News Intel Fires Back at Apple's M1 Processors With Benchmarks

Jun 5, 2020
15
7
15
0
but...remember Intel doesnt like benchmarks casue it shows unreal usage of what ppl do with em :geek:.
Intel doesn't like certain benchmarks (like Cinebench on a laptop) which doesn't represent real use cases. Others like AMD doesn't like certain benchmarks that put more importance on single core performance and latency (where they lag) instead of multi-core performance (where they lead). AMD used to highlight integrated graphics benchmarks heavily when they lead that benchmark. Now they don't since are lagging in that perticular area for the time being. Intel, Apple, and any other vendors does the same think. I can bet Apple didn't highlight many areas where they are currently lagging Intel chips. They also chose to compare with older Intel chips instead of new tigerlake which is their direct competitor. So I will look at the benchmarks from both Apple and Intel to get an idea.

i dont like apple (as a company) while I like intel, but even I know not to trust intel's benchmarks.
I do trust the numbers from both Intel and Apple (they won't lie due to legal implecations). However, I always read the fineprint and judge if the benchmark is applicable to my use cases.
 

Jim90

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2013
481
82
19,040
54
It would be ludicrous to think Apple's new M1 architecture could fully compete across a wide use case spectrum with Intel/AMD, whose architectures (and total software library) have had years to mature.
Irrespective, the more players competing the better....drives innovation and keeps pricing in better(!) check. That is what we all want...?
 
Jan 22, 2021
15
7
15
0
It would be ludicrous to think Apple's new M1 architecture could fully compete across a wide use case spectrum with Intel/AMD, whose architectures (and total software library) have had years to mature.
Irrespective, the more players competing the better....drives innovation and keeps pricing in better(!) check. That is what we all want...?
100%. I truly don't understand people who get upset about x company entering the battle. Who cares if you like that x company or not, competition has never been bad for innovation, the more players the better.
 
Reactions: thisisaname

PapaCrazy

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2011
257
59
18,890
8
I do trust the numbers from both Intel and Apple (they won't lie due to legal implecations). However, I always read the fineprint and judge if the benchmark is applicable to my use cases.
You should Google "Intel Principled Technologies Benchmark". Your opinion might change.
 

hotaru.hino

Commendable
Sep 1, 2020
1,576
492
1,640
36
It would be ludicrous to think Apple's new M1 architecture could fully compete across a wide use case spectrum with Intel/AMD, whose architectures (and total software library) have had years to mature.
Nitpicking, but if by "architecture" you mean the ISA (i.e., ARM vs. x86), then it doesn't matter. The implementation does. Otherwise it's like saying it's silly to think Zen could compete with Skylake when that was basically the 5th iteration of the original Sandy Bridge architecture. And even then, the M1 is likely just yet another iteration of processors starting from the A7.
 
Feb 5, 2021
3
4
15
0
So Intel's latest and greatest CPU, the pinnacle of their capabilities after over 40 years of x86 development, is a bit faster in some questionable Intel-designed cherry-picked benchmarks than the first desktop-class CPU Apple has ever created? A bit faster than the slowest desktop CPU Apple will ever release?

The M1 is Apple's slowest CPU for their cheapest entry level products, Apple's version of the i3 but with far lower power consumption.

I'm not really sure Intel should be bragging about this "accomplishment".
 
Last edited:
Reactions: ottonis

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
289
100
870
1
Unfortunately Intel have proven time and again that their benchmark results are almost completely unreliable. So whether it’s true or not, I rather utilise external reviews to determine. The fact that they are spending resources to come up with this just shows that they are worried. While I don’t think the M1 chip can soundly beat Intel in every use case, but for most people it is actually capable enough. Moreover because it is so much more power efficient, it allows for better battery life and slimmer form factor, which will have it’s target market.
 
