Jump to content
Larry Shelby

Intel's 12th-generation Core i9 Processor ​ ​Faster Than Apple Silicon M1 Max

Recommended Posts

"Whatever path you choose to follow, here’s the good news. Chip technology is getting better from both Apple and Intel, giving us faster machines than we could have ever imagined. The game of cat and mouse between chip developers is ultimately good news for us the buyer."

Damn straight. Intel has been taking their foot off the gas for far too long. I'm glad to see Apple giving them a run for their money. 

I much prefer Windows to OS X but I'm wondering if my next pc is going to be a mac mini at this point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heat, noise and no battery life?

That’s a desktop, not a laptop 🤣

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fleer said:

Heat, noise and no battery life?

That’s a desktop, not a laptop 🤣

According to your new, fairly recent redefinition of a laptop. My old x86 Macbook Air runs hot as hell and makes noise about it, and the battery life is about three hours. Yet it definitely checks all the known criteria for being a laptop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it. Still using my 2012 MBP. And somewhere hidden in my house is an Apple Portable from 1987 with a non-backlit screen and a lead-acid battery. Portable indeed. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More and more we need faster systems, because a lot of software gets heavier and heavier (plugins, especially from the mid and larger companies). But if I take Reaper and some older excellent plugins I can run with the same speed on a 10 years old system. Will the mix be worse than on a new potent system with "modern" plugins? I doubt!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually bummer news taking in consideration all previous comments and reviews.  I am disappointed in Intel.  How is it the Apple can come up with their own silicon and still deliver expected results in a laptop form factor, but Intel can only squeak out a "4%" advantage at such a price (both mechanical and economically).  The reality is that it's more expensive to maintain a top speck PC than it is to own a well spec'd Apple machine with respectable results.  That is, as long as you stick with PC the more that is going into it to beat Apple.  Penny for penny you now get more out of Apple than you do with a PC, not to mention the unmatched screen with Apple.  How wrong am I?

Kind regards,

tecknot

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tecknot said:

This is actually bummer news taking in consideration all previous comments and reviews.  I am disappointed in Intel.  How is it the Apple can come up with their own silicon and still deliver expected results in a laptop form factor, but Intel can only squeak out a "4%" advantage at such a price (both mechanical and economically).  The reality is that it's more expensive to maintain a top speck PC than it is to own a well spec'd Apple machine with respectable results.  That is, as long as you stick with PC the more that is going into it to beat Apple.  Penny for penny you now get more out of Apple than you do with a PC, not to mention the unmatched screen with Apple.  How wrong am I?

Kind regards,

tecknot

We've known for years there were speed gains to be had with reduced instruction sets and newer architectures. But Intel has been maintaining compatibility with x86 architecture for the sake of their users. They've never been so bold (reckless?) as to expect every developer to revise their every existing application to run on a new generation CPU.  Whereas Apple already had this in its wheelhouse, having transitioned from Power PC to Intel, then a similarly radical shift from MacOS to OS X. 

I'm no fan of planned obsolescence, walled gardens, hardware lock in, or bravery as it applies to ditching headphone jacks, but I'm also no fan of unnecessarily massive boxes, high power consumption, excess heat during summer, fan noise, and fan failures!

The iPad has been an astounding technological marvel and I'm keen to see what they can do with Apple silicon in the desktop space as long as they don't get too greedy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tecknot said:

This is actually bummer news taking in consideration all previous comments and reviews.  I am disappointed in Intel.  How is it the Apple can come up with their own silicon and still deliver expected results in a laptop form factor, but Intel can only squeak out a "4%" advantage at such a price (both mechanical and economically).  The reality is that it's more expensive to maintain a top speck PC than it is to own a well spec'd Apple machine with respectable results.  That is, as long as you stick with PC the more that is going into it to beat Apple.  Penny for penny you now get more out of Apple than you do with a PC, not to mention the unmatched screen with Apple.  How wrong am I?

Kind regards,

tecknot

Apple is cheaper?   On what planet is this? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait until you want to upgrade (just) the GPU, or RAM when you've got an SoC - I know; it's not really something you could do anyway with a Mac.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, husker said:

Apple is cheaper?   On what planet is this? 

when you spec out for equal items and the quality of the components,  materials, design, etc..,  its pretty even.  I'd say cheaper in time saved.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Craig N said:

then a similarly radical shift from MacOS to OS X. 

 

well,   they did include  Rosetta 2.   Pretty much all my software worked right out of the gate.  I think they did about as awesome  a job with the transition as could be done.  The fact that, via Rosetta, you can use software written for x86 on an M1 chip is pretty cool.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hugh Mann said:

when you spec out for equal items and the quality of the components,  materials, design, etc..,  its pretty even.  I'd say cheaper in time saved.  

I suppose the time having to replace all your apps cuz they don't work anymore don't count huh?

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hugh Mann said:

when you spec out for equal items and the quality of the components,  materials, design, etc..,  its pretty even.  I'd say cheaper in time saved.  

By the time you pay for new versions of software due to Apple dramatically changing the OS and making them incompatible, I'd say not 🙃

Also super easy just to upgrade components with PC, so the second build is often quite a lot cheaper.

AMD in particular is good in new ranges of CPUs traditionally being compatible with older motherboards as well, so people can sometimes get away with very decent upgrades, for crazy cheap by the time they need an upgrade.

Internal storage is so overpriced with Apple as well that if you're matching internal for internal, there's even less chance of Apple competing on price.

Apple has some advantages, but price for me isn't one of them.

I went from producing on PC to trying Apple for a number of years, then back to PC and couldn't be happier 🙂

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Mann said:

when you spec out for equal items and the quality of the components,  materials, design, etc..,  its pretty even.  I'd say cheaper in time saved.  

My  experience doesn't reflect that.  Uprading Mac hardware such as RAM and CPU costs more.                            

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Paul Young said:

My  experience doesn't reflect that.  Uprading Mac hardware such as RAM and CPU costs more.                            

If you can even do that....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, marled said:

More and more we need faster systems, because a lot of software gets heavier and heavier (plugins, especially from the mid and larger companies). But if I take Reaper and some older excellent plugins I can run with the same speed on a 10 years old system. Will the mix be worse than on a new potent system with "modern" plugins? I doubt!

Plenty of shoddy development out there.  It's worse in the gaming industry. If only more developers were like Reaper.

Funny how sample libraries went from 7200RPM drive, SSD, now M2 is recommended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, husker said:

Apple is cheaper?   On what planet is this? 

Same planet as intel being faster.  I’ll wait for final report and not just “early “ reports hahah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...