3 ms·

I do think it is too early to count out the competition. To be sure, the Air and 13" Pro are ultrabooks, and this seems to be a great fit for the great performa

I do think it is too early to count out the competition. To be sure, the Air and 13" Pro are ultrabooks, and this seems to be a great fit for the great performance being extracted while sipping battery life. On the other hand, it's not a foregone conclusion that higher performance systems will dominate the competition. For most Apple-focused users, this is a comparison between overheating Intel chips shoved into Macs, and these slick new M1 chips, and it's a no-brainer. And yes, the M1 does compete very well in several benchmarks on a per core/instruction per clock basis. But the higher end "many" core CPUs (especially outside the Intel universe cough AMD) with much higher TDP are still achieving much higher overall performance. Apple still has to catch up to them in those markets. And for many people, right now Apple systems just are not an option. Not until all software and games run without issue. Software is a near certainty - games remain to be seen, but Apple has not prioritized them in the past. (And while the M1 integrated graphics are great, they are not at all competitive with existing dedicated graphics, and will not be suitable for replacing gaming systems.)

alwillis 6y ago
But the higher end "many" core CPUs (especially outside the Intel universe cough AMD) with much higher TDP are still achieving much higher overall performance. Apple still has to catch up to them in those markets. Did you see the AnandTech review of the Mac mini with the M1? The M1 undisputedly outperforms the core performance of everything Intel has to offer, and battles it with AMD’s new Zen3, winning some, losing some. And in the mobile space in particular, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in either ST or MT performance – at least within the same power budgets. What’s really important for the general public and Apple’s success is the fact that the performance of the M1 doesn’t feel any different than if you were using a very high-end Intel or AMD CPU. Apple achieving this in-house with their own design is a paradigm shift, and in the future will allow them to achieve a certain level of software-hardware vertical integration that just hasn’t been seen before and isn’t achieved yet by anybody else. And for many people, right now Apple systems just are not an option. Not until all software and games run without issue. Software is a near certainty - games remain to be seen, but Apple has not prioritized them in the past. (And while the M1 integrated graphics are great, they are not at all competitive with existing dedicated graphics, and will not be suitable for replacing gaming systems.) AnandTech's section is called "M1 GPU Performance: Integrated King, Discrete Rival" which should tell you what's up. Spoiler—it's more than competitive with dedicated graphics and certainly none of them can touch it when it comes to power consumption. And remember, this is the *low-end chip; wait until what we see in the next generation. Finally, putting theory to practice, we have Rise of the Tomb Raider. Released in 2016, this game has a proper Mac port and a built-in benchmark, allowing us to look at the M1 in a gaming scenario and compare it to some other Windows laptops. This game is admittedly slightly older, but its performance requirements are a good match for the kind of performance the M1 is designed to offer. Finally, it should be noted that this is an x86 game – it hasn’t been ported over to Arm – so the CPU side of the game is running through Rosetta. At our 768p Value settings, the Mac Mini is delivering well over 60fps here. Once again it’s vastly ahead of the 2018 Intel-based Mac Mini, as well as every other integrated GPU in this stack. Even the 15-inch MBP and its Radeon Pro 560 are still trailing the Mac Mini by over 25%, and it takes a Ryzen laptop with a Radeon 560X to finally pull even with the Mac Mini.
- neogodless 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/RYZuagiyW_w?t=225 https://youtu.be/RYZuagiyW_w?t=225 That's showing a 45W AMD Zen 2 mobile chip outperforming the Macbook Pro M1 11k to 7.5k in Cinebench R23. Apple Silicon M1 does not outperform "many" core high TDP processors. Yes, they have amazing IPC, but they have 4 cores and a low TDP. I didn't dispute that. It's really incredible. But I'll repeat that it's not a foregone conclusion that they can translate that into higher core, higher performance and outright win/embarrass AMD. Maybe they will - we are just putting forth conjecture. Extracting all that performance with low power usage is certainly winning half the battle, and making bigger chips with more cores will get Apple a long way. Remains to be seen but it's far too soon to say "the rest catch up..." when it comes to those markets. And I mentioned gamers and dedicated graphics - you countered with a comparison with the 2018 Mini at 768p resolution and a Radeon Pro 560? Meanwhile gamers are playing 2k and 4k games with RTX 3000 series and RX 6000 series cards (if they can get their hands on them.) And many games simply cannot be played on macOS. Neither the M1 nor the above crazy expensive power-hungry graphics cards are a one-size-fits-all solution. And it may come to pass that Apple starts to compete in those areas and really does embarrass all competitors. But it hasn't happened yet, so I think such proclamations are premature.

