←back to thread

Apple Silicon M1 chip in MacBook Air outperforms high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro

(www.macrumors.com)
1080 points antipaul | 6 comments | 12 Nov 20 00:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
mcintyre1994 ◴[12 Nov 20 07:21 UTC] No.25067338[source]▶
> The M1 chip, which belongs to a MacBook Air with 8GB RAM, features a single-core score of 1687 and a multi-core score of 7433. According to the benchmark, the M1 has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

> The Mac mini with M1 chip that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1682 and a multi-core score of 7067.

> Update: There's also a benchmark for the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 chip and 16GB RAM that has a single-core score of 1714 and a multi-core score of 6802. Like the MacBook Air , it has a 3.2GHz base frequency.

So single core we have: Air 1687, Mini 1682, Pro 1714

And multi core we have: Air 7433, Mini 7067, Pro 6802

I’m not sure what to make of these scores, but it seems wrong that the Mini and Pro significantly underperform the Air in multi core. I find it hard to imagine this benchmark is going to be representative of actual usage given the way the products are positioned, which makes it hard to know how seriously to take the comparisons to other products too.

> When compared to existing devices, the M1 chip in the MacBook Air outperforms all iOS devices. For comparison's sake, the iPhone 12 Pro earned a single-core score of 1584 and a multi-core score of 3898, while the highest ranked iOS device on Geekbench's charts, the A14 iPad Air, earned a single-core score of 1585 and a multi-core score of 4647.

This seems a bit odd too - the A14 iPad Air outperforms all iPad Pro devices?

replies(14): >>25067412 #>>25067414 #>>25067435 #>>25067467 #>>25067719 #>>25067879 #>>25067931 #>>25068427 #>>25068698 #>>25068977 #>>25069217 #>>25069354 #>>25070019 #>>25071266 #
throwaway4good ◴[12 Nov 20 08:30 UTC] No.25067719[source]▶
The results seem a little weird but if remotely true then these machines are going to sell like cup cakes.

Why would anyone (who is not forced) buy an Intel PC laptop when these are available and priced as competitive as they are?

replies(19): >>25067752 #>>25067760 #>>25067775 #>>25067789 #>>25067856 #>>25067866 #>>25067936 #>>25067945 #>>25067976 #>>25068118 #>>25068189 #>>25068589 #>>25068695 #>>25068781 #>>25069148 #>>25070670 #>>25071421 #>>25072755 #>>25074611 #
moondev ◴[12 Nov 20 11:00 UTC] No.25068589[source]▶
> Why would anyone (who is not forced) buy an Intel PC laptop when these are available and priced as competitive as they are?

- locked bootloader - no bootcamp - can't install or boot linux or windows

- virtualization limited to arm64 machines - no windows x86 or linux x86 virtual machines

- only 2 thunderbolt ports

- limited to 16GB RAM

- no external gpu support/drivers - can't use nvidia or amd cards

- no AAA gaming

- can't run x86 containers without finding/building for arm64 or taking huge performance hit with qemu-static

- uncertain future of macos as it continues to be locked down

replies(12): >>25068615 #>>25068712 #>>25068850 #>>25068948 #>>25069453 #>>25069576 #>>25069626 #>>25069745 #>>25069808 #>>25069834 #>>25077204 #>>25127853 #
wffurr ◴[12 Nov 20 11:06 UTC] No.25068615[source]▶
- Starts at $999 for the base laptop version. You can get much cheaper still good Windows laptops.
replies(2): >>25068800 #>>25069801 #
blunte ◴[12 Nov 20 11:47 UTC] No.25068800{3}[source]▶
You lost me at "good Windows laptops".

macOS has plenty of warts, but my experience with high quality equipment (Thinkpad, XPS, Alienware) has left me ultimately disappointed with Windows in many day to day situations compared to Mac.

Windows is still clunky, despite many improvements. And aside from a Thinkpad Carbon X1, I haven't used any laptop with the performance and build quality (for the size/money) as a Macbook Air.

replies(3): >>25069707 #>>25069962 #>>25071074 #
1. fpig ◴[12 Nov 20 15:48 UTC] No.25071074{4}[source]▶
If you need a computer for serious (long hours) use, I would always go for desktop, as you can get a vastly superior machine to any laptop, with massive amounts of disk space, memory, tons of cores, screens, etc. If you want a Mac, I'm not familiar with desktop Macs but I'm guessing the Mac Pro machines blow laptops out of the water the same way high end desktop PCs do.

For travelling, I don't think anything beats a Macbook due to how light, thin, and resilient they are. But my 2016 MBP is a pretty shit machine for its price. It's also loud (like every other laptop I've had). I avoid using it. Sure, if you take size/design/mechanical quality into account, it is probably unmatched. But for 95% of my computer usage, those are irrelevant, as I just sit at my desk. I had a company provided HP laptop (not sure if stock or upgraded by our IT staff) at my previous job which was far more performant than my Macbook, so I don't really agree that Windows laptops are necessarily bad, but it was even louder than the Macbook, and of course clunky and ugly.

For me personally, the new Macbooks are disqualified as viable work machines if it's really true that you can't use more than 1 external screen. That's just not a viable computer for me (for work). I will always have a Macbook though just because of how much I love them for travel. But a Macbook is more of a toy than a serious computer, especially if the 1 screen limit is true.

replies(2): >>25071217 #>>25071503 #
2. pantulis ◴[12 Nov 20 16:01 UTC] No.25071217[source]▶
" I'm not familiar with desktop Macs but I'm guessing the Mac Pro machines blow laptops out of the water the same way high end desktop PCs do."

Unfortunately they will also blow your wallet.

replies(1): >>25071347 #
3. fpig ◴[12 Nov 20 16:14 UTC] No.25071347[source]▶
Wow, I just checked and yeah those prices are pretty insane, especially if you want a better-than-base model. I guess then in the desktop arena, Macs are at a disadvantage, because you can build a similarly powerful PC for a much more reasonable amount.
replies(2): >>25072725 #>>25073113 #
4. johncalvinyoung ◴[12 Nov 20 16:27 UTC] No.25071503[source]▶
I'm in the market for a new work machine myself, and have been eying a final-generation loaded Intel MBP16. I'm sure the AS models will catch up on graphics capability by the end of their transition time, though I'm certainly wondering what the first AS MBP16 will do for graphics. I certainly wouldn't buy less capability than the 5600M myself.
5. pantulis ◴[12 Nov 20 18:09 UTC] No.25072725{3}[source]▶
Certainly the Pro Desktops must be intended for Pro people that can quantify the number of billable hours they will save in Final Cut or Logic and come up with a "return of investment" figure.

The iMacs are a mistery to me, but guess I'm not the target market anyway. (I have a 2018 MBP)

6. whywhywhywhy ◴[12 Nov 20 18:37 UTC] No.25073113{3}[source]▶
> you can build a similarly powerful PC for a much more reasonable amount

It's not even a contest or similarly powerful, spend $3000 on an AMD + Nvidia PC and its significantly more powerful than the $5000 Mac Pro in both CPU and GPU compute.