[nominated1]

And directly above that graph says:

> please keep in mind that for single-threaded tasks, a single core doesn’t consume all 95W TDP headroom of the CPU. Based on Anandtech’s analysis, a single 5800X core only consumes 17.3W at 4850 MHz

Remember these are single-threaded benchmarks.

[echlebek]

Yeah, that's irrelevant. One M1 core is not going to use its entire package power either, because there are other powered cores in there like the GPU.

Look at the chart again. One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package.

[AnthonyMouse]

> One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package.

This is the desktop Zen 3 which is still using the 12nm I/O die. It uses more power as a result, which nobody really cares about on the desktop. The Ryzen laptops use a single die which is entirely 7nm and thereby less power with no corresponding reduction in performance.

[sudosysgen]

37W because it's a desktop chip which has its I/O on 12nm. The laptop chips don't have that issue.

Also, if you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the 5800X package handles vastly more I/O.

[gzer0]

Interestingly, the conclusion states the following:

> While M1 is indeed very powerful for its size, when comparing it to the high-end x86 desktop, it is still slower.

Okay, great. I'm not sure what to expect when you compare the lowest end first generation processor from Apple to one of the more high-end of the spectrum x86.

Edit: Forgot to mention how the power draw on the M1 is still significantly less; m1 with all cores @ 100% is ~20W whereas the x86 ryzen was at 17.3W for 1 one core

> To conclude that it performs better than the existing x86 CPUs, is a mistake.

True, no denying that. Exciting times in this market; I wonder how much better gen 2 of Apple's chips will be if the lowest end can do this.

[p1necone]

The reason people are making these comparisons between CPUs that are basically in entirely separate market segments is because of apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything, rather than just other low power CPUs, and people taking said marketing at face value.

[threeseed]

Can you provide a link where they say it beats everything ?

Because on their marketing page they specifically compare it to laptops and refer to low-power use cases. I have never seen them compare it against HEDT platforms.

[p1necone]

Here's the initial announcement video with a timestamp where they called it the "worlds fastest CPU core". They've very quickly stopped using that as the tagline, but it was part of their initial marketing push. https://youtu.be/5AwdkGKmZ0I?t=529

[comex]

True, the text on screen did have that phrase without qualifiers, but what he actually said is: “…when it comes to low-power silicon, our high-performance core is the world’s fastest CPU core.”

[fmajid]

They're talking about single-thread performance.

[eyelidlessness]

Well, not quite. They claimed that their own processor designs will beat everything. They made significantly less bold claims about the M1.

While obviously neither of us can predict exactly what they’re planning for the rest of the product line, I think it would be naive to assume they haven’t at least internally validated that they can improve performance above these entry level offerings. Otherwise they just axed almost their entire Mac brand, and quite likely the rest would falter before too long.

[barkingcat]

I think it's very naive to assume that the marketing department of a megacorporation isn't going to say anything to make more sales.

It's likely that no-one has validated anything when it comes to future tense comparisons.

Read all, believe nothing, especially don't believe the future predictions of someone trying to sell you a laptop today.

Apple has future M1 samples for sure, but they don't have future AMD samples to benchmark against, unless somehow Apple has done some industrial espionage...

In car terms, it's like Tesla trying to persuade someone not to buy a Porsche Taycan. Of course Tesla's going to say their battery lasts longer, even longer than the second generation Taycan no-one has seen that's coming out in a few more years.

[eyelidlessness]

> I think it's very naive to assume that the marketing department of a megacorporation isn't going to say anything to make more sales.

Huh? I was just saying the claim (whether it turns out to be true or not) wasn’t about only the M1, and that it’s more reasonable to assume that Apple is confident they can release something above their lowest range offerings.

[matwood]

> The reason people are making these comparisons between CPUs that are basically in entirely separate market segments is because of apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything

I thought it was pretty clear they were talking about mobile with the m1.

I think we're seeing posts around desktop CPUs and AMDs upcoming chips because non-Apple people are concerned/annoyed, possible subconsciously, that Apple Silicon is within striking distance of being some of the best hardware out there. I'm not saying that Apple has earned that crown yet, but if they do, and it's only available on Apple machines, it will annoy a lot of power users who want the best.

[alwillis]

>apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything

Nope—Apple’s marketing never said that. Everything they said in their November 10, 2020 press release has been backed up by reviewers and testers. It's you guys that blew their claims out of proportion.

For example, there's no reason to disbelieve that the M1 13-inch MacBook Pro is up to 3x faster than the best-selling laptops (of the 9 months leading up to November 10, 2020) in it's class—13″ to 14″ laptops that cost around $1200.

