Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Im just talking about raw power not about power consumption.
Also this chip is for sure faster than most people's desktops, obviously not all
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
Im just talking about raw power not about power consumption.
Also this chip is for sure faster than most people's desktops, obviously not all
Single threaded performance is roughly the same (within 10% of Apple and AMD), even then at vastly more power consumption due to Intel's insane clocks. There's nothing impressive here, it's just a matter of packing 120w worth of silicon into a laptop, and it lasts just 5 hours for simple web browsing. It needs a 330w charger! Plug that off and see how it performs. And it doesn't even have a competitive integrated GPU compared to Apple or AMD.
AMD and Apple could have easily put 2-3x cores into their laptops and destroyed this if they wanted a 120w laptop CPU that sounds like a Boeing 747 and always needs to be plugged in to maintain performance, and lasts 5 hours on a 100wh battery. That'd be a poor product.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Single threaded is a moot metric, multithreaded is what matters in 2022.
Also I doubt both AMD and Apple could have put in more cores into their laptops without it exploding. Apple especially, the M1 Max is probs the furthest they can take that chip in a laptop form factor
Its not really raw power tho is it, stick a 5950X in a laptop....
That's raw power that puts the 12900HK to shame.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
People just trying to find any reason to bash on intel now, alder lake has done fairly well compared with their previous garbage generations
It is much better to have competition but the posters were merely calling out the hyperbolic headlines.
That Intel chip may well be faster at multi core, but it’s in a completely different form factor. If you put it in a slim chassis (which is what people actually want to buy), then it will crash and burn and rightly pointed out.
There is a reason why thin and lights sell in their millions and thick gaming laptops sell in their thousands.
Single threaded matters for more or less every single thing you actually do, outside of benchmarks specifically designed to maximise multithreaded performance. This is why your CPU isn't 2000 tiny cores which on paper can actually outperform even a 5950X in multithreaded benchmarks in both power and performance.
Depending on what percentage of a task is parallelisable, there's a maximum theoretical benefit you get from multithreading, and eventually your speed is always limited by your single-threaded performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
E.g. even if a task is 90% parallelisable, maximum theoretical benefit you get from 8 to 16 is only ~30%. And this assumes 100% hardware multicore efficiency and 100% perfect coding, none of which are ever the case in practice. Most typical workloads people do on their computers are never even 25% parallelised. Let alone 99.9% like Cinebench.
In a multicore architecture, your performance is always limited by the portion you can't parallelise, and performance of that is limited by your single-threaded performance. The "single-threaded is pointless" comment typically indicates that the person saying it has no clue about computer architecture. There's a reason Intel, AMD, Apple and ARM often use node shrinks to improve IPC on existing cores (by making them bigger), instead of just adding more and more of the old cores. That's why we see new microarchitectures every year. AMD can put 128 Bulldozer cores inside a 5950X die, it wouldn't be a good product, they use 16 Zen 3 cores and it's an awesome one, even though a Zen 3 core isn't 8 times faster than a Bulldozer one.
AMD can literally put 5950X inside a laptop and it will consume less power than i9 1200HK, so less chance of exploding Lmao.
Nobody hates Intel. I'm sure most of us have had Intel CPUs (I'm typing this on a computer with an Intel CPU, lol). It's just not as great of a product as some people make it out to be. Sure, much better than their previous generations, but pretending like Intel has now surpassed AMD and Apple isn't remotely true, all three are roughly at the same level when you take into account everything with Apple having a big edge in efficiency, Intel having a slight edge in performance and AMD being very close to Intel in performance, and halfway in between Intel and Apple in efficiency. And Intel's 5-10% performance advantage comes at the price of orders of magnitude worse efficiency.
Last edited:
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
No surprise that people who are major apple fans all of a sudden care about efficiency so much when they probably sit at a desk with a charger right next to them 90% of the time anyway
Not in a laptop that has to be so thick and has so little battery life it’s debatable whether it’s actually useful for its intended purpose. Very few people have an interest in desktop replacement ‘laptops’ for a reason.
No, I don’t actually own an Apple laptop but I do know that any laptop I own needs to be able to last more than 5 minutes on battery and I’d actually want to carry it around.
Absolute highest performance is relevant in a desktop, it just isn’t in a laptop. Laptops are always about compromising power, form factor and performance, you can basically choose one priority in the X86 space.
The difference is that M1 max does pretty well in all 3 even if it isn’t the outright best performance, price aside, that pretty much makes it the gold standard.
Few people are willing to compromise on form factor which is why people are responding in the way they are. It’s great having such high performance but if it doesn’t fit into a chassis people actually want to buy and has decent battery life, it’s only ever going to be a niche product.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Dont get me wrong, not saying Apple are "bad" here, they made an excellent chip. But why on earth do people care about battery life on a laptop when they buying it for gaming? Its just common knowledge that the battery is going to be poor and the whole point is to game where you take your laptop, and it'll be somewhere that has access to a charger
Nobody is buying Macbooks for gaming. You brought the discussion about a gaming laptop into this topic about M1 Pro/Max, then complain why people are concerned about efficiency, which is the selling point of these chips?
Irony is dead.
Because people do more than just gaming on their computer
What does that even mean???
I would assume the vast majority buying a gaming machine are going to do some gaming.
These top end chips are fascinating tech. But for most people they are irrelevant.
Last edited:
Apple Macbooks with M1 Pro/Max are not gaming machines. Notice what this topic is about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nobody is saying the MSI's Raider GE76 with 12900HK and 3080 Ti is a bad gaming laptop. If you want a gaming laptop then that's probably a good buy. It's just fundamentally a different product compared to M1 Max Macbooks made with entirely different priorities for a different market.
Yes, they may do some gaming. But you may also need to consider that people also use laptops for things other than gaming. For example a student might buy a gaming laptop to play games in the evening but also need a laptop that has enough battery life to get them through a day on campus. They might also like it to be a reasonable size so it is something they can actually carry to campus alongside other things like books, materials etc and not have it turn into into a weight training session.
There are really not that fascinating, its just another power hungry intel chip typically crammed into a huge chassis to house it's massive cooling and fans that sound like hair dryers. These huge desktop replacement laptops have always been low volume because people actually prioritise size and portability in a laptop, even for gaming which is why lines like the G14 ( or an Intel equivalent) are so popular. I'd be more interested in what Intel has to offer that fits into a sensible laptop form factor, I'd hazard a guess its much closer to what AMD and Apple are shipping.
What makes the M1 fascinating is that you get big performance numbers you need but 100% of the quality of life points like huge battery life, a 14" thin and light chassis and low noise.