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

161–170 of 368 posts

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

#161

Post by NoPicklez »

chii wrote: post #11
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.

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).

Realistically, I think that the argument of Apple being way more expensive is simply now outdated. It was true in the past, but I don't think it's the case anymore.

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

#162

Post by imwillofficial »

devin wrote: post #85
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple (if they were willing to expose a more wild side) should make an "M1 Pro Max Unlocked" board (or something like that) and just sell it as a bare, microATX board. It could cost exactly the same as the Mac mini for all I care, but if PC builders could use it in crazy cases and with liquid (or even liquid nitrogen) cooling, that would be so cool.

This will never happen.

I remember hell freezing over with iTunes for Windows.

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

#163

Post by MBCook »

neogodless wrote: post #137
MBCook wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one. Well no... they put a very fast (high refresh) gaming screen in a gaming laptop. If you want QHD or 4K screens, they are out there. That's not... more than a Google away. So it's a really bad assumption to make. Here, first google result for "Intel 4K laptop", it's $1500. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-zenbook-flip-15-q538ei-15-... Your fau…

According to The Verge there is another configuration of this machine with double the RAM and a 4K 240Hz for the same price.

Why in the world would you want a 1080p display just to get an extra 120 FPS? Even if you can perceive that difference (which I kind of doubt) you’re not going to get rates that high with your settings up high anyway. In The Verge’s tests only the old CS:GO got above 150 (it got over 400!).

“ In conclusion, putting a 1080p screen on this system is like sticking an MLB player in a Little League game. Sure, he’s gonna look impressive, but what is the point? These are 4K chips, and I’m not just referring to the price of this unit.”

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

#164

Post by DrBenCarson »

sydthrowaway wrote: post #18
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.

Intel is a process node behind When you normalize for that, isn’t the power usage they equal?

Who cares? Better is better.

I don’t care why something is better as long as it doesn’t require human sacrifice, just that it’s better. And the M1 beats the snot out of anything x86 without qualification. Add on that you can get it in a Mac Mini for $600 and ding ding ding Apple wins.

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

#165

Post by DrBenCarson »

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'…

That’s just not true. The RISC instruction set has a growing advantage in performance per watt. There’s a reason no one is producing low-power x86 chips.

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

#166

Post by zeusk »

nielsbot wrote: post #125
chias wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Google propogation delay, your pipeline's length and delay of devices within that pipe determine the max frequency your circuit can run at (a very high level overview).

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

#167

Post by caconym_ »

MBCook wrote: post #163
neogodless wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If any laptop was going to have a good screen I’d think it was this one. Well no... they put a very fast (high refresh) gaming screen in a gaming laptop. If you want QHD or 4K screens, they are out there. That's not... more than a Google away. So it's a really bad assumption to make. Here, first google result for "Intel 4K laptop", it's $1500. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-zenbook-flip-15-q538ei-15-... Your fau…

According to The Verge there is another configuration of this machine with double the RAM and a 4K 240Hz for the same price. Why in the world would you want a 1080p display just to get an extra 120 FPS? Even if you can perceive that difference (which I kind of doubt) you’re not going to get rates that high with your settings up high anyway. In The Verge’s tests only the old CS:GO got above 150 (it got over 400!). “ I…

There are people who want extremely high framerates, and they are the people this product is for. They play games that are not CPU-bound below the framerates they want, and they adjust the graphics settings until they achieve those framerates. The fact that they are throwing expensive modern GPU hardware at graphics that may be relatively primitive on a per-frame basis doesn't matter; for them, it's the framerate that matters.

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

#168

Post by imwillofficial »

jeswin wrote: post #121
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.

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.

To act like your experience extrapolates out to the wider market is disingenuous at best.

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

#169

Post by KennyBlanken »

Miraste wrote: post #145
washadjeffmad wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They lead the industry in how long they provide OS update support for phones/tablets and desktops/laptops.

They downclock the CPU on mobile devices as the battery ages, to keep the CPU from browning out so you

My system, made in 2013, won't be supported by the next OS release this coming fall, but they usually continue security updates at least one release behind. That's basically ten years of hardware support.

Keep in mind that Windows 10 came out in 2015. A ton of manufacturers simply did not support windows 10 on hardware sold before it, because win10 coming out helps them move new PCs.

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

#170

Post by imwillofficial »

8192kjshad09- wrote: post #158
p1necone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because here in the real world software isn’t GPU optimized in many cases.
Post reply on HN