alwillis 6y ago

But the higher end "many" core CPUs (especially outside the Intel universe cough AMD) with much higher TDP are still achieving much higher overall performance. Apple still has to catch up to them in those markets. Did you see the AnandTech review of the Mac mini with the M1? The M1 undisputedly outperforms the core performance of everything Intel has to offer, and battles it with AMD’s new Zen3, winning some, losing some. And in the mobile space in particular, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in either ST or MT performance – at least within the same power budgets. What’s really important for the general public and Apple’s success is the fact that the performance of the M1 doesn’t feel any different than if you were using a very high-end Intel or AMD CPU. Apple achieving this in-house with their own design is a paradigm shift, and in the future will allow them to achieve a certain level of software-hardware vertical integration that just hasn’t been seen before and isn’t achieved yet by anybody else. And for many people, right now Apple systems just are not an option. Not until all software and games run without issue. Software is a near certainty - games remain to be seen, but Apple has not prioritized them in the past. (And while the M1 integrated graphics are great, they are not at all competitive with existing dedicated graphics, and will not be suitable for replacing gaming systems.) AnandTech's section is called "M1 GPU Performance: Integrated King, Discrete Rival" which should tell you what's up. Spoiler—it's more than competitive with dedicated graphics and certainly none of them can touch it when it comes to power consumption. And remember, this is the *low-end chip; wait until what we see in the next generation. Finally, putting theory to practice, we have Rise of the Tomb Raider. Released in 2016, this game has a proper Mac port and a built-in benchmark, allowing us to look at the M1 in a gaming scenario and compare it to some other Windows laptops. This game is admittedly slightly older, but its performance requirements are a good match for the kind of performance the M1 is designed to offer. Finally, it should be noted that this is an x86 game – it hasn’t been ported over to Arm – so the CPU side of the game is running through Rosetta. At our 768p Value settings, the Mac Mini is delivering well over 60fps here. Once again it’s vastly ahead of the 2018 Intel-based Mac Mini, as well as every other integrated GPU in this stack. Even the 15-inch MBP and its Radeon Pro 560 are still trailing the Mac Mini by over 25%, and it takes a Ryzen laptop with a Radeon 560X to finally pull even with the Mac Mini.

neogodless 6y ago
https://youtu.be/RYZuagiyW_w?t=225 https://youtu.be/RYZuagiyW_w?t=225 That's showing a 45W AMD Zen 2 mobile chip outperforming the Macbook Pro M1 11k to 7.5k in Cinebench R23. Apple Silicon M1 does not outperform "many" core high TDP processors. Yes, they have amazing IPC, but they have 4 cores and a low TDP. I didn't dispute that. It's really incredible. But I'll repeat that it's not a foregone conclusion that they can translate that into higher core, higher performance and outright win/embarrass AMD. Maybe they will - we are just putting forth conjecture. Extracting all that performance with low power usage is certainly winning half the battle, and making bigger chips with more cores will get Apple a long way. Remains to be seen but it's far too soon to say "the rest catch up..." when it comes to those markets. And I mentioned gamers and dedicated graphics - you countered with a comparison with the 2018 Mini at 768p resolution and a Radeon Pro 560? Meanwhile gamers are playing 2k and 4k games with RTX 3000 series and RX 6000 series cards (if they can get their hands on them.) And many games simply cannot be played on macOS. Neither the M1 nor the above crazy expensive power-hungry graphics cards are a one-size-fits-all solution. And it may come to pass that Apple starts to compete in those areas and really does embarrass all competitors. But it hasn't happened yet, so I think such proclamations are premature.