Apple M1 vs Intel i7: Cherry-picked benchmarks and shifting Tiger Lake SKUs leave Intel looking revolutionary rather than evolutionary

[Redaktion]

Slides from Intel have been published revealing numerous benchmark and usage comparisons between the ARM-based Apple M1 chip and Core i7 representatives of the Intel 11th Gen Tiger Lake series. The choice of benchmarks and some subtle SKU changes suggest Intel is focusing on trash-talking the Apple M1 rather than improving its own production.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-M1-vs-Intel-i7-Cherry-picked-benchmarks-and-shifting-Tiger-Lake-SKUs-leave-Intel-looking-revolutionary-rather-than-evolutionary.519176.0.html

[Grinnie Jax]

So they show benchmarks for one processor and compare power consumption with another processor? Intel is pathetic.

[Actual CS Major]

"Tech journalism"...  :(

[ahahaha]

I love this site.

It keep pushes Intel based laptops thought higher final scores, while at the same time it tries to keep it's audience with articles praising Ryzen and now M1.

JMO of course, but still funny.

[JayN]

The Tiger Lake comparisons show what the M1 laptops are  sacrificing by using a mobile phone chip.

Now we know why Apple's PR compares vs Comet Lake chips.

[joegalamb]

Real world battery life test:
Apple claim:
MacBook Air: up to 15h

Intel claim:
MacBook Air: 10h 12m
Acer Swift 5: 10h 6m

Notebookcheck test:
MacBook Air: 15h 14m
Acer Swift 5: 10h 51m

Apple was actually right here.
Okay, notebookcheck might have testet it with different brightness. But then Intel's claim of Acer's battery life is a lie.

[Ribirt]

The Tiger Lake comparisons show what the M1 laptops are  sacrificing by using a mobile phone chip.

The Tiger Lake comparisons show that a mobile shone chip can outperform an Intel laptop chip while using 1/3 power  ::)

[Donald Alonzo]

This article isn't incorrect by stating that Intel is skewing things in their favor a bit but does it really warrant attention in the form of a dedicated article? The only people who will read this (and even check those benchmarks in the first place) will, in all likelihood, be able to take such information provided by the manufacturer themselves as marketing material.

Your average "layperson", assuming they're even shopping between a MacBook and a Windows laptop (most of these people choose one over the other for reasons other than performance) will find any 11th gen i7 laptop or M1 equipped MacBook to be plenty quick... if the relatively small difference matters then they'll do their due diligence and seek 3rd party, unbiased peer review/comparison).

Let's not even get into the fact that if you're buying an ultrabook for anything other than the battery life/form factor, you're doing it wrong. There are a ton of sub 5lb notebooks with 35w-45w CPUs that absolutely crush any of the aforementioned chips. Most of these devices come with some form of dGPU as well, which can actually play the triple A titles listed at enjoyable framerates with higher detail settings.

What these ultraportables are capable of is nothing short of amazing compared to what was available just a couple generations ago but marketing material is what it is and both companies pay people to make comparison infographics that will lure in customers. If this article is necessary, you may want to look back on Apple's m1 reveal slides where they used graphs with no X/Y axis integer labeling, fancy coloration and only sparingly used numbers like "3x" with barely any context of what the number was derived from for comparison purposes. At least Intel bothers to tell you about such things in the graphs themselves and does so past the decimal point.

[well ok]

How do you guys not see this? This is good news! That means that there is actual competition between manufacturers in the laptop CPU department, unlike a few years ago. Before you know it, Intel, AMD, and now Apple will try their utter hardest to create the best laptop chips they can, and that's only good for consumers. If AMD didn't release Ryzen, we would still be 14nm intel 2 core on laptops and 14nm 4 core on desktops. With apple now in the scene, intel would have to work even harder, which is clearly what they are doing. No one has ever seen this good iGPU performance and single threaded performance on any chip.

[Josh]

M1 is Apple's first attempt at this and they have already got Intel responding negatively with cherry-picked benches to puff up that chest.

[_MT_]

So they show benchmarks for one processor and compare power consumption with another processor? Intel is pathetic.

Funny thing is that the more powerful 1185 should be more efficient than the 1165 they chose. Because it should be a higher bin of the same silicone (it should sustain any given frequency at a lower voltage and therefore power - that's why it can have higher base and boost). A big question here is what kind of performance profile you use and how it's set up by the manufacturer.

[_MT_]

So they show benchmarks for one processor and compare power consumption with another processor? Intel is pathetic.

It does make sense to compare MBP13 in performance and MBA in battery life. Those should be their strong suits. And to choose appropriate competitors. The problems lie elsewhere in my opinion.

I'm assuming they used their own reference design laptop for the performance test. Because 1185 is pretty rare. Usually, you see 1165. So, while the processor exists and they can make the comparison, it's not a readily available processor AFAIK.

As for the battery life test, I think the biggest trick there might be the brightness. As NBC found out, MBA doesn't have a particularly efficient display. Battery life really suffers from it. Personally, I find it its perhaps weakest point. It could have had so much better battery life at high brightness settings. It's the display that's dragging MBA down. Not the processor.

Actually, efficiency is the strongest point of M1. The raw performance itself isn't mind bending. it's when you look at the frequency and especially power consumption that you go wow. I have been dreaming of a passively cooled laptop with decent performance for ages and it's finally here - the MBA. It's astonishing what it can do while being passively cooled. Apple deserves an applause.

[fishingbait64]

If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. Apple made their original claim that the M1 was faster than some ridiculously high percentage of Windows PCs ... without providing benchmarks AT ALL. Nor did they even identify the PCs and chipsets. Where was your criticism then?

In addition, all of the headlines that have screamed "Apple beats Intel!" have only compared the M1 with the Intel CPUs that the M1 replaced. Meaning dual core CPUs (in the entry level MacBook Air), quad core CPUs (in the Mac Mini) and hexacore CPUs that are 2 years old (MacBook Pro). No one bothered to compare the M1 with Intel's latest 6 and 8 core chips. The people who actually did so - i.e. PCWorld - saw that while the M1 did generally beat Intel in single core score, the M1 was clearly behind Intel in multicore score.

So the Apple boosters have spent all this time ignoring results from Intel's newer chips with more cores, as well as ignoring multicore benchmarks. Why? Because you are all waiting on the M1X and M2 chips to come out to compete with the Intel Core i7 and Intel Core i9 chips that are in the 16 inch MacBook Pro as well as certain iMac and Mac Pro models.

What you want is "Apple is better so everyone should switch away from Wintel" narrative. Sorry, but Intel has as much right to make their own case with favorable data as you Apple cheerleaders in the media do. And all this is academic right now anyway. The real battle is going to come in 3Q 2021 when 12th gen Alder Lake CPUs that are 10nm and on a big.LITTLE process come out.

[_MT_]

No one bothered to compare the M1 with Intel's latest 6 and 8 core chips. The people who actually did so - i.e. PCWorld - saw that while the M1 did generally beat Intel in single core score, the M1 was clearly behind Intel in multicore score.

Which isn't really surprising given that M1 has only four performance cores. As long as that laptop has high power limits and good cooling. It's efficiency where M1 kicks major a**.

[Eeee]

A better word might be reactionary, not revolutionary. There's nothing revolutionary about Intel's chips.