Intel Evo vs. Apple M1: Preliminary Head-to-Head

Posted on February 7, 2021 by Paul Thurrott in Uncategorized with 101 Comments

For the past two weeks, I’ve been using an Intel Evo-based Razer Book 13 and an Apple M1-based MacBook Pro, pitting the two head-to-head in various ways. Two weeks isn’t enough time to fully review products such as these, of course. But I’ve been reviewing portable computers for over 20 years, and each time I interact with that kind of device, I’m silently sizing it up and identifying its advantages and disadvantages. And as my experience grows, so too does my opinion. And I feel like it’s time to offer up some preliminary observations of how the two compare.

First, I need to fully disclose how I found myself in this position: Intel contacted me—and, I assume, other reviewers—about performing independent comparisons of one or more Intel Evo-based portable PCs with an M1-based MacBook Pro. To its credit, Intel has remained hands-off during this process, aside from a virtual meeting in which the company explained its stance on Apple’s M1 silicon and its use in new Macs, and how it feels that Intel-based PCs products compare.

I’ll be discussing that aspect of this comparison next. For now, I’ll just say that I’m delighted that Intel is finally standing up to the tsunami of news coverage that the first M1-based Macs have generated and appears to be in the same place I am now that M1 dust has settled, so to speak. That is, what Apple has accomplished with its M1 silicon is indeed impressive, but whatever advances it brings to the Mac don’t really change the equation when it comes to choosing between that platform and a PC: At the end of the day, an M1-based Mac is still just a Mac. And that may be interesting to you, or not, based on your experiences and predilections. But I don’t feel that there’s much the PC world can learn from Apple’s success here, since the two markets are so different.

I’m also delighted that Intel is far more interested in real-world usage than it is in benchmarks because that’s where I land as a reviewer. Benchmarks don’t measure real life, but they’re also lazy. You need to use products to fully understand them. And you can only do that accurately over some period of time, and ideally in real-world conditions. Which, granted, are harder now during the pandemic, when traveling is next to impossible. Harder but not impossible.

Anyway, if you’re familiar with my hardware reviews, you probably know that I evaluate a list of criteria that varies a bit by device type but will include discussions about the design, display, internal components, connectivity, expansion, and other important topics. And while I will be doing so for both of these portable computers sometime in the coming weeks, here I will be doing more of a comparison between the two.

And that requires another bit of explanation. When Intel first contacted me, they offered to provide up to five PC review units. But I opted to go with just one, the Razer, which I chose mostly because I’d never reviewed one of its products. The other PCs that Intel offered were devices I already had in for review or soon would. And, let’s face it, thanks to my more painful approach to reviewing, I don’t exactly bang one of these things out every three days as some reviewers do. I’m behind on reviews enough as it is, so I went with just the one.

Anyone suspicious of this specific comparison, or this type of comparison, will thus be quick to point out that the two computers don’t line up 100 percent equally; the Razer has more RAM than the MacBook Pro, for example. And … sure. There’s nothing I can do about that since I didn’t buy these computers myself. I got what I got. But again, over 20 years of experience. And whatever you think of my opinions of Apple or any other company, at least give me this: My reviews are fair. I’m not here to tilt the board for one side or the other. I’m legitimately curious how this will turn out, and while I go into this comparison with my own opinions and biases just like anyone else, I’m open to any outcome.

So let’s talk design first.

As premium PCs, the Razer Book 13 and Apple MacBook Pro (M1) both exude the right mix of good looks and quality construction. But the Mac is the more classic of the two, and certainly the more readily identifiable. And I happen to prefer its dark Space Gray color to the more pedestrian silver of the Razer, though Apple fans can choose that option with the Mac as well.

Beauty is, of course, subjective, but there are elements of design that impact usability too. Both portable computers have a notch in front of the touchpad in the center of the keyboard deck, providing just enough room for a finger so you can open the display lids with one hand; the Mac is a bit easier to open. But the Razer is smaller than the Mac, and its display bezels are much smaller than those on the old-school MacBook Pro. Here, Apple’s design isn’t so much classic as it is long in the tooth.

Speaking of the displays, both are excellent, though there are some key differences. The Mac’s display is brighter, much brighter, and it has Apple’s excellent True Tone capabilities for providing accurate color in any lighting condition. But for productivity work, I prefer the Razer’s matte panel over the Mac’s glossy panel.

Both displays offer a 16:10 aspect ratio, which I feel is a good compromise between the extremes of 16:9 and 3:2. The Mac has a 13.3-inch Retina display panel delivering a resolution of 2560 x 1600 pixels, which is quite an advance over the 13.4-inch Full HD+ (1920 x 1200) panel in the Razer Book 13. But at this size, and given display scaling, this is effectively a wash.

Internally, Apple’s move to the M1 architecture makes some comparisons a bit difficult. The MacBook Pro is powered by the M1 system-on-a-chip (SoC), which provides CPU cores, integrated graphics cores, machine learning cores, and RAM in a single 5-nm package. There are some advantages to this approach, of course, but it also means that you need to specify how much RAM you want at purchase time: It’s impossible to add RAM to an M1-based Mac later.

The Razer Book 13, by comparison, is powered by a more traditional platform that includes an 11th-generation Intel Core i7-1165G7 processor, a 10-nm design, plus 16 GB of RAM in the review unit. (Razer sells versions with a Core i5 processor and 8 GB of RAM as well.) But as with the M1, the processor is augmented by on-chip internal graphics, in this case Iris Xe graphics that are a major step up from the UHD graphics of the past (and still used by lower-end chips). In fact, Iris Xe graphics are powerful enough to enable Full HD gaming with modern 3D games. For example, Doom Eternal, Far Cry New Dawn, Apex Legends, and other similar games can all run at over 30 frames-per-second (fps). I will include some gaming observations in each of my coming reviews.

The Mac gets a point for the alacrity with which apps, especially native M1 apps (technically universal apps) launch, but both computers offer excellent performance in real-world productivity use. I’m sticking with the same core set of apps on both computers—Microsoft Word, Microsoft Edge, Microsoft OneNote, Microsoft Teams, and Skype—plus some set of text and graphics editors that varies by platform. And the responsiveness on both machines is excellent.

But the Mac wins another point for its silence: Where the mostly-quiet fans will kick in on the Razer from time-to-time, the MacBook Pro has been utterly silent in the time that I’ve used it so far.

Both portable computers offer modern connectivity capabilities, with Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.x radios. And both deliver the same excellent Wi-Fi performance, delivering nearly-identical download (~280 Mbps) and upload (25 Mbps) speeds on my Google Wifi home network. Neither offers cellular data connectivity, even as an option.

