8 ms·

That's not what they said during the keynote. They said the Macbook Air (specifically) is "3x faster than the best selling PC laptop in its class" and that its

by 013a 6y ago

That's not what they said during the keynote. They said the Macbook Air (specifically) is "3x faster than the best selling PC laptop in its class" and that its "faster than 98% of PC laptops sold in the last year". There was no "in its class" designation on the 98% figure. If they're taken at their word, its among every PC laptop sold in the past year, period. Frankly, given what we saw today, and the leaked A14x benchmarks a few days ago (which may be this M1 chip or a different, lower power chip for the upcoming iPad Pro, either way); there is almost no chance that the 16" MBPs still being sold with Intel chips will be able to match the 13". They probably could have released a 16" model today with the M1 and it would still be an upgrade. But, they're probably holding back and waiting for a better graphics solution in an upcoming M1x-like chip.

harrisonjackson 6y ago
This probably says more about the volume of low end PCs being sold than about the performance of the air.
- 013a 6y ago
  If you believe that, then you've either been accidentally ignoring Apple's chip R&D over the past three years, or intentionally spinning it against them out of some more general dislike of the company. The most powerful Macbook Pro, with a Core i9-9980HK, posts a Geekbench 5 of 1096/6869. The A12z in the iPad Pro posts a 1120/4648. This is a relatively fair comparison because both of these chips were released in ~2018-2019; Apple was winning in single-core performance at least a year ago, at a lower TDP, with no fan. The A14, released this year, posts a 1584/4181 @ 6 watts. This is, frankly, incomprehensible. The most powerful single core mark ever submitted to Geekbench is the brand-spanking-new Ryzen 9 5950X; a 1627/15427 @ 105 watts & $800. Apple is close to matching the best AMD has, on a DESKTOP, at 5% the power draw, and with passive cooling. We need to wait for M1 benchmarks, but this is an architecture that the PC market needs to be scared of. There is no evidence that they aren't capable of scaling multicore performance when provided a higher power envelope, especially given how freakin low the A14's TDP is already. What of the power envelope of the 16" Macbook Pro? If they can put 8 cores in the MBA, will they do 16 in the MBP16? God forbid, 24? Zen 3 is the only other architecture that approaches A14 performance, and it demands 10x the power to do it.
  - pja 6y ago
    The Ryzen 9 is a 16 (32 hyperthreads) core CPU, the A14 is a 2 big / 4 little core CPU. Power draw on an integer workload per thread seems roughly equivalent.
  - hajile 6y ago
    Not all geekbench scores are created equal. Comparing ARM and x86 scores is an exercise in futility as there are simply too many factors to work through. It also doesn't include all workload types. For example, I can say with 100% confidence that M1 has nowhere near 32MB of onboard cache. Once it starts hitting cache limits, it's performance will drop off a cliff as fast cores that can't be fed are just slow cores. It's also worth noting that around 30% of the AMD power budget is just Infinity Fabric (hypertransport 4.0). When things get wide and you have to manage that much wider complexity, the resulting control circuitry has a big effect on power consumption too. All that said, I do wonder how much of a part the ISA plays here.
    - 013a 6y ago
      M1 has 16MB of L2 cache; 12MB dedicated to the HP cores and 4MB dedicated to the LP cores. Another important consideration is the on-SOC DRAM. This is really incomparable to anything else on the market, x86 or ARM, so its hard to say how this will impact performance, but it may help alleviate the need for a larger cache. I think its pretty clear that Apple has something special here when we're quibbling about the cache and power draw per core differences of a 10 watt chip versus a 100 watt one; its missing the bigger picture that Apple did this at 10 watts. They're so far beyond their own class, and the next two above it, that we're frantically trying to explain it as anything except alien technology by drawing comparisons to chips which require power supplies the size of sixteen iPhones. Even if they were just short of mobile i9 performance (they're not), this would still be a massive feat of engineering worthy of an upgrade.
      - john_alan 6y ago
        Really interesting analysis. So you expect the M1 MBP will outpace the more expensive Intel 13 MBP they are selling for more money!! How would that not destroy sales of their “higher end” intel MBP 13? If so do you think it will be better across most workload types?
klelatti 6y ago
Really good observations - I suspect that the 16" MBPs may be in the 2% though. Plus, given use of Rosetta 2 they probably need 2x or more improvement over existing models to be viable for existing x86 software. Interesting to speculate what the M chip in the 16" will look like - convert efficency cores to performance cores?
- 013a 6y ago
  My guess is that they'd still keep the efficiency cores around, but provide more performance cores. So likely a 12 or 16 core processor, with 4 or 6 of those dedicated to efficiency cores. The M1 supposedly has a 10w TDP (at least in the MBA; it may be speced higher in the MBP13). If that's the case, there's a ton of power envelope headroom to scale to more cores, given the i9 9980HK in the current MBP16 is speced at 45 watts. I'm very scared of this architecture once it gets up to Mac Pro levels of power envelope. If it doesn't scale, then it doesn't scale, but assuming it does this is so far beyond Xeon/Zen 3 performance it'd be unfair to even compare them. This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile. Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter. But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them. And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    I'm old enough to remember the MacBook Pro intro (seems a long time ago!) when Steve Jobs said it's all about performance per watt. My only worry about the systems with more cores (Mac Pro etc) are about the economics for Apple of making these chips in such small volume. PS Interesting that from Anandtech the M1 has a smaller die area than the i5/i7 in the Intel Airs so plenty of room for more cores!
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile. If you want a more efficient processor you can just reduce the frequency. You can't do that in the other direction. If your processor wasn't designed for 4Ghz+ then you can't clock it that high, so the real challenge is making the highest clocked CPU. AMD and Intel care a lot about efficiency and they use efficiency improvements to increase clock speeds and add more cores just like everyone else. What you are talking about is like semiconductor 101. It's so obvious nobody has to talk about it. If you think this is a competitive edge then you should read up more about this industry. >Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter. Efficiency matters a lot in the server and desktop market. Higher efficiency means more cores and a higher frequency. >But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them. No shit? Semiconductor 101?? >And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite. You mean... like those 64 core EPYC server processors that AMD has been producing for years...? Aren't you lacking a little in imagination?
manigandham 6y ago
The vast majority of PC laptops sold are cheap low-end volume computers.
- martin_a 6y ago
  Yeah, I just thought about all those 499/599 Euro (factory-new) laptops that are being sold in Germany. They are okayish but nothing I'd like to compare great systems against.
lumberingjack 6y ago
Just awhile ago Apple said the AIR was in a class of it's own so....
- dexterdog 6y ago
  So 2% of the airs sold last year are equal to or better than this.
matwood 6y ago
> "faster than 98% of PC laptops sold in the last year" Keep in mind that the $3k MBP is probably part of the 2% in the above quote. The large majority of laptops sold are ~$1k, and not the super high end machines.
tass 6y ago
This wording is very hand-wavey. They can and should give a direct comparison; as consumers we don't know what the top 2% of sold laptops are, or which is the "best selling PC laptop in its class". Notice it's "best selling" and not most powerful.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Without actual real world performance tests from neutral 3rd parties all that really really need to be taken with a grain of salt. Never trust the maker of a product, test for yourself or watch for neutral reviewing parties who don't have a financial incentive.
Spooky23 6y ago
Remember that the Intel CPUs have shitty thermals. 1.4 GHz with turbo up to 4, etc. Smacking that with single cores on a 5nm process is probably pretty easy.
manquer 6y ago
"98% of laptops sold" is not a useful metric. If you buy a Ferrari, they won't market saying its latest car is better than 98% of cars sold last year. it is not a good metric to compare performance of budget laptops where sales is going to be higher to premium laptop.