Reactions: ottonis

Zifm0nster

Honorable
May 3, 2015
8
2
10,510
0
this guy... finger pointing at me. just purchased an M1 based mac mini.
I am moved away form intel to AMD 12 core ryzen 9 3900-2nd gen. over two years ago.
the pc has 96 Gig RAM and radeon vii graphic card.
Not an overclocker.... just need solid performance as a content creator.
I shoot weddings, as a photographer and now into video.
current wedding has 500+gig of videos
I drive Davinci Resolve (which is not listed in intel testing). But has been tested by many content creators on the mac mini M1.

Here is the thing: a (16 gig Ram+524 SSD HD) $1100 mac mini can perform on the same level as a Aprox $4000 PC.
And use less power.
As previously mentioned.... first released SOC from Apple into the laptop/desktop world.

Real world.... the Mac mini M1 rocks.

Also... i have multiple thunderbolt/type C connection. this is an issue on PC desktops.
Bonus: Apple has specialized section for video transcoding.

As an engineer in the semiconductor world and now in data analytics, I could careless what intel is doing.
they are really 2-4 years behind AMD.... and now Apple brought a chair to the Big dance.

The dance floor is getting crowded. (C:~
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
289
100
870
1
I feel Intel have turned from producing competitive products to producing marketing materials. The fact is AMD and ARM processors have caught up with them. They are not perfect, but I can say the same for Intel’s CPU too. Even if the benchmarks they show are true, but most reviews and users out there are claiming how good the M1 chips are, so that is all that matters. Intel should stop trying to justify themselves and move on by focusing on refining their products.
 
Reactions: ottonis
You should Google "Intel Principled Technologies Benchmark". Your opinion might change.
If a CPU comes out with a big red button that says game mode then you are going to push it, they benchmarked the CPU in the way that AMD told them that they should by including the game mode.
So Intel's latest and greatest CPU, the pinnacle of their capabilities after over 40 years of x86 development, is a bit faster in some questionable Intel-designed cherry-picked benchmarks than the first desktop-class CPU Apple has ever created? A bit faster than the slowest desktop CPU Apple will ever release?

The M1 is Apple's slowest CPU for their cheapest entry level products, Apple's version of the i3 but with far lower power consumption.

I'm not really sure Intel should be bragging about this "accomplishment".
2.9x 2.3x 3.2x that is not just a bit.
Also I'm 99% sure that all of these are running on the Xe with hardware acceleration so not even the CPU itself.

What does apple have that is higher end than this that's not an intel chip?!
 

Drazen

Honorable
Dec 29, 2015
5
2
10,515
0
I believe tests are valid, but... Why marketing always has to screw up and lie? Why?
When they run performance benchmarks they use 1185, more powerful CPU. But when they measure battery life then are on 1165 !!!! Low power one!!!!

Sorry marketing morons in Intel but this is cheating and invalidates everything you did!!!!
I really hope Apple will respond on this.

It is really very simple. Run tests as you wish and run ones by Apple (eg Geekbench). Ask engineers why such results and use some tests where Intel could show their strength.
We all know Intel has enormous problem with process and there is no chance you could compete your super duper 10+++++++ nm with TSMC 5 nm. 5 nm will ALWAYS be lower power and ARM as such.
 
Reactions: ottonis and Krotow

frogr

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2009
20
5
18,515
0
So Intel's latest and greatest CPU, the pinnacle of their capabilities after over 40 years of x86 development, is a bit faster in some questionable Intel-designed cherry-picked benchmarks than the first desktop-class CPU Apple has ever created? A bit faster than the slowest desktop CPU Apple will ever release?

The M1 is Apple's slowest CPU for their cheapest entry level products, Apple's version of the i3 but with far lower power consumption.

I'm not really sure Intel should be bragging about this "accomplishment".
M1 is the fastest CPU that Apple has produced.
 

JayNor

Prominent
May 31, 2019
230
36
610
0
A bit faster than the slowest desktop CPU Apple will ever release?
Intel introduced TGL-H35 and TGL-H45 chips at CES, both launching in 1H 2021, so I suspect we'll see new comparison slide presentations from Intel as Apple launches better chips.

