I'm skeptical.<p>Not only because M1 is at TSMC "5nm" (which is probably equivalent to Intel 7nm) but also because this happens every time intel gets kicked to the curb.<p>"Guys, don't go AMD, the new Intel CPU will be faster"<p>When the product arrives it usually comes with a huge trade-off such as thermals and power consumption and doesn't do the performance originally claimed anyway.<p>This has happened after every Ryzen launch, suspiciously only a day or so after each event. It's so obvious and I don't think I'm going to fall for that again.<p>No more promises: Goodbye Intel, I'll see you when your product can be in my hands and do what you claim.
Wow, what an Intel shill piece.<p>Can we have Alder lake’s power per watt metrics?<p>Can we see the size of the laptops it will be installed in?<p>Will it be able to reach the same performance while on battery, like the new MacBook Pros?<p>C’mon, I understand Intel is in a push to counter the Intel-is-screwed narrative, but their comms department should try to do better than this old school benchmark “leaks” post, with cherry picked comparisons and such.
Copying my answer [1] from the Alder Lake Preview.<p>1. Base Power and Turbo Power. Finally a simple term so we dont have to constantly argue about TDP and PL1 / PL2. Which still happens fairly often on HN. And some of us have been ranting about this for almost a decade.<p>2. + 19% IPC improvement vs 11900K which is basically an Icelake. Or ~10% improvement over TigerLake ( Which was never made available on Desktop )<p>3. PCI-E 5 and DDR5. Intel went from falling behind in PCI-E offering to leaping ahead of AMD. We should expect PCI-E 5.0 SSD shipping soon after ( 14 - 16GBps )<p>4. Chipset is on 14nm. No USB 4 or Thunderbolt 4. But integrated WiFi 6E MAC.<p>5. For those interested, this put Alder Lake, on a Desktop Platform, with Intel 7nm <i>High Performance</i> Node, at roughly 20-25W per Performance Core. With a ( non-verified ) Geekbench Score fairly similar ( ~6% faster ) to M1 HP Core. The Apple M1, on a TSMC 5nm <i>Low Power</i> node, at roughly 5W per core.<p>6. It will be interesting to see how the new efficiency cores perform. Which is basically a new generation Atom Core. These were previously scheduled for a Graviton like 64 - 128 Core chip on server. Not sure if that is still the case with Intel's chiplet strategy or what they called Tiles.<p>7. Worth wondering, Alder Lake was originally scheduled on Intel 7nm or what is now called Intel 4/3nm in 2019. What would happen had Intel not been so badly managed? But if that didn't happen, Pat Gelsinger may never be back at Intel.<p>8. AMD Zen 4, also with DDR5 and PCI-E 5.0 will be coming in late 2022. Depending on Intel's pace of execution, which seems to be getting better and better every time Pat Gelsinger provides an update, AMD may have some tough competition.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29017221" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29017221</a>
LOL at the comments down in that article:<p>>So someone sent you some bullshit in the mail and you jizzed all over yourself. It means nothing unless you tested it. Anyone can make a graph and fill it with whatever number they choose. Intel has been making up numbers for more than a decade.
Even if true I'm done with Intel. I'd rather give my money to AMD at this point. Team Red moving forward. All those years with 4 cores maximum is over.
After reading the comments here: I want everyone to know that wccftech is tabloids, not reporting. Go there if you're the Men in Black looking for alien leads or if you're just bored and are curious about the (incredibly dubious side of the) hardware rumor mill. If you don't believe me, just click around a bit.
I’m just going to say: after the monopoly-induced stagnation of the 2010s, finally we’re back to something looking like competition-driven Moore’s Law-level performance increases.
> The Apple M1 Max is a fantastic chip and is going to push both AMD and Intel to perform at their very best. And while I doubt x86 architecture will ever beat ARM on power efficiency, absolute power (within roughly comparable battery life) is another matter altogether.<p>I'm not sure I can follow this line of reasoning. If ARM chips will always be more efficient, then how can you continue stating comparable battery life.<p>Moreover, there is no mention of TDP. Past flagship Intel processors have been fighting thermal throttling on mobile devices, and it's already been demonstrated that the M1 Max chips don't run into throttling even under load.<p>It's interesting to see first benchmarks of the new Alder Lakes chips, but we will see how well they work in real products, i.e. with thermal and other constraints.
I feel like it should be pointed out that the M1 Max is still, at heart, an M1 and performs as such on single thread performance.<p>The M1 was released in Nov of 2020, if rumors are true, we're due an M2 in Feb of 2022.
> And while I doubt x86 architecture will ever beat ARM on power efficiency, absolute power (within roughly comparable battery life) is another matter altogether.<p>This is a bit confusing, are they suggesting that laptops with this Alder Lake Mobility CPU will have "rougly comparable battery life" to M1 Max Macbook Pros, with better performance, despite having worse power efficiency?
It wouldn't make a difference in the comparison against M1 Max, but the benchmark was also done on Windows 11, which introduced bugs for AMD scheduling. Fixed now, but maybe the AMD results have been skewed because of this. Overall, this is the least scientific and realistic benchmark article ever - until people get their hands on the chips and test them properly everything is speculation. Also - competing for absolute benchmark rankings, when you still need to put a discrete GPU in an intel laptop to even connect a 4k screen is meaningless - people should stop making purchasing decisions just based on benchmarks.
Marketing BS, PR BS, etc. In the long run, Apple will dominate the laptop market, because there's a substantial tech advantage that Intel can't easily mitigate/reduce.
It's quite impressive they managed to pull that off with a clearly inferior process node (which is still noticeable with the power draw, likely)<p>Still, if ever they manage to at least be competitive on the process node front, that might make things interesting...<p>As is, while technically impressive they even managed this, it's not like the difference is large enough to be impactful.
HN's obsession for power per watt is hilarious. Just because you can push out X TFlops at 20W does not mean you can push out 5X TFlops at 100W. It doesn't work this way.<p>Despite my disappointment in Intel in the past years, I can only be happy about them pushing PCIE5 and DDR5. This confirms my next PC upgrade, although likely on a future Ryzen will be a spicy one.