From a ports and expansion perspective, the Razer carries the day handily. Where the MacBook Pro (M1) provides just two USB-C ports with Thunderbolt/USB 4 capabilities, guaranteeing you’ll need to remember to bring dongles with you, the Razor Book 13 takes a more user-friendly approach with one full-sized USB 3.1 Gen 1 port, two Thunderbolt 4/USB-C ports, one full-sized HDMI 2.0 port, and one MicroSD Slot.

Both systems provide a sorry 720p webcam, which isn’t great, but each provides one advantage over the other. The Mac’s webcam is aided by AI picture correction, and I’ve found the image to be decent. And the Razer’s webcam has Windows Hello capabilities, so you can use it for facial recognition, a nice win. Both systems likewise provide stereo speakers on the outer edges of their respective keyboards, and both offer excellent sound in both music and video playback. The Razer is outfitted with THX spatial audio capabilities, which I’d not experienced before, but this wasn’t a huge improvement in the tests I’ve done so far.

After an ill-advised several years of bullying its own users with the unreliable butterfly keyboard, Apple finally went back to a traditional scissor-switch keyboard design and the result is one of the best mobile keyboards in the market.

Well, with one problem: the MacBook Pro features Apple’s Touch Bar, another unfortunate experiment that introduces both complexity and uncertainty to the function bar row. But there is some good news. You can configure the Touch Bar to just display a normal row of function keys. Apple was at least smart enough to bring back the Esc key. And the Touch ID sensor at the top right is fantastic. (Facial recognition would be even better.)

The Razer’s keyboard couldn’t be more different. It’s not as crisp as the MacBook Pro keyboard, and the keys feel softer. But the typing experience is still excellent, and the key throws appear to be about as short as those on the Mac. The Razer also comes with a fun colored-backlighting feature that is configured by default to shift between a rainbow of colors as you use it. Yes, you can change that if you find it annoying, but I have found myself curiously mesmerized by the effect.

Both machines feature large glass touchpads, though the Mac’s is considerably bigger. Apple uses its Force Touch technology in its touchpad, so the effect is virtual, not physical. But I’ve found it to be very accurate and devoid of mistaken gestures, a common problem with Windows touchpads. The Razer touchpad is a Microsoft Precision unit, which is also excellent, and I prefer its smaller size. Neither computer supports a smartpen.

From a portability perspective, the Razer Book 13 and MacBook Pro offers similar experiences despite their size differences: The Razer weighs 2.95 pounds, compared to 3 pounds for the Mac. The two are roughly the same thickness—0.60 inches for the Razer vs. 0.61 inches for the Mac—but the Razer is a smaller 7.80 inches x 11.60 inches, compared to 8.36 inches x 11.97 inches for the Mac.

Battery life is currently an unknown, and this is something I’m still struggling to figure out because it’s not as easy to gauge battery life on the Mac. That said, I can tell you anecdotally that it’s excellent, and is easily as good or better than any of the non-ARM-based PCs I’ve used. Likewise, the Razer has performed well in this regard, and also in moving in and out of standby. But I hope to have something more definitive to say about battery life for the reviews.

Software is often a sore spot with my PC reviews, even with some premium PCs. But I feel like Razer has found a good place given its gaming background and the audience of customers who are familiar with the brand. Yes, there are some Razer (and Intel) utilities to wade through, and of course the firm can’t do a thing about the crapware that Microsoft continues to bundle with Windows 10 Home. But overall, it’s a pretty clear software image.

As it does on the iPhone, Apple tosses in a lot of its own applications on the Mac, including such things as Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. And the dock is overloaded with dozens of icons on first boot, most of which I labored to remove. But I’m not overly bothered by Apple’s approach to software on the Mac, and this isn’t something that has changed since the arrival of the M1 chipset for sure.

PCs generally pull ahead of the Mac in one key area: There are just so many configuration choices, even if you’ve settled on a single brand or model. But here, the differences aren’t so dramatic. Razer offers both Core i5 and Core i7 configurations of the Book 13, and you can get versions with 8 or 16 GB of RAM, and with different storage choices, with prices starting at $1199. The review unit would cost about $1599. By comparison, the MacBook Pro starts at $1299 for a version with 8 GB of RAM, and you can double that to 16 GB and choose between various solid-state storage choices from 256 GB to 2 TB. (There’s only one M1 chip at the moment, but I assume we’ll see different chipsets offered in the future.) A MacBook Pro configured like the Razer Book 13 I’m reviewing would cost $1499.

Choosing between a Mac and PC, or any Mac and any PC, is made difficult by the differences in the ecosystems. That is, I don’t believe many people would ever arrive at this choice between a Razer Book 13 (or any other PC) and a MacBook Pro. You’re either going to go Mac or go PC, and then choose from there.

I’ve been using Macs for over 20 years now, and I’ve always kept at least one Mac around for testing purposes during that time. But I also lean very strongly to the Windows PC side of the fence because I very much prefer Windows to macOS. And that makes this comparison a bit difficult. The MacBook Pro (M1) hardware is excellent in that way that most Apple devices are excellent. But it’s still just a Mac.

And in some ways, it’s also less than a Mac. That is, M1-based Macs are limited in ways that their Intel-based predecessors—and PCs—are not. You can only attach one external display to an M1-based Mac, for example, and some peripherals—like external GPUs—won’t work on that platform either. I’ll be looking more closely at hardware compatibility in a future write-up, but the real-world downsides to M1 is a topic that deserves more attention.

(An M1-based Mac also brings some improvements over Intel-based Macs, like the ability to run iPad and iPhone apps, improved battery life, and so on. That will all be part of my MacBook Pro review.)

As for the Razer Book 13, this is an excellent entry into what is now a very crowded field of premium portable PCs. And I feel that Razer’s background combined with the gaming possibilities of the Iris Xe graphics in the Book 13 could really put this machine over the top for many. It’s not a familiar PC brand like Lenovo, HP, or Dell, but I like the positioning overall.

Looking ahead, I’ll be writing about the Intel Evo platform soon, in addition to the promised hardware compatibility report and computer reviews. And we’re hoping to get an Intel representative on Windows Weekly to discuss the firm’s positioning against Apple M1.

More soon.

Join the discussion!


Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Comments (101)

101 responses to “Intel Evo vs. Apple M1: Preliminary Head-to-Head”

  1. someguy1984

    I look forward to seeing how fair you can be in this review, given how strongly you prefer WIndows to macOS. At the purely operating system level, I'd love to know WHY that is the case, if it is anything other than many years of familiarity. I feel the opposite way, but have never had the means or the motivation/necessity to do something like using a Windows PC for a month or so.

    I have an M1 MBP 16g/1T and it is really a fabulous machine. I've tried to provoke the fans into coming on and haven't succeeded! I also have a 2020 Intel MBP, i5, 2ghz, 16G/1T, and it's a fine laptop, and close to the M1 in most ways. However, on the apps I run, notably Mathematica and Igor Pro, both for data analysis, the M1 is faster, even running x86 code under Rosetta 2. The usual speed up is 20-30% under Rosetta, which is quite impressive!

    On native M1 code, the difference can be astounding, like a factor of 12 (really, not a typo) on Compressor. Many of the spectacular M1 results come from photo/video codes that parallelize well and us all those M1 cores effectively, and perhaps also from some of the video stuff that Apple has built in.

    For many, many apps, they are "faster", like Office, but they were perfectly fine on Intel. In this sense the M1 is "just a Mac", but it is a very fine mac indeed. For many users, the battery life, rather than the performance, may be the most useful thing.

    I don't know that many long time Windows users will switch to a Mac because of the M1, but I do think that some users looking at an upgrade will choose an M1 for the cases in which it is vastly superior to a PC. Think Video editors. Many of the early reviews are from youtubers who do a lot of video work, especially transcoding, and they're blown away by the performance. But that isn't all users.

    A few suggestions: Get Haptic Touch, for SURE, to make the touch bar experience so much nicer. Also, there is a tiny menulet "Silicon Info" that lives in the menu bar and does only one thing: Tells you if the frontmost app is Apple Silicon or Intel. You can go to Activity Monitor for this (Architecture column), of course, but the menulet is very convenient.

    All told, I view the initial round of M1 Macs as an excellent start, and I think the challenge for Intel is whether they can push performance as rapidly as Apple will. It's pretty astounding that a "lifestyle company" has produced a cpu that is so impressive out of the gate. The challenge for Apple is to clean up loose ends, like minor Rosetta compatibility issues, external monitors, some special hardware cases like RAID, and then to push the M1 architecture hard, both with more cores and aggressive performance in machines that can supply a lot of power and cooling. Given the scaling of the iPhone Arm chips, I suspect that much more is to come.

    In any event, the competition will benefit everyone. X86 has been the dominant architecture, evolving into a monoculture, so some competition will certainly be welcome.

    I look forward to the full review. Sorry for the TED talk here...

    • madthinus

      In reply to someguy1984:

      Paul prefer the keyboard navigation that Windows offer almost universally to the sometimes support of MacOS

    • the88g

      In reply to someguy1984:

      I recently purchased an M1 Air and while the performance and battery life is great, I'm firmly on the side of preferring Windows and it has nothing to do with familiarity.

      100% it is all going to come down to what you use a Mac for but in my testing MacOS often comes out short.

      Keyboard junkies will be let down big time (happy to get into this further, doesn't matter if you are a pro), media enthusiasts will find dead ends for sure (good luck passing through a TrueHD or DTSHD bitstream through HDMI), PS2 emulation is basically a no (I suppose gaming is an obvious one) and so many things end up being a workaround - command line to stop your device from sleeping if you close it for only 5 minutes to move location (sometimes you don't want to kill your active SSH session), needing to hold ALT while opening the monitor settings just to change your screen refresh rate, copying a folder over another folder will not merge like practically any other OS causing general consumers to lose files, a single setting for touchpad and mouse scroll direction even though they have separate settings/checkboxes!

      I can go on really, it is an exhausting experience. I think honestly MacOS can really kill productivity.

      Touchpad and gestures. Sure they are great, but if I'm sitting at my desk connected to keyboard, mouse and monitors, Windows all the way.

      In any case, looking forward to part 2!

      • ivarh

        In reply to the88g:

        Until I started usinc a macbook pro as my main machine I have stopped using a external mouse when using the laoptop as a laptop. Work have provided me with a dell laptop and it's trackpad makes me use a BT mouse with it. I have never had the need to pair this mouse to my macbook pro. The trackpad and macos's gesture support is just superior to have to move the hand away from the keyboard. I remember my first work provided laptop back in the beginning of the 90's being. thinkpad 750c and I fell in love with the stick it had. But as I got older my fingers got to tired using it so I went to a external mouse. Then it was mouses until I started with mac's back in 2005 and got introduced to their trackpads. When my mbp is docked I use a unicomp keyboard and a logitech wireless mouse. If Apple goes belly up some time in the fututre I would most likly move to the pc vendor that mought their trackpad technonogy :)

    • curtisspendlove

      In reply to someguy1984:

      I feel the opposite way, but have never had the means or the motivation/necessity to do something like using a Windows PC for a month or so.

      I use macOS / Windows 10 / various flavors of Linux on a daily basis; on bare metal and in VMs.

      My preference, in order, are macOS > Linux > Windows. I know that is unpopular here; but preference is preference.

      I believe I can back that up with actual facts, but in the end OS preference is just that...preference.

      A lot of this is going to depend on what you do. For me, in the realm of software development, Apple has actually lost ground (typical web dev tool chains are more ...finicky... to install and manage on macOS) and Windows has gained ground (WSL is a very strong player in web dev tool chains). Linux, of course, is still the “gold standard” for most web dev tool chains.

      However, overall, macOS still retains much of the strength of its BSD underpinnings. And it is far prettier (standardized) than core Linux / BSD (subjective, I know). And Windows still suffers from fairly massive inconsistency.

      For me, macOS / Linux are where I make my money (get my work done) and Windows is the VM I fire up at the end of the day to play a game or two (Windows is mostly a glorified Steam launcher, for me...and it’s inconsistency rarely bothers me because I don’t actually have to use the Windows UI that much).

      (Caveat: I do, often, use Windows to develop on a few Angular / Node web I’ve extensively tried to setup my common tool chains on Windows and it is fine. But then I do start getting bitten by the many integration papercuts. It is better than it has been. But I still just don’t like it.)

    • Andi

      In reply to someguy1984:

      Why is it important for you to proselytize macos and Apple? Before the M1, we've just had 5 years of Apple bastardizing the macbook with compromised thermals, increased pricing with low performance and shoddy design, think touchbar and keyboard fails. Hell, Apple still sells Intel macs at roughly the same price as M1 macs in many territories.

