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

71–80 of 368 posts

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

#71

Post by BoorishBears »

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.

The secondary market simply doesn't agree with the weird obsession with calling Apple's hardware future e-waste just because you can't change out an SSD.

Mac hardware holds value because it's well built, supported for a long time, has specs that are enough for a wide range of users...

-

For every power user running through battery cycles every day, there's people who just need a solid well built machine and won't feel the need to upgrade just because their machine gets less battery life, or a given IDE needs more RAM.

Those people don't replace hardware because it's broken, they replace it because it feels old. Design wise, materials wise, etc. Not having crummy bloatware slowly accreting gigabytes of junk and a dozen extra startup items.

Compare a sub $1000 M1 Air to any other sub $1000 laptop coming out today. You'd be incredibly hard pressed to find anything even half as well designed... that's how you get people to keep their hardware.

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

#72

Post by MBCook »

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.

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?

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

#73

Post by monocasa »

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…

marcan seems to have a pretty good handle on the clock tree. There's probably enough breadcrumbs in asahi to void some warranties on a Mac mini, go nuts with cooling, and see how high it can go. The pmic might not be configurable though.

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

#74

Post by wmf »

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…

Sadly, I don't think the M1 family will clock any higher than it's already going. The rumored M1 Max Duo and M1 Max Quadro will have more cores but they'll still trail Intel in single-thread performance (although not enough for most people to notice).

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

#75

Post by wmf »

olliej wrote: post #67
MBCook wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that but the Apple GPU is around double the strength of the Intel integrated GPU. Obviously the 3080 smashes the Apple GPU but that comes at a huge power cost.

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?

Intel refuses to go beyond 128-bit memory which starves the iGPU.

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

#76

Post by p1necone »

MBCook wrote: post #52
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…

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)?

I believe there are laptops you can buy that do that well, but it's not universal.

Software support in Windows and Linux for swapping between a low power integrated GPU and a dedicated one on demand was rather spotty last time I had a system like that, but things might have changed since then (~6 years ago).

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

#77

Post by adam_arthur »

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

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

#78

Post by barbacoa »

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.

>3.5%-5% increase in performance at more than double the wattage

The 100 watts mentioned in the article is the whole laptop power. Google tells[0] me the power consumption of the i9-12900HK is 45 with boosts up to 86W.

Intel's 12th gen i9 is built on 7nm, Apple's M1 max is build on 5nm. Rule of thumb, is about 30% power saving at same performance for a new node.

So assuming max performance of M1 Max is 40W and i9-12900HK is 86W, adjusted for process node we are looking at 40W vs 60W.

[0]https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-12900hk-alder-lake-is-a-p...

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

#79

Post by MBCook »

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.

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

#80

Post by vmception »

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.
Post reply on HN