Apple will need to upgrade TB3 to TB4 to compete well on some of the IO comparisons... also Apple apparently didn't implement eGPU yet.

Intel reported bumping up WIFI6 to WIFI6E in their TGL vPro chips. They'll also have 20 lanes of PCIE4 in the TGL-H45 chips, so they aren't a sitting target.


Also, Intel put lpddr5 support in their TGL memory controller already, yet the first generation laptops only impemented lpddr4x, so we haven't really seen the best performance capabilities demonstrated from the first round of TGL chips.

This is the article that reported the lpddr5 support.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-lake-review-deep-dive-core-11th-gen
 
Last edited:
Jun 10, 2020
13
3
15
0
Intel has tested the MacBook Pro with Apple's M1 processor, and has fired back at Apple that its 11th-Gen Intel Core processors, and PCs, are better.

Intel Fires Back at Apple's M1 Processors With Benchmarks : Read more

Oh dear, the methodology of these "benchmarks" is so poor and so obviously biased that it literally hurts.
But Intel has a reputation and a long track record in generating unfair benchmarks, just remember some of this sort against AMD just a couple of years ago.

Instead of generating "alternative facts" Intel would be better off in focusing all their resources on Alder Lake that hopefully will be a worthy competitor not only to Zen3 but also to everything Apple is going to bring out later this year (M1X?).

Alder Lake is not only going to benefit from an advanced and refined 10 nm process (well, Apple Silicon is already at 5nm) but also from a big.Little design that will unify high efficiency and high power - something that Intel is far, far off right now.

I like competition, competition drives innovation and keeps retail prices from going through the sky, so I love seeing Intel back in the game and driving some great CPU tech innovation.
However, these nonsensical marketing benchmarks are just silly and only contribute to painting Intel as a shady company that relies on cheating rather than on innovating.
If I were Pat Gelsinger, I would immediately fire the entire Intel marketing department.
 

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
1,004
470
1,560
0
So Intel's latest and greatest CPU, the pinnacle of their capabilities after over 40 years of x86 development, is a bit faster in some questionable Intel-designed cherry-picked benchmarks than the first desktop-class CPU Apple has ever created? A bit faster than the slowest desktop CPU Apple will ever release?
40 years of x86 development is not an advantage, it is an almost overwhelming handicap as opposed to starting from a 30+ year newer base like Apple did. Every time Intel and AMD start on a "new" architecture, this is basically what they have to start with:



PC's biggest advantage of almost endless backwards compatibility is also its biggest obstacle for forward progress. Intel tried to pull us out of the x86 molasses, but AMD went and screwed it all up with x86-64 dooming us to decades more of duct tape and band aides on x86.
 
Feb 5, 2021
3
4
15
0
M1 is the fastest CPU that Apple has produced.
It's the slowest desktop-class CPU Apple will ever make. It's their first generation i3 equivalent for use in the MacBook Air and Mac Mini.

Intel is bragging that the fastest CPU they can make is (in a few questionable non-standard cherry-picked benchmarks) faster than Apple's first attempt at an entry level desktop chip. That's not something worthy of bragging about, that's something Intel should be very concerned about.
 
Reactions: syadnom and ottonis
Feb 5, 2021
3
4
15
0
40 years of x86 development is not an advantage, [...] Intel tried to pull us out of the x86 molasses, but AMD went and screwed it all up with x86-64 dooming us to decades more of duct tape and band aides on x86.
It's not about it being an advantage or not, it's that the very best Intel can do is probably not actually faster than Apple's first attempt at an i3 equivalent entry-level CPU.

Intel tried to create the Itanium but it was a terrible CPU from the start. HP killed DEC's Alpha chip which might have had a chance of some sort of future. As for now the future is ARM. The sooner Intel and AMD get on board the better off we will all be.
 