      As for Windows vs Macos, it's a legitimate debate and many points can be made that Windows is the best consumer OS. By far easier to navigate, most compatible with various hardware and accessories, the elite gaming platform, best legacy support. In the age of "good enough hardware" why not extend legacy support? Look at the consoles how easy it is for Xbox to support all games ever developed.

      Best thing to happen to mac marketshare is by far ios development. Now we have tens of millions of devs that need macos that we didn't have before the iphone. Also, another side effect of the iphone is continuum. By sheer convenience of having your calls and messages relayed from your iphone, millions more joined macos.

      I will be the first to mock Intel's marketing fails because I always rooted for AMD and I have to respect Apple's decade of pushing chip design to the point it became viable for macos. Still, thanks to AMD, all is not over for x86. M1 is still fresh; let's wait and see some AMD designs, especially those with Zen3 15W CPU. Not as good as M1 but much much closer than Intel.

      • Greg Green

        In reply to Andi:

        ”compromised thermals, increased pricing with low performance”

        those have to be blamed on intel not apple. As the op mentioned the thermals on this M1 are amazing and throttling is very difficult to do and the impact is minimal, unlike the previous intel chips. All this leads to better battery life which is a huge sell for laptops.

        these $1000 M1 MacBooks were performing like $1800 intel MacBooks with better battery life and no fan noise.

        some reviewers compared the $700 iMac mini M1 to $3000 iMacs and got better encoding performance with less fan noise.

        for a first attempt the M1 is amazing.

      • prebengh

        In reply to Andi:

        Isn’t Paul doing just the same, advocating for Windows?

        And remember the M1 has been out for only 3 months, and it is only used in the base MACs. And the performance is comparable to the best laptop processors Intel can produce at the moment. In the near future I think Apple will have newer M-processors that are much more capable, probably leaving Intel far behind. But until they have them, they will still sell Intel based MACs.

        • Paul Thurrott

          Sorry, "advocating"? I got into this business to support the mainstream, not the fringes. 25 years later, that hasn't changed. What I advocate is doing what makes the most sense for you. I do prefer Windows to macOS, but that's based on decades of experience using each. I'm not randomly partisan for a particular platform. I'm sure everything in the future will be better. I always enjoy those kinds of arguments.
          • drachemitch

            Sour grapes over a valid critique seems very juvenile, especially when touting “experience”. You’re not perfect, and maybe you just learned one of the ways you aren’. It’s also jarring to read someone call the most successful computer manufacturer “fringe”.

      • F4IL

        In reply to Andi:

        By "waiting for AMD" to improve their design, you invariably give more time to apple to improve their own design too. Thus, it would probably be fair to expect apple's future (M2, M1X, etc) chips to be better than the M1 as well. I would also expect support for 3rd party hardware and software to get better for the Mac regardless.

  2. SaintKaze

    I officially need a a windows system that will at least last a day unplugged(6 hours at least ) , I swear i unplugged my go around 9am , but didn't start using it around 10 PM only to see it was t at 20% I'm so over this.

  3. crunchyfrog

    I'm still confused what an Intel Evo based PC means. Is this just marketing fluff? Looking at the specs, it all looks like the same PC specs we'd normally see, just with an 11th gen CPU.

  4. prebengh

    Paul, you want to try real world functionality.

    I am curious, what applications do you normally use in your daily use of a computer?

    Do you use an external monitor, or maybe more than one?

    Do you use/have an eGPU?

    Which applications, that you normally use, and which of your peripherals are not supported on the M1 Macbook Pro?

  5. spiderman2

    Did you try the M1 with an ultrawide monitor and with 2 external monitors?

    • prebengh

      In reply to spiderman2:

      The M1 Macbooks don’t support more than one external monitor out of the box. You can however buy an external docking station (from Plugable) so it can support up to 3 or 6 external monitors, even at 4k resolution (as far as I remember). But it add a cost of some 200 USD.

      There have been some issues with ultrawide monitors, but it should be solved in the latest MacOS 11.2.

      • Oreo

        In reply to Prebengh:

        This is not correct. The M1-based MacBooks supports one external screen at resolutions of up to 6K. You can use any Thunderbolt display natively, all you need is the proper cable. My LG 5K would would out of the box.

        If your screen has a different connector, then you need an adapter. They are not included, but they cost $30 or so. The one I use at work has a HDMI port.

        • prebengh

          In reply to Oreo:

          I can’t see what was incorrect in my comment? I didn’t state the 6k resolution for the one supported monitor, but through the Plugable dock you can support more monitors as is demonstrated by several Youtube videos.

  6. brettscoast

    Good piece Paul I genuinely enjoyed the comparisons so far in this fascinating head to head. There are similarities and yet circumspect differences in the underlying hardware on both systems. Look forward to your further posts on this.

  7. TheatreTwitt

    I'm genuinely interested to see some comparison when it comes to video performance, either editing or video heavy usage like live streaming.

    In the current climate, more people are occasionally doing these things and it would be nice to be able to do them on your daily driver.

    Running live events on current Dell Latitudes (work standard) so I'm looking forward to the Intel Xe graphics performance.

  8. illuminated

    The most interesting thing in this comparison would be the battery life. I have a suspicion that Intel CPUs are quite efficient when loads are light like watching a movie. However, the same laptop can eat the whole battery charge 4-5 times faster when it has to work harder like compile a big project. Would be interesting to see what the new Mac does in such situation. Is it going to eat battery like intel CPU, sacrifice some performance or just magically work faster without hitting the battery?

    • Saarek

      In reply to illuminated:

      This is not a scientific comparison, but I like playing the old Total War games on my Mac. My 16" MacBook Pro used to get around 2 hours of battery life when playing Medieval 2: Total War, the MacBook Air M1 I replaced it with gets around 5-6 hours of battery life.

      Incidentally the 16" MacBook got rather hot and sounded like a jet engine for the whole 2 hours, whereas the MacBook Air feels a bit warmer than usual and is of course silent throughout.

      I know it's now an old game, so not exactly taxing one would think, but the MacBook Air runs it beautifully under Rosetta and gets more than double the battery life. Quite outstanding result really.

      • illuminated

        In reply to Saarek:

        Not a bad test but games have the game loop which means consuming everything CPU has to offer. Maybe the better test would be something like a big compilation job? Compile linux kernel or something of that sort where the amount of work is predetermined. With games the result is pretty much the same if game loop runs 1 million or 10 million iterations in the same amount of time when power consumption could be insanely different.