Is there a popular PC desktop that cost $600-$699 that's faster than the Mac mini? I've already seen the M1 Mac mini discounted to $625…

From the Apple press release [0]:

And in MacBook Air, M1 is faster than the chips in 98 percent of PC laptops sold in the past year. [1]

And with M1, the 13-inch MacBook Pro is up to 3x faster than the best-selling Windows laptop in its class. [2]

And when compared to the best-selling Windows desktop in its price range, the Mac mini is just one-tenth the size, yet delivers up to 5x faster performance. [3]

[0]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/introducing-the-next-...

[1]: Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M1 chip and 16GB of RAM. Performance measured using select industry-standard benchmarks. PC configurations from publicly available sales data over the last 12 months. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.

[2]: Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M1 chip, as well as production Intel Core i7-based PC systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics and the latest version of Windows 10 available at the time of testing. Best-selling system based on publicly available sales data over the last nine months. Tested with graphics-intensive workloads in commercial applications. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.

[3]: Testing conducted by Apple in October 2020 using preproduction Mac mini systems with Apple M1 chip, as well as production Intel Core i5-based PC systems with Intel UHD Graphics 630 and the latest version of Windows 10 available at the time of testing. Best-selling system based on publicly available sales data over the last nine months. Tested with select industry-standard graphics benchmarks. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of Mac mini.

[p1necone]

https://youtu.be/5AwdkGKmZ0I?t=529

"Worlds fastest CPU core"

Of course it's more reasonable to compare it with other low power CPUs in laptops, and not desktop CPUs with 5x the TDP that cost as much as the mac mini before you even buy the rest of the PC, I agree with you on that - I'm just pointing out that people are making these comparisons because Apple themselves did it first.

[alwillis]

"Worlds fastest CPU core"

I'm just pointing out that people are making these comparisons because Apple themselves did it first.

This is slightly disingenuous—I think most people know they meant the design of their cores are faster than any other core, GHz for GHz. They didn't say "the M1 is faster than any other processor out there".

The 5800X runs at 3.7 GHz, peaking at 4.8 GHz with all 8 cores.

The M1 runs at 3.2 GHz and 4 of the cores are low-power cores. Of course the 5800X is faster; this shouldn't be a surprise.

However, as the AnandTech review has pointed out with their benchmarks, if the M1 ran at the same speed as AMD's processors, the M1 would be faster. That's what Apple implied with the "world's fastest core" thing. Even now, the M1 has 8 vs. AMD's 4 instruction decoders, allowing it to process more instructions per clock cycle, with faster RAM.

They have cranked-up M1's in the lab running at faster speeds that they've benchmarked, so they know what they said is true--even if they can't say how they know yet.

The proper way to understand Apple-speak is "even though the M1 is an entry-level chip, it's more than competitive with Intel and AMD's newest chips at a fraction of the power and heat. Wait until we crank up the speed and add more performance cores in future products to see what they can really do."

[gpderetta]

>if the M1 ran at the same speed as AMD's processors, the M1 would be faster. That's what Apple implied with the "world's fastest core

That's a ridiculous claim. If the AMD cpu ran at 10Gz it would be even faster. Neither does because neither CPU is designed to run at those frequencies.

The M1 is an amazing CPU and it is extremely fast given its power consumption and the frequency it runs at, but a lot of the claims that run around are straight out of Apple Reality Distortion Field.

[acdha]

You might want to watch that video you’re spamming links to. Note the words immediately prior to what you quoted are: “when it comes to low power silicon”. Your entire narrative falls apart if you don’t quote like a creationist.

[Rapzid]

> the lowest end first generation processor from Apple

That's an interesting way of describing Apple's highest performing, late model CPU.

[glasshead969]

M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen.

Edit: In fact I just ran Cinebench R23 single thread test and package power barely crossed 5W.

[scoopertrooper]

Yup, the MacMini M1 maxes out at 10.5W on single threaded workloads

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...

[imtringued]

> M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen.

So do Ryzen CPUs. The 16 core Ryzen only needs 5W per core. It's purely a matter of frequency management.

These comparisons are meaningless because you can say stupid things like "Ryzens are more power efficient than Ryzens" and still be right.

[my123]

At 5W per core, you don't get anywhere near the single-threaded perf needed to beat an M1...

(20W per core is what it reaches on ST tests, with 17W more for the I/O die on desktop Ryzen, an overhead that'll be much lower on Cezanne hopefully)

[htk]

Does anyone know how many watts a single core can consume on the M1?

[scoopertrooper]

The Firestorm core uses 10.5W under heavy load and memory consumption.

[my123]

10.5W is the whole system power draw.

What's actually reached is https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1328777888213110793?s=21

6.6W CPU power, 9.3W package power (including DRAM)