Intel just unveiled its new Core i9 processors, and the company has explicitly compared them to its beat-up rival, the M1 Max, which we already like in the 14in and 16in MacBook Pros. A comparison that tells part of the story, but which ignores a critical element: performance per watt.
More raw power yes, but what about consumption?
Since Apple has decided to stop using Intel processors in its computers The microchip company has gone through several curious stages. First of all, he began to criticize, through various advertisements, Apple computers. Then, while its new CEO said he wanted to do business again with the Cupertino company, he began to rule out the superiority of his own chips over the M1s.
Now, as part of CES, Intel has launched its new line of Core i9 processors and compared their power to the M1 Max. It is true that Intel processors benefit from more brute force than Apple chips, and that’s what a lot of the headlines have focused on, but that’s only part of the story.
Remember that the new twelfth generation i9s have 14 cores (six high power and eight high efficiency) and reach 5 GHz in frequency. According to Intel, this makes it the “fastest mobile processor” on the market, but you have to keep performance per watt in mind. the i9 draws up to 115 watts, while the M1 Max runs at almost half, about 60 watts, and only reaches 90 watts in high demand.
As far as I know the M1 Max consumes around 60W on average, it looks like Intel conveniently shortened the comparison chart when promoting its new i9. pic.twitter.com/vzOyLS3sDQ
– David Bernal Raspall (@ david_br8) January 5, 2022
Here, one wonders if a few watts of difference will really have an impact on the electricity bill at the end of the month, but that would distract us from the heart of the issue of consumption. The higher the consumption, the more heat is produced. This has two implications. The first is that a more efficient active cooling system is neededThis translates to bigger fans and more noise, in addition to the consumption to power them. At the same time, a more efficient passive cooling system is required, which in turn results in larger and heavier designs.
The other key implication is in thermal throttling. The raw power is great, but when it comes with the consumption and therefore the heat, can lead to significant performance drops in sustained work. It’s true that this has less of an impact on desktops, like Mac Pros for example, but it’s crucial on laptops, the goal of these i9s.
However, credit has to be given to Intel, without a doubt, but the other part of the story should not be lost sight of. Where M1s excel is in their performance per watt. This gives great scalability, as we have seen in the addition of cores of the M1 Pro and M1 Max, and allows for thinner, more efficient designs and, most importantly, long battery life.
From experience I can say that I have yet to hear from fans of my 16 inch MacBook Pro with M1 Pro. Would you rather have the power that Intel promises with its i9s? It depends, at the cost of heat, noise and consumption, I personally answer no.
Imagen | Martin katler
