Why is everyone insistent on comparing Apple’s latest CPUs to Intel’s parts from multiple generations back?
Intel is on 12xxx series now. AMD also has new generation laptop CPUs that perform very well. Let’s compare to those.
The M1 is power efficient but much of that is due to the TSMC process they used. I really don’t understand this desire to make arbitrary comparisons to old Intel CPUs.
Will these be meaningful for you?
The thing is, M1 on air is a relatively low clock speed CPU with passive cooling. 10200K is actively cooled, unlimited beast of its generation. The libraries I use are X86 optimized. Yet the code I’ve written is 25% faster on ARM.
This is significant.
Apple knew this so the M1 has an extremely fast memory system.
Intel’s memory architecture can keep up with the load until I utilize all cores. When I start to use HT cores, neither cache, nor memory can keep up.
I do the both tests (Intel and Apple) both with physical core counts to keep it fair.
So it’s not some run of the mill code.
Curious what you meant here since that part doesnt exist, and if it did it would be near the bottom of the stack for the generation (101xx and 103xx are the low core count i3 and i5 parts).
Written that comment on mobile on a plane, before take-off, so I either typo'd and didn't see, or auto-correct changed it deeming 10200K is more correct than 10700K.
If you look to the original comment where I sparked the discussion, I've mentioned it as 10700K already.
Being able to compete against a consumer high end desktop, even if it's an older one, it's a feat all by itself
> M1 is a different beast.
The M1 has other advantages which are decidedly not rooted in the hardware: software. Apple seems to do profoundly better than Windows and Linux at applications actually using hardware accelerators. This makes a gigantic difference in performance and power efficiency.
On a Windows or Linux system it is not at all a given that even very easily hardware-accelerated tasks, like video decoding, actually use the hardware that's there.
Working on HPC field and with generations and generations of Intel hardware, I can tell you that two node difference (alone) never gives you 25% real world performance in the realm of Intel, let alone theoretical.
Real world performance pretty much always lines up with these estimates. It's the main reason why we have exponential growth in computing power in the first place.
It would be a more fair comparison to compare the M1 to AMD's ZEN 4, which should be coming out next quarter.
[1] https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/log...
This is jumping from Intel's heroically old 14nm+++++++++++++++ to a brand spanking new TSMC process. It might be on the order of 4 to 6 times denser.
We've seen how the latter went until AMD came back to the game.
The same MacBook Air can do hour long Skype video calls with ~9% charge consumption, with no discernible heat difference on the body too.
M1 is a different beast.