        I have this feeling that when Intel CPU tries to boost the performance then it just throws everything at it. Something like berserk mode :)

        • Saarek

          In reply to illuminated:

          Possibly, I sold the 16" as it was depreciating far quicker than Mac's normally do and I don't travel for work at the moment due to Covid.

          I suppose anyone that uses a true Pro Mac knows that whatever Apple releases next is likely to humiliate Intel and then no one will want the Core i9 MacBook 16".

          My primary work machine is an iMac Pro with 64GB of Ram, which is now showing its age somewhat, and I am eagerly awaiting the Apple Silicon iMacs because the MacBook Air is faster at the huge data science projects I work on. I'm still amazed that a £1299 consumer laptop can destroy my £6000 iMac Pro!

          For me time is money. The quicker I can finish a project and move onto the next the more money I make, so my wallet is ready and waiting for the second these M2, or whatever they are called, drop.

          • illuminated

            In reply to Saarek:

            If time is money then cloud would be the best investment for you. It is cheaper to sometimes run stuff on a monster host in the cloud than to buy the most expensive hardware to run everything locally. I would have to be insane to buy hardware that I can rent for a few $ an hour on Azure or AWS.

            • Saarek

              In reply to illuminated:

              It's something I investigated. My iMac Pro is data crunching around 18 hours a day, almost 365 days a year.

              At the same time I frequently use a fully Loaded Dell Notebook, or a MacBook to run smaller jobs. My preference is Mac OS, but some of my clients insist on Windows so I use both.

              Frequently I am given access to files stored on corporate servers via VPN and that data cannot be stored in the cloud or even on my own secure NAS.

              For me it's still best to invest in my own hardware.

              • illuminated

                In reply to Saarek:

                Top of the line iMac pro is 18 cores and 256 GB of RAM. If job can be parallelized then you could shorten your 18 hour processing to something like 6 hours on 64-core beast in the cloud. Or properly implemented auto-scaling cloud app could crunch that data even faster. Architecture is complicated but scaling out in the cloud is insane. Starting 50 multi-core instances takes couple of minutes.

                • Saarek

                  In reply to illuminated:

                  I understand what you are saying. But when I ran a cost analysis it was still cheaper for me to buy my own system.

                  The iMac cost me £5495, but I claimed back the VAT so actually paid £3750. When I come to sell the iMac on I'll get at least £1000 for it, probably more. Let's assume the safe margin of £1000 back, my total cost comes to £2750.

                  It arrived on the 3rd of January 2018 and I'll be keeping it until the new Apple Silicon models come out.

                  By the time the new ones come out I'll have owned the iMac for around 4 years, so an estimated cost of £687 a year. If being nit picky I can add the cost of electricity into that.

                  Yes, I could run the jobs for my clients quicker via super computers in the cloud. But I only sign up to deadlines I can stick to and the iMac runs many processes throughout the night whilst I sleep.

                  Also, many of my clients will only allow me to work on their own servers and networks and would not allow me send files up to the cloud to be processed.

                  If I were running a data science team I would certainly throw the cloud into the mix, but as a freelancer it's just not for me at this time.

  9. nbplopes

    If you need more performance, better display, way longer battery life, silence ... MBP M1. Heck, even the MB Air out performs the Razer book in these categories.

    If you need more ports and Windows ... go Razer Book.

    As for looks, both look cool.

    Not that difficult of a comparison. It is really that simple. The rest is prose.

    EDIT: Personally I would not advise buying an MBP right now. Not that its not a better machine than the RB, but it is indeed still a first gen product as far as Macs go. To be honest, do not buy an MBP right now if you can. I suspect the all thing, the all design will be totally out dated in a few months. It is the worst time to buy one.

    • Jorge Garcia

      In reply to nbplopes:

      I think better display is debatable. I agree with Paul when he says that for productivity I'd take the slightly lesser display if it was matte.

    • prebengh

      In reply to nbplopes:

      Most likely the next Macbook Pro will be a 14” with new design, better performance, more ports etc, but most likely it will also be much more expensive, probably starting at 1799 USD. That could be the reason to buy one of the current M1 Macs.

      • macguy59

        In reply to Prebengh:

        I doubt the 14" will start that high. More likely closer to the price of the current M1 13" MBP (that it will replace)

      • nbplopes

        In reply to Prebengh:

        True. Apple may opt to follow the way it phases out older designs in iOS. These will probably be akin to the iPhone SE or something ... will see.But than again the proper laptop to compare with when the time comes will be probably with the sorts of Razer Blades with top configurations ... considering that a MBA M1 native apps (say Dvinci Resolve) already goes beyond the performance of those with entry level options.

  10. igor engelen

    I recently read an article about the native version of VLC. One of the biggest changes that were noticed was seriously reduced cpu usage. So basically longer battery life iso x times faster.

    Judging from reactions on websites a lot of people seem to think the M1 chip will make any native(or universal) app a lot faster which isn't necessarily the case.

  11. Chris_Kez

    At the risk of not contributing anything positive to the discussion-- and not to put too fine a point on it-- but my word the pissing match on the other side of the comments is sad. People really need to not get so wrapped up in this stuff. Paul has two computers. He's going to use them and share his experiences with them, alongside the history he brings to the assignment. He gave both computers credit where credit was due, and dinged them where he thought appropriate. What the heck more do you want? Should he use nothing but Mac OS for a year until he has fully mastered every aspect of it and ground down any natural preference for Windows? Should he learn Final Cut Pro so he can extol the 4k editing capabilities of the M1? Gee whiz.

    • mattbg

      In reply to Chris_Kez:

      What makes it more ridiculous is that we're at the point where, according to Apple themselves (paraphrasing), 98% of PCs on the market are fast enough for the vast majority of people.

      So why would it be a selling point (or a point of hysterical contention) that one is incrementally faster than the other?

      If any of those 98% wanted a faster PC, they could have got one from Intel or Apple at this point, because that 98% wasn't a selection of the fastest PCs money can buy.

  12. behindmyscreen

    I fully expect the 16 inch MBP coming later this year to support multiple external monitors.

  13. PanamaVet

    In reply to txag:

    I am not skeptical of Paul's ability to do an accurate comparison of competing hardware real world performance.

    I would choose him above anyone else based on his knowledge and reputation.

  14. melinau

    Might be interesting to also Review & compare some Laptops based on latest AMD CPUs & chipsets. The 4000 series are fast & relatively cheap, so hopefully the Ryzen 5000 mobiles will be even better!

