Apple has an architectural license, which is why they are so insistent on calling them "Apple Silicon" in branding instead of ARM. The only thing the Apple M1 has in common with ARM is the instruction set. The actual core design? Completely Apple. No Cortex X1s or A73s in there. Apple does use the stock ARM M3 in a few places IIRC but that's a very-low-power ~100mhz part for managing some internals. Also, as for who…

Also, for every Android commentator talking about ARM, consider that Apple even named the company "Advanced RISC Machines," because they opposed having the name of a former competitor in there (because it was originally going to be "Acorn RISC Machine"). Apple also provided almost all the funding and initial leadership for the venture, while Acorn supplied most of the engineers and VLSI the silicon tooling.

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

#157

Post by kalleboo »

p1necone wrote: post #23

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 gene…

> 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

The charts in the PCWorld article show the idle power draw at 20W, so couldn't you just subtract that?

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

#158

Post by 8192kjshad09- »

p1necone wrote: post #33
anuragsoni wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Yeah - I think it's a question of what the different target markets are willing to pay. A lot of people want gaming laptops, so systems with big GPUs and big CPUs and not so great size/weight/battery life can be had relatively cheap. But most people that want big CPUs and good battery life but don't care about the GPU so much are people who need the system for their job, so manufacturers can get away with pricing tho…

Out of curiosity what jobs need a good CPU but also can't take advantage of a good GPU?

It seems like most of the high performance numerical computing software today is GPU-accelerated. If performance for your job is super important, why isn't your software GPU-accelerated?

I might just be naive but it's honestly hard for me to imagine why anybody would need a good CPU and not also want a good GPU.

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

#159

Post by smoldesu »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #156
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has an architectural license, which is why they are so insistent on calling them "Apple Silicon" in branding instead of ARM. The only thing the Apple M1 has in common with ARM is the instruction set. The actual core design? Completely Apple. No Cortex X1s or A73s in there. Apple does use the stock ARM M3 in a few places IIRC but that's a very-low-power ~100mhz part for managing some internals. Also, as for who…

Also, for every Android commentator talking about ARM, consider that Apple even named the company "Advanced RISC Machines," because they opposed having the name of a former competitor in there (because it was originally going to be "Acorn RISC Machine"). Apple also provided almost all the funding and initial leadership for the venture, while Acorn supplied most of the engineers and VLSI the silicon tooling.

It's touching that you reduce me to "Android commentator", but my point is that Apple has a lot of history to spite with their second-gen chips. Whether or not they're engineering their own cores or decided the name of ARM is irrelevant, they simply haven't proven that they can increase their desktop chip performance without packing more cores onto a die and calling it a day. If they manage to make significant single-core gains with their next-generation chips, I'd be impressed. The odds are against them, and their competitors are starting to wake up.

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

#160

Post by kalleboo »

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.

The charts show the idle power draw though (20W), couldn't just just subtract that?
Post reply on HN