This is my two cent on this whole thing.
DISCLAIMER: I have used Linux, Windows and macOS indifferently during my life. I used a MBP for at least 4 years as my main machine, but today I daily drive Windows. Also all my remote machines run on Linux.
I believe that the timing of the M1 has been carefully selected to inflict maximum damage to Intel and to dramatize the performance claims.
After browsing through all the benchmarks here and on other sites, I can easily say that the M1 is a good chip, a very good chip indeed.
At the same time I can say that Intel still has the lead in CPU performance for ultrabook with its 11th gen lineup (i7-1165G7/i7-1185G7), at least in many different workload scenarios.
Something to bear in mind here, is that Apple went all in and exploited the heck out of the new TSMC 5nm process, while the aforementioned Intel 11th gen CPUs are on the 10nm node (yes, I know these numbers are totally meaningless, but at the same time we indeed know that TSMC has a edge on Intel with its latest node).
At this time Intel is behind, it's having a lot of yield issues with its 10nm node. But it sill manages to take the lead, even in this dire situation.
Also, I believe that next iteration of M1 will not see the same jump we saw in respect to previous Intel-based Macs, because they already exploited the 5nm goodness a.k.a. lower power, higher frequencies, etc... Now that Apple is in TSMC yard, when Intel catches up, the only differentiator will still be ARM vs x86, so an architectural difference.
And finally, architecturally x86 and ARM serve very different purposes: yes, M1 will do for amazing ultrabooks, but I would like to see them used for AI/ML training now that don't even support eGPUs (and I think it has to do with limited PCie lanes implemented on the SoC). x86 will still win for big complex, power hungry tasks. Could there be comparison in performance per watts between the two architectures? Nope, ARM will always lead in this compartment.
And this is indeed how it's going: ARM CPUs are deployed on every low power device on earth, but the "low power" here is crucial.
Where power is not an issue, ARM does not scale as well as x86, as we can easily see with current performance (please don't mention Fugaku).
So what I will be EXTREMELY interested to see, is how Apple manage to scale these performances to iMacs and beefier Macs.
Also, I look forward to see NEXT YEAR performance for M2. From these numbers we could actually gather a lot of information on the trajectory Apple is on.
For now, at least to my eyes, the hype around this product is not justified.
The MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and MacMini all share the same CPU, and yet we have a "Pro" computer that differentiates only for a fan, a touchbar and two hour more of battery life. What's "Pro" about it?
All these macs took a step backward on IO ports: MacMini lost 10GBe option, very useful in many "Pro" scenarios. eGPUs will not work on any of these Macs, and I find this unacceptable (imagine all the people who shelled out in order to get a nice home/office setup... money wasted).
Also, Apple still sells the base models with 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD for a very high price, a dubious choice to say the least.
These will do fine ultrabooks, but guess what: the iPad is cheaper, comparably faster, lighter, battery is insane, and you can basically do the same things you would do on a MacBookAir. I own an iPad pro and I love it, but I just opened Task Manager on Windows and memory utilization is at 26GB. How on earth am I going to get the same experience and performance on an iPad and consequently on a MacBook Air/MacBook Pro?
All of this is just to say that Apple, for me, is exiting the "Pro" market: I will be surprised if they could compete with Xeons or EPYC CPUs on the high end, for extreme workloads, something "pros", whatever that means, usually need. And now a single fan is what separates "light workloads" (as the MBA is maketed) from "professional workloads", I find this very amusing and sad at the same time.
DISCLAIMER: I have used Linux, Windows and macOS indifferently during my life. I used a MBP for at least 4 years as my main machine, but today I daily drive Windows. Also all my remote machines run on Linux.
I believe that the timing of the M1 has been carefully selected to inflict maximum damage to Intel and to dramatize the performance claims.
After browsing through all the benchmarks here and on other sites, I can easily say that the M1 is a good chip, a very good chip indeed.
At the same time I can say that Intel still has the lead in CPU performance for ultrabook with its 11th gen lineup (i7-1165G7/i7-1185G7), at least in many different workload scenarios.
Something to bear in mind here, is that Apple went all in and exploited the heck out of the new TSMC 5nm process, while the aforementioned Intel 11th gen CPUs are on the 10nm node (yes, I know these numbers are totally meaningless, but at the same time we indeed know that TSMC has a edge on Intel with its latest node).
At this time Intel is behind, it's having a lot of yield issues with its 10nm node. But it sill manages to take the lead, even in this dire situation.
Also, I believe that next iteration of M1 will not see the same jump we saw in respect to previous Intel-based Macs, because they already exploited the 5nm goodness a.k.a. lower power, higher frequencies, etc... Now that Apple is in TSMC yard, when Intel catches up, the only differentiator will still be ARM vs x86, so an architectural difference.
And finally, architecturally x86 and ARM serve very different purposes: yes, M1 will do for amazing ultrabooks, but I would like to see them used for AI/ML training now that don't even support eGPUs (and I think it has to do with limited PCie lanes implemented on the SoC). x86 will still win for big complex, power hungry tasks. Could there be comparison in performance per watts between the two architectures? Nope, ARM will always lead in this compartment.
And this is indeed how it's going: ARM CPUs are deployed on every low power device on earth, but the "low power" here is crucial.
Where power is not an issue, ARM does not scale as well as x86, as we can easily see with current performance (please don't mention Fugaku).
So what I will be EXTREMELY interested to see, is how Apple manage to scale these performances to iMacs and beefier Macs.
Also, I look forward to see NEXT YEAR performance for M2. From these numbers we could actually gather a lot of information on the trajectory Apple is on.
For now, at least to my eyes, the hype around this product is not justified.
The MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and MacMini all share the same CPU, and yet we have a "Pro" computer that differentiates only for a fan, a touchbar and two hour more of battery life. What's "Pro" about it?
All these macs took a step backward on IO ports: MacMini lost 10GBe option, very useful in many "Pro" scenarios. eGPUs will not work on any of these Macs, and I find this unacceptable (imagine all the people who shelled out in order to get a nice home/office setup... money wasted).
Also, Apple still sells the base models with 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD for a very high price, a dubious choice to say the least.
These will do fine ultrabooks, but guess what: the iPad is cheaper, comparably faster, lighter, battery is insane, and you can basically do the same things you would do on a MacBookAir. I own an iPad pro and I love it, but I just opened Task Manager on Windows and memory utilization is at 26GB. How on earth am I going to get the same experience and performance on an iPad and consequently on a MacBook Air/MacBook Pro?
All of this is just to say that Apple, for me, is exiting the "Pro" market: I will be surprised if they could compete with Xeons or EPYC CPUs on the high end, for extreme workloads, something "pros", whatever that means, usually need. And now a single fan is what separates "light workloads" (as the MBA is maketed) from "professional workloads", I find this very amusing and sad at the same time.
Comment