4 ms·

For what it's worth this is comparing against a 10th gen Intel. The 12th gen ones look like they'll outperform the M1s on a similar battery life: https://www.n

For what it's worth this is comparing against a 10th gen Intel. The 12th gen ones look like they'll outperform the M1s on a similar battery life: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-13-Plus-with-i7-1280P-thrashes-Apple-MacBook-Pro-13-with-M1-in-unfair-comparison-of-premium-13-inch-laptops.616566.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-13-Plus-with-i7-1280P... Note that that is a 12th gen P. I suspect the U CPUs won't perform quite as well but will offer much better battery life than the MBP.

Avamander 4y ago
You'll get similar battery life only if the Intel gets severely power limited. A newer AMD would be more comparable.
- byefruit 4y ago
  If you scroll down on the link above you can see some graphs that show the 1280P is significantly faster than the M1 and the battery lives are very similar 11 hours vs 13 hours. AMD are also doing a good job. The 7000s look very good. Crazy that this is still on a larger process node than Apple.
  - Avamander 4y ago
    That graph is about light load. The Intel is fast only with a ridiculous power usage, thus low runtime. It comes nowhere close to the M1's runtime when forced to the same high load.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Well... yeah. Apple is running 5nm silicon, there's no way Intel can squeeze the same battery life out of that performance profile on their 10nm node. The flip side of this coin is that it's really good battery life for casual use, and it's not like that performance is going nowhere: it's thrashing the M1 in benchmarks. I think things will get a lot more interesting in 2024, when Intel and Apple are on similar nodes. Right now Apple is making chips with transistors that are 2-3 times as dense, but they're consistently losing the performance crown to x86 machines on dinosaur silicon. The performance-per-watt gap is bound to start closing, and when it does there won't be much of a benefit left to using ARM, especially if your casual users can get Macbook-beating battery life with it.
      - pram 4y ago
        The focus on node size conveniently elides that this is a comparison between a 14 core CPU and an 8 core CPU.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        How is that relevant, though? Even the M1 Max gets smoked by an i5 in single-core performance, and stands neck-and-neck in multicore. In a "fair" fight, Intel still takes the performance crown home. Density is relevant because the only argument I hear from M1 pundits is about performance-per-watt, which is only achieved through monopolizing the 5nm supply chain. When Intel is standing neck-and-neck on power draw with significantly higher clock speeds, single-core performance and IO bandwith, Apple's chips are going to lose their luster. Plus, it's not like you need to use ARM to compete with that efficiency. Just 2 years ago AMD was shipping Ryzen laptop chips (like the 4800u) with similar x86 performance at a similar price point in a similar power envelope. How'd they do it? They designed it with 7nm lithography. It's not magic, just the obvious benefits of using the latest technology.
        pram 4y ago
        No, the M1 Max beats the same processor in the article (i7-1280P) in Cinebench multicore: ~12365 to 11480. That is a 10 core M1 Max vs the 14 core i7. Your "fair fight" is just moving the goal posts to some other random non-specified (probably non-laptop) processor.
        Avamander 4y ago
        A fair fight in this case, laptops, is one that takes dissipated heat and cooling into account. Intel might beat the previous generation of their competitors, but at what cost, absolutely impractical in reality. Scorchingly hot or noisy as hell, with poor battery life. It's not magic and Intel is losing in a lot of aspects.

Avamander 4y ago

You'll get similar battery life only if the Intel gets severely power limited. A newer AMD would be more comparable.

byefruit 4y ago
If you scroll down on the link above you can see some graphs that show the 1280P is significantly faster than the M1 and the battery lives are very similar 11 hours vs 13 hours. AMD are also doing a good job. The 7000s look very good. Crazy that this is still on a larger process node than Apple.
- Avamander 4y ago
  That graph is about light load. The Intel is fast only with a ridiculous power usage, thus low runtime. It comes nowhere close to the M1's runtime when forced to the same high load.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Well... yeah. Apple is running 5nm silicon, there's no way Intel can squeeze the same battery life out of that performance profile on their 10nm node. The flip side of this coin is that it's really good battery life for casual use, and it's not like that performance is going nowhere: it's thrashing the M1 in benchmarks. I think things will get a lot more interesting in 2024, when Intel and Apple are on similar nodes. Right now Apple is making chips with transistors that are 2-3 times as dense, but they're consistently losing the performance crown to x86 machines on dinosaur silicon. The performance-per-watt gap is bound to start closing, and when it does there won't be much of a benefit left to using ARM, especially if your casual users can get Macbook-beating battery life with it.
    - pram 4y ago
      The focus on node size conveniently elides that this is a comparison between a 14 core CPU and an 8 core CPU.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        How is that relevant, though? Even the M1 Max gets smoked by an i5 in single-core performance, and stands neck-and-neck in multicore. In a "fair" fight, Intel still takes the performance crown home. Density is relevant because the only argument I hear from M1 pundits is about performance-per-watt, which is only achieved through monopolizing the 5nm supply chain. When Intel is standing neck-and-neck on power draw with significantly higher clock speeds, single-core performance and IO bandwith, Apple's chips are going to lose their luster. Plus, it's not like you need to use ARM to compete with that efficiency. Just 2 years ago AMD was shipping Ryzen laptop chips (like the 4800u) with similar x86 performance at a similar price point in a similar power envelope. How'd they do it? They designed it with 7nm lithography. It's not magic, just the obvious benefits of using the latest technology.
        pram 4y ago
        No, the M1 Max beats the same processor in the article (i7-1280P) in Cinebench multicore: ~12365 to 11480. That is a 10 core M1 Max vs the 14 core i7. Your "fair fight" is just moving the goal posts to some other random non-specified (probably non-laptop) processor.
        Avamander 4y ago
        A fair fight in this case, laptops, is one that takes dissipated heat and cooling into account. Intel might beat the previous generation of their competitors, but at what cost, absolutely impractical in reality. Scorchingly hot or noisy as hell, with poor battery life. It's not magic and Intel is losing in a lot of aspects.