Even though many were sceptical about the transition of Apple computers to ARM processors, it quickly became clear that this is the most promising architecture for desktops. The M1 is the best representative of the industry today. Not only does it provide record-breaking battery life to compatible MacBook models, but it also competes directly with Intel’s top-of-the-line processors in performance. However, some people completely refuse to believe in the superiority of the M1. Well, at least Intel itself.
Intel has decided to push the M1 and Intel Core i7 processors head-on in several use cases to identify the undisputed leader. A 13 ”MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM and a comparable model on Windows was selected for this. Needless to say, the scenarios themselves were chosen in such a way that Intel’s solutions would at least not lose to Apple’s ones, or even surpass them. In the end, it’s unlikely that a company would agree to volunteer to submit a product to a competition without being certain that it has no chance of winning.
Table of Contents
M1 vs Core i7 performance comparison
The first step in comparing the M1 and Intel Core i7 was a PowerPoint presentation software. The referees decided to test how quickly the test notebooks export PDFs. Intel did not disclose this file’s weight, apparently considering this figure insignificant, since computers with comparable characteristics are involved in the experiment. But Intel voiced the superiority of its processor over the M1. A laptop based on its proprietary chip exported a file 2.3 times faster than a MacBook Pro.
Then there was a comparison while working on the artificial intelligence-powered Gigapixel AI photo magnification application. Oddly enough, here Intel Core i7 also bypassed the M1, but the gap was even wider. It bypassed the Apple processor as much as 6 times. This is a fairly tangible indicator, especially when it comes to such resource-intensive tasks. Another thing is that Topaz Labs originally designed Gigapixel AI for Intel Core, taking into account the key features of their hardware acceleration.
How many MacBooks work on M1
M1 doesn’t support most games, but games are clearly not a performance indicator.
To prevent the test from looking completely biased, when comparing the performance of computers on Intel Core i7 and M1 in games, the Apple laptop was given a small head start in the games Hitman, Shadows of the Tomb Raider and Borderlands 3. However, if you look at the graph further, it becomes clear that there is no smell of nobility here. Exactly half of the games selected for the test were selected so that they do not support M1. Intel says it almost directly: the M1 does not support countless games, so making accurate measurements is not possible here.
Performance performance, but in the battery life test, the M1 had to plug a competitor in the belt. But no. Intel arranged it so that the Acer Swift 5 with an Intel Core i7 processor delivered the same 10 hours as the MacBook Air streaming Netflix series. The brightness of the screens of both laptops was set at 250 nits, and Chrome and Safari browsers were used as a means of connecting to the service, respectively. You noticed that here Intel has done a reshuffle and replaced the MacBook Pro with the MacBook Air, which has 3 hours lower battery life. Well, let’s forgive her for that, especially since there are a lot of jambs in testing already.
How Intel is lying about its processors
Engineers, developers and authors of thematic resources devoted to computer hardware have already smashed the Intel test to smithereens on the following grounds:
- The scenarios Intel has proposed are tailor-made and are not considered industry standards for measuring actual device performance;
- Half of the games that Intel allowed for testing did not initially support the M1;
- 15-hour autonomy of MacBook Air in video broadcast mode was originally announced taking into account the use of the Apple TV + service;
- During the test, Intel swaps one laptop for another, since the MacBook Pro would have bypassed the Acer Swift 5 even in its unfair test;
- The poor performance of some applications on the M1 can be easily compensated for by point optimization, as was the case with Intel.
In my opinion, the banal substitution of laptops during testing is indicative. Just think: if Intel allows itself to manipulate the texture like this, it is obvious that it costs nothing to do the same with numbers. Even if nothing like this happened, it would be tough to believe in it. After all, forgery, as a rule, cannot be in only one. To build a whole strategy of superiority without good reason, you need to cheat a lot and often. And Intel took this step. But who is she trying to convince?