5 ms·

Apple's chips are very power efficent, yes, but the article and parent are talking/asking about raw power. Despite all the Intel hate the past 5 years, I don't

Apple's chips are very power efficent, yes, but the article and parent are talking/asking about raw power. Despite all the Intel hate the past 5 years, I don't think there's been even a moment where another company's leading chip has outperformed Intel's in benchmarks. See for example https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/4922vs5022vs5008vs5189/Apple-M2-8-Core-3500-MHz-vs-Intel-i9-13900K-vs-Intel-i5-13600K-vs-Apple-M2-Pro-12-Core-3480-MHz https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/4922vs5022vs5008vs5189/...

Reason077 3y ago
The M2 Pro isn't doing too bad when you consider you're comparing a laptop chip with 14+ hour battery life against Intel's latest and greatest, high-TDP desktop CPU with twice as many cores. On a performance-per-core basis it's not even far behind.
- e44858 3y ago
  If the TDP is an accurate measure, then the M1 appears to be about as efficient as 12th gen Intel: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html#all-cpu https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html#all-cpu
  - Reason077 3y ago
    I wonder if there's some shenanigans going on there. Max TDP in an M1 is surely far lower than the max TDP of an i7-1255U, which it outperforms. Most M1 systems don't even have fans but can perform at max performance for extended times. U-series i7s can also be run fan-less, but performance will be compromised?
rocket_surgeron 3y ago
>125W And that is a lie, to achieve those scores it turbos and consumes 300W+ at turbo. Today, right now, is a moment where AMD's enterprise product are outperforming Intel's in benchmarks. Except for a very small set of specific use cases, I think anyone recommending Xeon for enterprise solutions is professionally negligent.
neogodless 3y ago
Umm, I added a readily available consumer CPU from a different company to your comparison chart. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5022vs5008vs5189vs5031/Intel-i9-13900K-vs-Intel-i5-13600K-vs-Apple-M2-Pro-12-Core-3480-MHz-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5022vs5008vs5189vs5031/...

Reason077 3y ago

The M2 Pro isn't doing too bad when you consider you're comparing a laptop chip with 14+ hour battery life against Intel's latest and greatest, high-TDP desktop CPU with twice as many cores. On a performance-per-core basis it's not even far behind.

e44858 3y ago
If the TDP is an accurate measure, then the M1 appears to be about as efficient as 12th gen Intel: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html#all-cpu https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html#all-cpu
- Reason077 3y ago
  I wonder if there's some shenanigans going on there. Max TDP in an M1 is surely far lower than the max TDP of an i7-1255U, which it outperforms. Most M1 systems don't even have fans but can perform at max performance for extended times. U-series i7s can also be run fan-less, but performance will be compromised?

rocket_surgeron 3y ago

>125W And that is a lie, to achieve those scores it turbos and consumes 300W+ at turbo. Today, right now, is a moment where AMD's enterprise product are outperforming Intel's in benchmarks. Except for a very small set of specific use cases, I think anyone recommending Xeon for enterprise solutions is professionally negligent.

neogodless 3y ago

Umm, I added a readily available consumer CPU from a different company to your comparison chart. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5022vs5008vs5189vs5031/Intel-i9-13900K-vs-Intel-i5-13600K-vs-Apple-M2-Pro-12-Core-3480-MHz-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5022vs5008vs5189vs5031/...