    • crunchyfrog

      In reply to melinau: I just bought a Lenovo Yoga 6 with an AMD 4650U and I can easily say that it performs wonderfully and is great on battery. My standby test I let the laptop sit with the lid closed for 12 hours and it only used 4-5% of the battery. That's MacBook territory usually.

    • wright_is

      In reply to melinau:

      The new Dell Latitudes with the 5000 series chips look very interesting.

  15. Greg Green

    In reply to lvthunder:

    Wouldn’t those be necessary for the Mac pros?

  16. rosyna

    Tom’s Hardware has the slides from Intel with all the points that this sponsored advertising (M1 vs Intel) is supposed to touch on.

    I’m extremely pleased that Paul didn’t go in this direction!

    • Paul Thurrott

      I'm not sure what to say about direction since Intel literally provided no direction. And it's not advertising, either, sponsored or otherwise. No one is compensating anyone here.
      • prebengh

        In reply to paul-thurrott:

        As you stated on Windows Weekly you would have an online meeting with Intel, and you confirmed it took place last Friday, Feb. 5th.

        Although it may not be the case it could be seen as Intel trying to influence the review in the middle of the test, especially when they are initiating the test and supplying the computers.

      • pecosbob04

        In reply to paul-thurrott: So Paul, what do you attribute INTEL's interest in these comparison events to? The search for 'true enlightenment', the pursuit of 'knowledge for knowledges sake', or just the desire to be the altruistic benefactor of the huddled masses? They have an agenda and perhaps unwittingly you are part of it. Who are the other reviewers? Are any of them as complimentary of MacOs / Apple as some uncharitable heathens might misinterpret your even handed analysis of all things Windows / Microsoft as being.

      • curtisspendlove

        In reply to paul-thurrott:

        I'm not sure what to say about direction since Intel literally provided no direction. And it's not advertising, either, sponsored or otherwise. No one is compensating anyone here.

        I appreciate your transparency here, Paul. Note, for anyone skeptical, he talked about this a bit on Windows Weekly and said flat-out that he said he wasn’t going to offer an easy victory to Intel.

        I trust Paul’s integrity on this. We know he has a personal bias toward Windows, and that is fine. I’m guessing most people on this site share that bias. And there isn’t anything wrong with that. We like what we like. :: shrug ::

    • prebengh

      In reply to rosyna:

      It is funny to read the comments on a lot of internet sites regarding the Intel tests in the slides (just search for “macbook pro m1 vs intel 11th gen”). Almost noone believe Intel’s results show the real performance comparison between i7 11th gen and the M1. Most point to the fact that Intel changed computers for various tests (the most powerful for the performance and the least ones for the battery life as well as not daring to use the Macbook Pro for battery life testing instead opting for the Air).

      They also used the apps optimized for Intel processors, whereas most of the reviews I have seen elsewhere used industri standard test applications.

    • matsan

      In reply to rosyna:

      If Intel was sure about the mighty x86-platform they should have sent the reviewers one MBP 13" with i7 (albeit gen 10) and one MBP 13" M1. As it is now the water is so muddled (macOS vs. Windows being my major concern) it reeks of desperation.

      • wright_is

        In reply to matsan:

        Apple aren't using the Gen 11 processors and the remaining Intel Macs don't fulfill the Evo requirements.

      • Greg Green

        In reply to matsan:

        That’s essentially what the reviewers I watched did. They compared the new arm apple device with their previous intel apple devices. When it came to coding video or audio the M1 did as much or more for far less money, using far less energy and creating far less heat and fan noise.

    • txag

      In reply to rosyna:

      It is pretty clear that Intel is desperate to find ways to damage the M1 performance advantage. I think it’s an invitation to do an unethical review.

      • prebengh

        In reply to txag:

        Yes, and although Paul did not have a choice in the computers, Intel provided, it is remarkable that Intel provided the Macbook with 8 GB of RAM whereas the Razer has 16. It will probably not matter in most applications, but for e.g. graphics and video applications it will matter.

  17. SyncMe

    So the Razer is $1,599 and a comparable Mac is $1,499?

    Believe it or not this may be the bigger challenge to Intel. Apple does not need to make money on it's chips, just the total system.

    Intel should be worried when they are trying to justify their latest, high-end, 28W processor against a low-end 10W processor and has to cherry pick benchmarks.

    I use both Windows and MacOS everyday and Paul's reaction of "It's still a Mac" is the reaction I have with Windows, but I typically say "Oh crap it's Windows".

    • crossingtheline

      In reply to SyncMe:

      The Mac will hold its money a lot better than the Razer.

      I think we are at the iPhone moment for the Mac.

      The entry level MacBook Air will cover 95% of people's needs and perform well, it is well built, has better support than PC makers and will hold its money well.

      • Paul Thurrott

        Computers aren't investments, they're tools. I think the more important concern is length of viable service. Normally, Macs and premium PCs are probably very similar in that regard. But I think with the M1, artificially because it's the first-gen version, the effective viable lifetime could be lower. But we'll see. Overall, they will likely continue to be similar.
        • nbplopes

          In reply to paul-thurrott:

          The viable time of the current M1 is at least the same as the Razer Book. The metal offers better performance, better battery life, better display and comparable compatibility .... why do you think it might not be? Because it offer less ports and its “just macOS”? Do you think it it will not run the apps of M2 or M3 ...?

          This is a PC!

          • Paul Thurrott

            Well, for starters I'm not sure I agree it offers better any of that. I think that because it's a first-generation chip and the subsequent versions will be much more impressive.
            • nbplopes

              In reply to paul-thurrott:

              I was not expecting you would agree. The purpose of these reviews is to explain to the Windows community that the WinTel is still just fine. For that matter, your prose will be built to downplay any of the no Windows benefits. That plays well in favor of Windows, considering of course that its mainstream OS with 80+ market share.

              Much like you explain back in 2009 that IE7 was just fine compared to anything else. These nonesense does not play well in the long run. It’s a bandage to a leaking technology.

              Here is what you wrote about the worst Windows in history, in the age of 90+ market share, the Vista:

              “…it’s a compelling and fascinating product that will delight you over time as you stumble onto new features. It’s this “spontaneous smile” effect that I like so much about Windows Vista, and it stands in sharp contrast to the refined but stark and unfriendly world of Mac OS X and the raw, me-too copying of Linux. Windows Vista is a better operating system than the competition, for reasons that are both technical and practical.“

              Instead Instead, Vista was universally slammed in a land of 90%+ Windows market share. Quickly replaced by Windows 7.

              I understand that you strive to have a clear perspective over things. But your heart systematically clouds your reviewer reasoning. No matter the experience.

