Intel claimed that its line of processors is still better than Apple’s Apple Silicon, although a comparison between Intel’s 11th-generation chips and the M1 chip shows this under the conditions chosen by the chip manufacturer.
The Apple Silicon chip appeared to the public a few months ago, as Mac computer buyers were attracted to the high-performance improvements made by the M1 compared to the previous Intel chips that Apple used in some of its products.
However, Intel is still keen to announce that its products are still superior for use in the real world.
And in slides for PowerPoint presentations that Posted it Tom’s Hardware website, claims about similar devices are dubious in some cases.
The presentation slides compare the 13-inch MacBook Pro with the M1 and 16GB of memory against its own inner white box that includes a four-core and eight-threaded Core i7-1185G7 processor and a maximum speed of 4.8GHz, backed by 16GB of RAM.
Presentation slides generally tend to show the Intel chipset as either comparable to or superior to the M1 for different tasks, despite major caveats.
For a start, the standards use Intel’s real-world usage guideline tests, a set of experiences that most other testers do not seem to actively follow.
This includes various tests using WebXPRT 3 in Chrome, Microsoft Office 365, and AI-based tools from Topaz Labs.
There are also standards that use more popular tools, including HandBrake and Adobe Creative Cloud apps, but the data presented at the outset stems from less frequently used tests.
Intel announced results to show its chipset being 30 percent faster overall and nearly three times faster in the online image optimization subtest compared to the M1 chip, while some functions, such as exporting PDF in Office 365, are 2.3 times faster.
Intel Handbrake tests appear to completely avoid the use of hardware-based transcoding via the M1, while Intel’s QuickSync hardware procedure is used to test Windows.
Although Apple has focused on aiding machine learning in the M1, Intel is trying to fight this by claiming that its chips are 6 times faster in the Topaz Labs test compared to the M1.
In Premiere tests, Intel was supposed to be 1.7 times faster, while Photoshop and Lightroom Classic tests, which relied on Rosetta 2 for compatibility, yielded speeds approximately 1.5 times faster compared to Intel.
Oddly enough, under gaming performance, Intel shows a raft of results, including how Hitman works better across the M1 than on its chip, with Intel showing similar or better performance across other games, including Borderlands 3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
Even more surprisingly, Intel explains that there is a library of games not working across M1, including Hitman 2, Metro: Exodus, GRID 2019 and countless other games, which the company has counted as zero frames per second on its comparison.
Intel also claimed that the M1 failed eight out of 25 tests.These failures included relatively simple tasks such as switching to Calendar in Outlook and starting video conferencing in Zoom, things that could easily be accomplished even on the M1 Mac.
To try to counter Apple’s claims of up to 18 hours of battery life from Apple’s MacBook Air in its own tests, Intel claims instead that it has a battery life of 10 hours and 12 minutes under various test conditions, that is, the use of Netflix broadcasts and tabs in Safari.
While Intel aims to present itself and its products in the best light, it does so with selective results.
Despite confirmation that it supports Apple’s move to Apple Silicon, Intel is under pressure to maintain its important position in the field of chipsets.
The company has been criticized for letting competitors bypass it, including customers like Apple, who are moving to create their own chips, as well as seeing competitors like AMD and Nvidia expand into markets, such as processing artificial intelligence.