Performance doesn't scale linearly with power use... very far from it actually. So making comparisons like "uses 2x the power" means very little. CPU will consume 2-3x more power to gain 5-10% performance. Especially in the desktop setting, they tend to consume as much power as possible for even the most incremental gains in performance... because obviously you're plugged into the wall.
And M1 is a process node ahead of Intel's offerings.
Intel fell laughably far behind on the manufacturing side, but people touting M1 as some design achievement and not simply a more cutting edge manufacturing process don't know what they're talking about.
The big gains in CPU performance in the modern era have always come from process node jumps. The big/little concept is a great architectural change for mobile as well. But you're not going to get substantially improved performance without improving the manufacturing side.
Both AMD and Intel's 5nm equivalent offerings will perform similarly to M1 on both power and perf.
Did you read the comment? 2x power use can translate to 5% performance difference. Obviously actual numbers will differ, but relationship is far from linear.
For example, desktop processors will use up to 3-4x power as mobile processors, yet not nearly 3-4x more powerful. More like a dozen or two percent at same core count.
M1 wouldn't be nearly twice as performant if given twice the power. Just as any other processor.
The early indications of next gen Intel/AMD mobile processors is that they're looking to be more powerful than m1. Right now they are a technology generation behind.
It's like comparing performance of PS5 to Xbox 360 and saying Sony is a better hardware creator.
I'm not knocking m1 at all, it's a good achievement. But people are worshiping it under false assumptions and incorrect comparisons. The primary advantage apple had was to buy out all the 5nm production at TSMC before AMD could
Comments
Performance doesn't scale linearly with power use... very far from it actually. So making comparisons like "uses 2x the power" means very little. CPU will consume 2-3x more power to gain 5-10% performance. Especially in the desktop setting, they tend to consume as much power as possible for even the most incremental gains in performance... because obviously you're plugged into the wall.
And M1 is a process node ahead of Intel's offerings.
Intel fell laughably far behind on the manufacturing side, but people touting M1 as some design achievement and not simply a more cutting edge manufacturing process don't know what they're talking about.
The big gains in CPU performance in the modern era have always come from process node jumps. The big/little concept is a great architectural change for mobile as well. But you're not going to get substantially improved performance without improving the manufacturing side.
Both AMD and Intel's 5nm equivalent offerings will perform similarly to M1 on both power and perf.
How is 5nm going to erase using 200% more power (40W vs 120W) than the M1 while doing the same computing work?
Did you read the comment? 2x power use can translate to 5% performance difference. Obviously actual numbers will differ, but relationship is far from linear.
For example, desktop processors will use up to 3-4x power as mobile processors, yet not nearly 3-4x more powerful. More like a dozen or two percent at same core count.
M1 wouldn't be nearly twice as performant if given twice the power. Just as any other processor.
The early indications of next gen Intel/AMD mobile processors is that they're looking to be more powerful than m1. Right now they are a technology generation behind.
It's like comparing performance of PS5 to Xbox 360 and saying Sony is a better hardware creator.
I'm not knocking m1 at all, it's a good achievement. But people are worshiping it under false assumptions and incorrect comparisons. The primary advantage apple had was to buy out all the 5nm production at TSMC before AMD could