              I expect a Mac review here as clear as a Win review made by most “Apple press”.

              • wright_is

                In reply to nbplopes:
                Instead Instead, Vista was universally slammed in a land of 90%+ Windows market share. Quickly replaced by Windows 7.

                Well, after the catastrophy that was XP, it certainly started to pull Windows into a more modern, connected world, where security had to be taken more seriously.

                • nbplopes

                  In reply to wright_is:

                  XP was far from that. It was the first proper Microsoft do it all OS, Before that it was Win 2000 for business and Win 98 for the people. I remember downgrading from Vista to XP because it consumed resources like there was not tomorrow ... it was prettier though . With XP also Tablet PC was built on Top, came with my Toshiba M200 ... fun times.

                  Companies mostly skipped Vista.

              • Paul Thurrott

                Thank you for the psychological profiling. Always fascinating. /s Reviews are opinions. Opinions are formed by experience. We gain more experience over time. Does emotion play into it? God, I hope so, I'm a person not a robot. I'm not sure about that "clouding" anything. But you should have higher expectations of me. Based on experience. Because my reviews of Apple products are fair. Look 'em up.
        • wright_is

          In reply to paul-thurrott:

          I got caught with the switch from PowerPC to Intel on the Macs. I bought a first gen and it was dropped fairly quickly - 2012/2013, whereas it was running Windows 7 until 2018, when it finally died.

          On the other hand, I still have a Sony Vaio Core i7 (the original, before it got suffix generation numbers). That is still going strong, with an SSD, as a Linux laptop.

      • Greg Green

        In reply to crossingtheline:

        Especially on mobile devices this M1 chip offers equal or more performance than intel with less power, heat and fan noise. The videos of comparisons I watched showed intel chips generally using twice as power as the M1. For those stuck using laptops in a mobile environment this will be a big selling point.

    • someguy1984

      In reply to SyncMe:

      "Oh crap it's Windows". I feel the same, but I haven't given Windows a fair chance in years.

      On the money issue, you're right Apple doesn't need to make money on the cpu, just the whole device and/or getting people sucked into that increasingly service oriented Mac ecosystem.

      And there is also scale. Counting the iPhone/iPad Arm chips, Apple makes (or, rather, has TSMC make) VASTLY more chips than Intel does. For the first time in decades, there is another cpu line that has the scale of x86.

      Apple's been smart about many things, but getting massive manufacturing of a new, totally different cpu architecture and then scaling it (in a different way) to computers, is just brilliant.

      • wright_is

        In reply to someguy1984:
        For the first time in decades, there is another cpu line that has the scale of x86.

        But it is only available with macOS (or iOS)...

        We use mainly Windows at work and I use a Linux/Windows mix at home, from Raspberry Pis at the low end to a Ryzen 7 desktop at the high end desktop and Xeon Golds in the servers.

        The Pis are great for simple, low power solutions, like a dedicated DNS server with blacklisting (PiHole) and the desktop is great for image processing. But a lot of the software I use at work is Windows (and Intel) only.

        I'd love to have a play with an M1 Mac Mini, but I don't want to use macOS on it. If a more expandable version was available with Linux on it, I'd jump at trying it out. Maybe this will cause a shift somewhere in the general PC ecology, but for those stuck with Windows and Intel, it is an interesting side-show at the moment.

        • someguy1984

          In reply to wright_is:

          Sure, M1 is Mac only.

          In this sense, Paul is right, for how is the M1 at all relevant to Windows users? It isn't, at all, unless/until there's a decent Windows on Arm that can run through Parallels or something.

          But, Intel is worried about OEMS taking a hard look at Arm chips, but again, until Windows runs well on such systems, nothing will change. In the end, the users want their stuff to run well on their hardware of choice. For Windows/Arm this simply not the case.

          Very early on, Paul identified server farms as a market for Arm machines. I think that is spot on, because you can run Linux, and cut your power bill substantially with Arm. And that's a big expense at a server farm.

        • SyncMe

          In reply to wright_is:

          "but for those stuck with Windows and Intel"

          This is the real story.

        • curtisspendlove

          In reply to wright_is:

          I'd love to have a play with an M1 Mac Mini, but I don't want to use macOS on it.

          You lose a lot of the “magic” without macOS. There is work being done to get Linux core running on M1 and upstreamed into the kernel. However I wonder how much of the “secret sauce” they will be able to squeeze out of Apple Silicon.

          I imagine, in time, they will get the GPU acceleration and everything working; but will the quintessential stack (say Ubuntu / Firefox) be as efficient as macOS / Safari?

          I’d guess not. Apple has been integrating this stuff for years and optimizing its software with its hardware.

          • wright_is

            In reply to curtisspendlove:

            I agree, which is why I haven't gone for one. I used to use Macs and OS X, but Apple has diverged too wildly from where I want to go with an operating system, removing more and more control with each release.

            It is a shame. I first started using Macs in the mid 80s, but the last one I owned was in 2018, a 2007 iMac 24" model, which was running Windows 7 at that point, because Apple dropped OS support for it about 4 years earlier.

            • nbplopes

              In reply to wright_is:

              The last major OS update for iMac 24” 2007 was El Capitain. El Capitain support ended in 2018 (updates). So that is about 11 years of direct Apple support. After that you can still run the apps, the OS is just not updated. Now the integrated Apple services, say photos, reminders .... might stop working.

              PS: You can always try and install Linux too on systems older than 2007.

              • wright_is

                In reply to nbplopes:

                Lion was the last update for the 2007 iMac. It came with a 64-bit processor, but only a 32-bit EFI and Apple dropped support for that with Lion.

                • nbplopes

                  In reply to wright_is:

                  Yosemite, Mid 2007. With a patch we could install even Mojave, but it would not work with all variants. Now, models from 2006 stopped with Lion. This is as far as I recall.

                  Are you sure your iMac model was releases in 2007 and not 2006?

            • curtisspendlove

              In reply to wright_is:

              Yup. I love my Macs. And I know a lot of people just sell them and buy a new one before they age out. But I have a couple running Manjaro and I’m pretty happy with them. They are efficient enough.

              That said, I’m working on paring my collection of tech down to a more “normal” level. ;)

    • Paul Thurrott

      The Razer at $1199 is likewise comparable, specs-wise, to the MacBook Pro at $1299. Overall, they're comparable.
    • Saarek

      In reply to SyncMe:

      I think, at least to my mind, this is the first time in a long time where you can point at a Mac and claim that you get more for your money than on the normal PC side. In that respect it's a huge shift, especailly when you consider that the MacBook Air starts at $999 and is for all intents and purposes the same as the MacBook Pro, at least from a standard user perspective.

