3 ms·
You can definitely point out some processor decisions that seemed poor in hindsight, but the fact is nothing in Intel's lineup at the time was any good for a la
by whynotminot 3y ago
You can definitely point out some processor decisions that seemed poor in hindsight, but the fact is nothing in Intel's lineup at the time was any good for a laptop.
Maybe they were worse than they needed to be, but the best they could have been with Intel would have still left so much to be desired.
- timschmidt 3y ago> but the fact is nothing in Intel's lineup at the time was any good for a laptop. Simply false brand-oriented thinking.
- whynotminot 3y agoWhy so defensive about Intel? I think you're the one doing the brand-oriented thinking here.
- timschmidt 3y ago> nothing in Intel's lineup at the time was any good for a laptop. You leave no room for nuance here, friend. And somehow I doubt you're familiar with every single one of Intel's tens of thousands of SKUs over decades. Intel has made a lot of CPUs. They're in lots of laptops. You might consider your wording if you're not trying to be corrected.
- whynotminot 3y agoPlease correct me then. I'm willing to learn about the Intel laptop chip that Apple could have used to achieve M1 performance and efficiency at the time they switched. You're right that I am not familiar with every one of Intel's SKUs they produced at the time.
- timschmidt 3y agoM1 was released in 2020, that puts it in line with Tiger Lake and Comet Lake, for which I'm seeing 7 different SKUs at 7W TDP. The fastest of which seems to be the Core i7 1180G7, which seems to perform almost as well as the M1 while using about half as much power: https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/intel-core-i7-1180g7-vs-apple-m1 https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/intel-core-i7-1180g7-v... Just the first example I grabbed. Intel made quite a few more chips in the 15W and higher envelopes, still under M1's ~20W TDP. I didn't check their embedded SKUs yet. Nor enterprise.
- whynotminot 3y agoDid you make a mistake in your comparison link? Because I've been looking at it for a few minutes now and I don't get it. It doesn't support your contention that Intel was making comparable chips at the time to the M1, I'll say that at the least.
- timschmidt 3y agoI guess we're reading different graphs. The one I'm seeing shows Intel producing 70% of the performance with 35% of the power of an M1. That's... checks math... better performance per watt, and lower overall power consumption. If you want more performance, you are free to step up to a 15W version which outperforms the M1 at 70% of it's TDP.
- whynotminot 3y agoI think I have a better sense of some of the misunderstanding here. I think you're taking Intel's TDP figures as honest and straightforward, when they really truly aren't. Anandtech has talked about some of Intel's TDP shenanigans before, even for Tiger Lake: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-lake-review-deep-dive-core-11th-gen/5 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-lake-review...
- timschmidt 3y agoI wouldn't call them shenanigans. At least Intel publishes numbers (Apple does not). There are simply a lot of power states Intel CPUs are capable of engaging, and many configuration options about when and under what circumstances to do so. Much of this is configurable by the OEM and is not hard-set by Intel, or even under Intel's control after the processor leaves the fab. The Anandtech article seems to indicate that it's perfectly possible to run this Intel CPU within the advertised 7W TDP, and that it can also be allowed to turbo up to 50W, which I'm sure most OEMs enable. My favorite OEMs provide the knobs to adjust these features.