A leaker asserts that an M1 MacBook is capable of running Windows on ARM faster than a Surface Pro X

[Redaktion]

A Twitter-based leaker claims to have found new Geekbench listings that show Mac devices based on the new M1 silicon running Windows on ARM (WoA) via the Parallels desktop. Not only that, but this new combination apparently results in scores about double those achieved by the SQ2-powered Surface Pro X, which runs this kind of OS by default.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/A-leaker-asserts-that-an-M1-MacBook-is-capable-of-running-Windows-on-ARM-faster-than-a-Surface-Pro-X.510935.0.html

[Avi]

Do yourself a favor and delete this post.
You have no idea what you're writing about.

[JamalL]

They shouldn't even be compared in the first place and if they are compared, it's not particularly shocking that the M1 is faster, they're completely different devices, one is a tablet with a CPU that is essentially slightly modified one from a phone and the other is a high-end laptop

[TK88AU]

I would have been surprised if the M1 didn't outperform the SQ1/2.  It's an apples and oranges comparison.  The SQ2 is a tablet processor rated at 7 watts and is passively cooled.  The M1 in a MacBook is a 15-20W part and air cooled.  If the iPad ran windows twice as fast as the SQ1 we would have a relevant story.

[kninez]

You are wrong in 3 areas.

1) The M1 is also a "tablet processor"....It's literally a 5nm version of the Apple A12X/A12Z with thunderbolt and a few extra goodies. The M1 can cap itself to around 10-12W total like an Ipad. I'm pretty sure the SQ Processors boost past the 7W "rated TDP" in many instances

2) The M1 is passively cooled as well, like on the Macbook Air, no fans whatsoever. It's a laptop verison of the A14X coming soon on the next Ipad pros.

3) The M1 is not running windows natively, it's actually emulating windows (x86) in real time inside the ARM Big Sur OS......and it is still twice as fast.....and that's just the CPU...The GPU smokes any SQ graphics chip Microsoft/Qualcomm releases in the next 5+ years.

I would have been surprised if the M1 didn't outperform the SQ1/2.  It's an apples and oranges comparison.  The SQ2 is a tablet processor rated at 7 watts and is passively cooled.  The M1 in a MacBook is a 15-20W part and air cooled.  If the iPad ran windows twice as fast as the SQ1 we would have a relevant story.

[Digitalguy]

I was going to write roughly what kninez already said....
Ignorant people should probably abstain from posting these comments.
The TDP of the M1 is only slightly higher than that of the SQ1 (a slightly modified version of the 8cx, in turn boosted version of the SD855).
The upcoming A14X will have the same CPU power as the M1. Buy the way the M1 uses USB4 which while not technical thunderbold, it included Thunderbolt 3 specification and is therefore compatible. So we could have the same on the new iPad pro...
Apple SOCs are years ahead of other SOCs made for Android and, now, for Windows on Arm

[_MT_]

2) The M1 is passively cooled as well, like on the Macbook Air, no fans whatsoever. It's a laptop verison of the A14X coming soon on the next Ipad pros.

3) The M1 is not running windows natively, it's actually emulating windows (x86) in real time inside the ARM Big Sur OS......and it is still twice as fast.....and that's just the CPU...The GPU smokes any SQ graphics chip Microsoft/Qualcomm releases in the next 5+ years.

No, M1 is passively cooled only in the MBA. MBP13 and mini are actively cooled. Yes, a passively cooled device exists. But not all of them are. So, you need to be mindful. And of course, MBA will probably be able to sustain a higher power limit than an iPad.

No, as far as I know, they were running Windows on ARM. Not standard x86 Windows. However, they tried running x86 version of Parallels via Rosetta 2. The OS was ARM native (I believe they used ARM build of Linux). But the virtualization software was emulated. Rosetta is not built to emulate whole operating systems. The OS has to be native. They would probably have to write their own emulator to make it work.

[_MT_]

Buy the way the M1 uses USB4 which while not technical thunderbold, it included Thunderbolt 3 specification and is therefore compatible.

You are mistaken. Unlike AMD, Apple fully supports Thunderbolt and M1 has a Thunderbolt controller (two, actually, I believe). Thunderbolt was a joint effort between Intel and Apple IIRC. The situation around eGPUs is probably driver related.

[Digitalguy]

YOU are mistaken. If Apple fully supported TB they would use TB4. Instead they use USB 4, which fully supports TB3. Sure they have TB controllers because USB 4 does support them. You are just reading Apple PR material. TB4 is Intel only. UBS4 supports TB3 for free. Fortunately differences are mainly only different minimum requirements so not a big deal. Apple is not longer paying any TB licence to Intel and the fact that they started TB together no longer matters, since they are stoppiing using Intel anyway

[Dorby]

Fortunately differences are mainly only different minimum requirements so not a big deal.

Actually I recently tested TB4 with 2080 eGPU and the graphical performance while connected to an external monitor is around 30% better than my previous laptop with TB3 (gen 1 Alpine Ridge, PCIe x4). Portable TB3 NVMe SSD's sequential transfer speed also has been faster on TB4.

The M1 MacBooks use the newer TB3 Titan Ridge through USB 4 and eGPU use is currently impossible so this might not be completely accurate, but Intel did some magic on Tiger Lake chipsets with TB4 and the difference is at least observable on Windows laptops.

[_MT_]

YOU are mistaken. If Apple fully supported TB they would use TB4. Instead they use USB 4, which fully supports TB3. Sure they have TB controllers because USB 4 does support them. You are just reading Apple PR material. TB4 is Intel only. UBS4 supports TB3 for free. Fortunately differences are mainly only different minimum requirements so not a big deal. Apple is not longer paying any TB licence to Intel and the fact that they started TB together no longer matters, since they are stoppiing using Intel anyway

What sort of nonsense is that? TB3 is still Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt gives you external PCIe. Which means you can use PCIe devices like NVMe SSD. By fully I mean it actually supports the protocol and PCIe devices work (again, the problem with GPUs will be driver related - Apple might be simply interested in cutting AMD off and not give them any space on the new platform). USB4 doesn't. USB4 doesn't include Thunderbolt. They just use some of the technology of TB because Intel gave it to them. You could say they use its physical layer (signaling) but AFAIK even that has been modified and is different to what TB3 uses (it might actually be closer to what TB4 uses but I would have to check). They use this technology to achieve higher speeds. But it's still USB. USB3 can work with TB3 just as well as USB4. Does it even have to be said? There is a truckload of laptops that support TB3 and USB3 on the same port. It just has to be USB-C.

Why would Apple pay for a license when Intel gave it up for free for all two years ago or something like that? Specifically so others can design and manufacture their own Thunderbolt controllers IIRC. That had nothing to do with the release of TB IP to USB for their use (that happened even sooner). And I read this information in Intel's press releases and articles in media at the time, not Apple's (after all, Apple had nothing to do with it). The fact that Apple was involved means to me that this is something they believe in. And until they transition to something different (something proprietary that only they will have), you'd expect them to use Thunderbolt, even if they had to pay for it (which they don't). Unlike AMD which just doesn't seem to be committed to TB.