Chipmaker Intel has claimed that its processors are still better than Apple's M1, making comparisons that are largely questionable.
Apple Silicon devices were released into the wild in November 2020. Mac buyers were won over by the M1's performance improvements over previous Intel chips. However, the established processor maker remains at pains to explain that its own products are still superior in real-world use. In presentation slides obtained by Tom's Hardware published However, the claims compared to comparable hardware are questionable in some cases.
Against Apple M1: Intel's testing procedures are hardly used anymore
The slides compare a 13-inch MacBook Pro with an M1 and 16 gigabytes of RAM to the company's own white box, which contains the Core i7-1185G7 with four cores, eight threads, and a maximum clock speed of 4.8 GHz, accompanied by 16 GB of RAM. The figures generally seem to show that Intel's chip is either comparable to or superior to the M1 in various tasks, but with serious caveats. First, the benchmarks use Intel's "real-world usage guideline" tests, a collection of procedures that apparently aren't actively followed by most other testers. This includes running various tests with WebXPRT 3 in Chrome, Microsoft Office 365, and AI-based tools from Topaz Labs. There are also benchmarks that use more commonly used tools, including HandBrake and Adobe Creative Cloud applications. However, the data originally presented comes from tests that are rarely or never used today.
Intel makes strange claims
According to Intel, the results show that compared to the M1, the chip is "over 30% faster overall, performing nearly 3x faster in the online photo editing test," while "some features like PDF export" in Office 365 are "up to 2.3x faster." Intel's Handbrake tests also appear to completely forgo hardware-based transcoding on the M1, while it uses Intel's QuickSync hardware routines for the Windows tests. Despite Apple's focus on machine learning support in the M1, Intel is trying to hit back with the curious claim that its chip is 6x faster than the Apple M1 in the Topaz Labs tests. In the Premiere tests, Intel was reportedly 1.7x faster, while the Photoshop and Lightroom Classic tests, which relied on Rosetta 2 translation for compatibility, resulted in speeds "nearly 1.5x faster" on Intel.
Intel vs. Apple M1: Gaming performance was also commented on
Oddly, Intel shows a wider range of results when it comes to gaming performance, including Hitman running better on the M1 than on its own chip, while highlighting comparable or better Intel performance for other titles like Borderlands 3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Even stranger, however, is that Intel takes the time to point out that there is a library of games that "do not run on the M1," including Hitman 2, Metro: Exodus, GRID 2019, and "countless more." The chipmaker also claimed that the M1 failed eight of the 25 tests it used to represent a "day in the life" for its Evo processor upgrade. These failures included relatively simple tasks, such as "switching to the calendar in Outlook" and "starting a video conference" in Zoom, which are things that are also easily accomplished on an M1 Mac.
Against Apple M1: Intel uses obscure testing procedures
Battery performance was also criticized. According to Apple, the MacBook Air can achieve around 18 hours of battery life. However, Intel achieved 10 hours and 6 minutes – under various test conditions. For example, a "Netflix stream and various tabs" were used in Safari. Intel claims that the battery life of 10 hours and 6 minutes is in the same range as an Acer Swift 5 with the Core i7-1165G7, which performs the same task with Chrome. Furthermore, Apple's pricing policy and form factor were also criticized, among other things. Overall, Intel's publication shows that the company is striving to portray itself in a better light than Apple. Cherry-picking specific test results and using obscure testing methods at least proves this. (Photo by tyukin.photo / Bigstockphoto)