by 013a 6y ago

harrisonjackson 6y ago

This probably says more about the volume of low end PCs being sold than about the performance of the air.

013a 6y ago
If you believe that, then you've either been accidentally ignoring Apple's chip R&D over the past three years, or intentionally spinning it against them out of some more general dislike of the company. The most powerful Macbook Pro, with a Core i9-9980HK, posts a Geekbench 5 of 1096/6869. The A12z in the iPad Pro posts a 1120/4648. This is a relatively fair comparison because both of these chips were released in ~2018-2019; Apple was winning in single-core performance at least a year ago, at a lower TDP, with no fan. The A14, released this year, posts a 1584/4181 @ 6 watts. This is, frankly, incomprehensible. The most powerful single core mark ever submitted to Geekbench is the brand-spanking-new Ryzen 9 5950X; a 1627/15427 @ 105 watts & $800. Apple is close to matching the best AMD has, on a DESKTOP, at 5% the power draw, and with passive cooling. We need to wait for M1 benchmarks, but this is an architecture that the PC market needs to be scared of. There is no evidence that they aren't capable of scaling multicore performance when provided a higher power envelope, especially given how freakin low the A14's TDP is already. What of the power envelope of the 16" Macbook Pro? If they can put 8 cores in the MBA, will they do 16 in the MBP16? God forbid, 24? Zen 3 is the only other architecture that approaches A14 performance, and it demands 10x the power to do it.
- pja 6y ago
  The Ryzen 9 is a 16 (32 hyperthreads) core CPU, the A14 is a 2 big / 4 little core CPU. Power draw on an integer workload per thread seems roughly equivalent.
- hajile 6y ago
  Not all geekbench scores are created equal. Comparing ARM and x86 scores is an exercise in futility as there are simply too many factors to work through. It also doesn't include all workload types. For example, I can say with 100% confidence that M1 has nowhere near 32MB of onboard cache. Once it starts hitting cache limits, it's performance will drop off a cliff as fast cores that can't be fed are just slow cores. It's also worth noting that around 30% of the AMD power budget is just Infinity Fabric (hypertransport 4.0). When things get wide and you have to manage that much wider complexity, the resulting control circuitry has a big effect on power consumption too. All that said, I do wonder how much of a part the ISA plays here.
  - 013a 6y ago
    M1 has 16MB of L2 cache; 12MB dedicated to the HP cores and 4MB dedicated to the LP cores. Another important consideration is the on-SOC DRAM. This is really incomparable to anything else on the market, x86 or ARM, so its hard to say how this will impact performance, but it may help alleviate the need for a larger cache. I think its pretty clear that Apple has something special here when we're quibbling about the cache and power draw per core differences of a 10 watt chip versus a 100 watt one; its missing the bigger picture that Apple did this at 10 watts. They're so far beyond their own class, and the next two above it, that we're frantically trying to explain it as anything except alien technology by drawing comparisons to chips which require power supplies the size of sixteen iPhones. Even if they were just short of mobile i9 performance (they're not), this would still be a massive feat of engineering worthy of an upgrade.
    - john_alan 6y ago
      Really interesting analysis. So you expect the M1 MBP will outpace the more expensive Intel 13 MBP they are selling for more money!! How would that not destroy sales of their “higher end” intel MBP 13? If so do you think it will be better across most workload types?