      I'm eagerly awaiting the true "Pro" Mac's along with the overdue refresh.

      • Paul Thurrott

        The 8 GB configuration of the Razer is less expensive than the Mac. The 16 GB configuration is more expensive.
    • wright_is

      In reply to SyncMe:

      The Razer is a premium device. You can get the same processor for much less. We pay between 700€ and 1100€ for 11th Gen laptops at work - mostly i5 and at the cheaper end of the scale.

  18. filipvh

    'It’s impossible to add RAM to an M1-based Mac later."

    Is the RAM in the Razr upgradable? It might not be part of the processor's SoC but in my experience most thin and light laptops use RAM soldered to the board and you need to factory order your final configuration anyway.

    • prebengh

      In reply to filipvh:

      I think Paul forgot to mention that the RAM on the Razer is soldered, so it is not upgradeable. The SSD is however.

    • ivarh

      In reply to filipvh:

      The ram in the M1 is a part of the SOC itself. This have several advantages but it makes it as Paul says impossible to upgrade. Also you only get 2 choices for the time being as the M1 chip only come in 2 ram sizes. I expect the newer versions of the M series SOC's wither will come in more sizes or have a 2ndary external ram bus, however a 2ndary ram bus for adding memory external to the SOC will come with performance hits.

      • filipvh

        In reply to ivarh:

        Yes, I'm aware of this. My point is that from the end user's perspective it's only a disadvantage compared with the Windows laptop IF the Windows laptop makes it possible to upgrade.

        If the RAM in the Razer is soldered to the board, you're still stuck with factory configurations only. The architectural distinction between SoC and soldered-on RAM becomes irrelevant for practical purposes.

        The Windows laptop might be offered with 32GB RAM from the factory (here in Australia it's 8GB or 16GB, same as the MacBook), but at that point you're outside 95% of the laptop-buying consumer market - and the target market for the current M1 MacBook - anyway. It's also pointless to speculate on what higher-end models will or won't do, since Apple has given nothing away.

  19. prifici

    Paul, I just wanted to thank you for putting your disclosure about Intel contacting you front and center in the article. Journalistic disclosure seems to be less frequent these days, especially with tech and gaming outlets that should absolutely know better.

  20. prebengh

    I wonder if the Office, Teams, Edge and Skype are applications that will show any significant difference in performance, no matter which CPU/system you choose.

    I know that only having one external display is a limitation, but I wonder how many actually use more than one. My guess it is in the 5-10% range.

    I have a Macbook Pro M1 (and two Lenovo PCs) as well as an Apple Watch. The Apple Watch unlocks the Mac almost instantaneous, about the same time one of the Lenovos use for face recognition (the other doesn’t have it).

    I have yet to hear the fans on the Mac, whereas just downloading and installing an application can turn on the fans on both Lenovos. They both have 8th gen Intel processors, it may be better on the 11th gen.

    • b6gd

      In reply to Prebengh:

      I used multiple monitors in the past. I do not care for them now, to much desk space taken up. I use the same 32inch LG 4K at home and at work. On my Mac's I set it to 1440p, HDPI or whatever they call it. I have it setup with "spaces" so when I RDP into a Windows computer/VM it does it in a separate space. Everything else in on the main space.

    • wright_is

      In reply to Prebengh:

      A majority of our users have 2 monitors. I currently use a 3-display set-up in the office and a 2-display setup at home (at work I use 24" displays, at home I have a 34" ultra wide or a 43" 4K display), including the internal display.

      • prebengh

        In reply to wright_is:

        Do you think that your use is the most common?

        I only stated that I think only 5-10% of users use more than one external monitor. I would guess a majority don’t use any at all.

        • wright_is

          In reply to Prebengh:

          The most common, no. But I would say, at my last 5 employers, over the last 15 years, 80% of employees had at least dual display set-ups. That is in the region of 750 users that I've worked with in that time who have had a minimum of dual-screen set-ups, some 3 or more.

  21. maddycom

    Interesting ... I say $1499 & $1599 is a lot money for either for what most people do with computers and those people also own smart phones.

  22. remc86007

    How does Apple plan to build M1 systems with dedicated GPUs? I don't know how this stuff works, but I imagine if Nvidia and AMD decide to play hardball they could just refuse to work with them leaving Apple to have to develop their own high end GPUs or abandon that segment of the market.

    • Greg Green

      In reply to remc86007:

      Apple has refused to work with nvidia already for a few years because of a problem with an nvidia gpu long ago. They’ve held that grudge for a long time.

      for most apple devices it won’t matter because everything is built in and unchangeable from the time you take it out of the box.

      their Mac pros are usually the only ones that have a replaceable gpu, so it’ll be interesting to see how the deal with that. Right now Mac pros use Radeon gpus.

    • curtisspendlove

      In reply to remc86007:

      How does Apple plan to build M1 systems with dedicated GPUs?

      I would not be surprised if we don’t see dedicated GPUs for most lines. In fact, I’d expect, if they do offer dedicated GPUs they will only be on the Mac Pro model. (Maybe the high-end iMacs ... but without some sort of redesign, I’m doubting it.)

      If they offer it, I’m betting against NVIDIA and betting on AMD.

      If they care about the professional graphics / video industry (and to a lesser degree the math / data industries) they really should support dedicated GPUs and high RAM environments.

      However, with their move to ML in custom silicon and such; I’m not convinced that they will.

    • b6gd

      In reply to remc86007:

      The current M1 has an 8 core GPU for the Pro and Mini, a 7 core GPU for the Air. I read an article that says the new round, for the 16inch Macbook will have a 16 and 32 GPU option. This M2? will also be used in the lower end iMac's.

      Article stated the long term plans for GPU were 64 core and 128 core GPU's for the iMac Pro/Mac Pro replacement in 2022.

      I do not think they plan to use AMD or NVIDIA again and honestly I do not think they need too. No Mac has ever had a super high end GPU from NVIDIA or AMD. I would say they have topped out at mid range at best. Mac's are not know for gaming so their GPU's focused on using their API Metal for light gaming and productivity work will be good for them.

    • txag

      In reply to remc86007:

      If it came to that, I would guess that Apple is capable of building high end GPUs.

  23. zself

    Thank you. This is what I'm looking for. Saves me time and effort to get your take. Much appreciated.

  24. ronh

    Great article Paul