Reactions: Krotow

hotaru.hino

Commendable
Sep 1, 2020
1,576
492
1,640
36
Intel tried to create the Itanium but it was a terrible CPU from the start. HP killed DEC's Alpha chip which might have had a chance of some sort of future. As for now the future is ARM. The sooner Intel and AMD get on board the better off we will all be.
The funny thing is, ARM is already the de-facto ISA for processors. It's very much like Linux: if it's not running Windows or MacOS, it's probably running Linux. Likewise, if it's not running an x86-based processor, it's probably running ARM. Though RISC-V is gaining traction because it's an open source ISA.

However, as I've said numerous times, it's not the ISA that matters. It's the implementation. I believe ARM's own implementation of the ISA is midrange at best.
 

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
1,004
470
1,560
0
It's not about it being an advantage or not, it's that the very best Intel can do is probably not actually faster than Apple's first attempt at an i3 equivalent entry-level CPU.

Intel tried to create the Itanium but it was a terrible CPU from the start. HP killed DEC's Alpha chip which might have had a chance of some sort of future. As for now the future is ARM. The sooner Intel and AMD get on board the better off we will all be.
You're still not getting it. Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Also, Apple has been making ARM based CPU's for years. Stop acting like they just dropped this out of nowhere with no previous knowledge. Being the only CPU on the most advanced node currently available, that another company developed, certainly gives the M1 an advantage against the competition as well.
 
Feb 2, 2021
11
7
15
0
You're still not getting it. Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Also, Apple has been making ARM based CPU's for years. Stop acting like they just dropped this out of nowhere with no previous knowledge. Being the only CPU on the most advanced node currently available, that another company developed, certainly gives the M1 an advantage against the competition as well.
more like you dont get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Market_reception

a quote from eejournal : " Itanium was designed to run all-new software, written to take advantage of its radical new EPIC architecture. But what people actually had was old x86 code, dragged through generations of Pentium upgrades. Taking advantage of Itanium meant porting all that software, and that’s too much work for a 10% performance boost. If Itanium had been twice as fast as contemporary x86 chips, or even 50% faster, developers might have taken the bait. But to redesign an all-new hardware platform and write or port all-new code required a leap of faith in Itanium that few who weren’t on the payroll were willing to make. "

simply put, most companies didn't want to have to either get new software, or rewrite their existing software to be able to run on itanium. yes itanium had an x86 emulation mode, but it was slower then x86 running software on an x86 cpu.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/285012-farewell-godspeed-itanic-intel-to-discontinue-the-itanium-family
"Put simply, Itanium failed in part because Intel pushed a task into software that software compilers aren’t capable of addressing all that effectively. More details on this issue are available " "Because Itanium was such a radical departure from anything else on the market, it ran ported software very poorly unless said software was hand-optimized for IA-64 (the Itanium 64-bit architecture) from the ground up " "The challenges Itanium faced were formidable and it consumed a great deal of power. It’s quite difficult to imagine a laptop running an IA-64 CPU that looked anything like the chips Intel actually manufactured. One reason we never found out is that AMD’s Opteron introduced x86-64, with full backward compatibility with IA-32 software. Intel held off announcing any kind of x86 64-bit project themselves for several years, but eventually caved and acknowledged they would also build a 64-bit CPU around the x86 architecture. Once they did, Itanium’s trajectory was set. "

Intel tried to pull us out of the x86 molasses, but AMD went and screwed it all up with x86-64 dooming us to decades more of duct tape and band aides on x86.
that might be true. IF x86 emulation on itanium was as fast as an x86 cpu, then maybe it would of gained more traction. but as the link from eejournal says, most companies didnt want to have to buy new software, or rewrite existing software to run in itanium. thats partly why it failed. while i do agree being on x86 has caused issues with going forward, to go to the extreme and say amd doomed us all, is well, a little pro intel fanboyish

based on your previous posts on here, im sure you will just reply with a bash on me in some form or another, claim i dont know what i am talking about, or some other insult, then go on about how great your favorite company is.
 
Reactions: ottonis

ASK THE COMMUNITY