klelatti 6y ago

Really good observations - I suspect that the 16" MBPs may be in the 2% though. Plus, given use of Rosetta 2 they probably need 2x or more improvement over existing models to be viable for existing x86 software. Interesting to speculate what the M chip in the 16" will look like - convert efficency cores to performance cores?

013a 6y ago
My guess is that they'd still keep the efficiency cores around, but provide more performance cores. So likely a 12 or 16 core processor, with 4 or 6 of those dedicated to efficiency cores. The M1 supposedly has a 10w TDP (at least in the MBA; it may be speced higher in the MBP13). If that's the case, there's a ton of power envelope headroom to scale to more cores, given the i9 9980HK in the current MBP16 is speced at 45 watts. I'm very scared of this architecture once it gets up to Mac Pro levels of power envelope. If it doesn't scale, then it doesn't scale, but assuming it does this is so far beyond Xeon/Zen 3 performance it'd be unfair to even compare them. This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile. Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter. But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them. And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite.
- klelatti 6y ago
  I'm old enough to remember the MacBook Pro intro (seems a long time ago!) when Steve Jobs said it's all about performance per watt. My only worry about the systems with more cores (Mac Pro etc) are about the economics for Apple of making these chips in such small volume. PS Interesting that from Anandtech the M1 has a smaller die area than the i5/i7 in the Intel Airs so plenty of room for more cores!
- imtringued 6y ago
  >This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile. If you want a more efficient processor you can just reduce the frequency. You can't do that in the other direction. If your processor wasn't designed for 4Ghz+ then you can't clock it that high, so the real challenge is making the highest clocked CPU. AMD and Intel care a lot about efficiency and they use efficiency improvements to increase clock speeds and add more cores just like everyone else. What you are talking about is like semiconductor 101. It's so obvious nobody has to talk about it. If you think this is a competitive edge then you should read up more about this industry. >Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter. Efficiency matters a lot in the server and desktop market. Higher efficiency means more cores and a higher frequency. >But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them. No shit? Semiconductor 101?? >And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite. You mean... like those 64 core EPYC server processors that AMD has been producing for years...? Aren't you lacking a little in imagination?

manigandham 6y ago

The vast majority of PC laptops sold are cheap low-end volume computers.

martin_a 6y ago
Yeah, I just thought about all those 499/599 Euro (factory-new) laptops that are being sold in Germany. They are okayish but nothing I'd like to compare great systems against.

lumberingjack 6y ago

Just awhile ago Apple said the AIR was in a class of it's own so....

dexterdog 6y ago
So 2% of the airs sold last year are equal to or better than this.

matwood 6y ago

> "faster than 98% of PC laptops sold in the last year" Keep in mind that the $3k MBP is probably part of the 2% in the above quote. The large majority of laptops sold are ~$1k, and not the super high end machines.

tass 6y ago

This wording is very hand-wavey. They can and should give a direct comparison; as consumers we don't know what the top 2% of sold laptops are, or which is the "best selling PC laptop in its class". Notice it's "best selling" and not most powerful.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Without actual real world performance tests from neutral 3rd parties all that really really need to be taken with a grain of salt. Never trust the maker of a product, test for yourself or watch for neutral reviewing parties who don't have a financial incentive.

Spooky23 6y ago

Remember that the Intel CPUs have shitty thermals. 1.4 GHz with turbo up to 4, etc. Smacking that with single cores on a 5nm process is probably pretty easy.

manquer 6y ago

"98% of laptops sold" is not a useful metric. If you buy a Ferrari, they won't market saying its latest car is better than 98% of cars sold last year. it is not a good metric to compare performance of budget laptops where sales is going to be higher to premium laptop.