The M1 was made on 5nm which have long been available to AMD and other competitors in volume.
What does HX 370 score at 10w?
But the result seems pretty obvious. Even the 7nm Ryzen U-series at 15W (e.g. 7730U) was beating the 5nm M1 on multi-threaded workloads and the HX 370 is well ahead of both on single-thread performance. Single-thread workloads aren't significantly power limited, so to not be the case the Zen5 HX 370 would have to be slower than the Zen3 7730U on threaded workloads at the same TDP, which seems unlikely.
Again, would like a source on that. Please no Cinebench R23.
https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...
Faster in Passmark MT, basically tied in Geekbench MT, faster in average MT score.
HX 370 vs. M1:
https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...
Faster in everything, ST and MT. ST difference is significant, MT difference is huge. Obviously this is expected because in this comparison AMD has the process advantage, but the expected thing is indeed what happens.
HX 370 vs M1, what's the perf/watt for SPEC and GB5/6 and Cinebench 2024?
HX370 consumes a lot more power. Hence, there aren't any fanless laptops available for it.
4 years later, AMD's chips still can't work in a fanless laptop.
At some point you just run out of benchmarks. The majority of benchmarks people ordinarily use already don't run on Macs.
> GB5 and GB6, M1 is faster in MT despite having 4 fewer cores.
It has the same number of cores as the 7730U. Half the M1's cores are E-cores, but that should be an advantage on a comparison at a given power level because E-cores have better performance per watt. The M1 gets within the margin of error of the same MT score on the benchmark you actually like even though the M1 is built on a newer process.
> HX 370 vs M1, what's the perf/watt for SPEC and GB5/6 and Cinebench 2024?
You keep asking for benchmarks that probably nobody has published.
> HX370 consumes a lot more power. Hence, there aren't any fanless laptops available for it.
It has a configurable TDP down to 15W. You can make a laptop that passively dissipates 15W. But you can also make a laptop with a fan in it which is capable of higher performance from the same silicon and then have a setting for "silent mode" that lets you switch between them at will. People generally like that better so that's what they make.
You just need GB5 or GB6. They are correlated to SPEC. Anything else is sort of worthless in 2024.
>It has the same number of cores as the 7730U. Half the M1's cores are E-cores, but that should be an advantage on a comparison at a given power level because E-cores have better performance per watt. The M1 gets within the margin of error of the same MT score on the benchmark you actually like even though the M1 is built on a newer process.
You're right, the 7730U does have 8 cores only. My mistake.
Why don't you supply your own sources? You're making a claim just the same as the OP, without providing any evidence in your favor. A good faith responder would do the legwork to provide a researched counterpoint.
To anybody that has actually been paying attention to CPU evolution over the years, the process node has clearly been the main differentiator between CPU performance. Intel had the process advantage and thus the CPU advantage, and now they don't.
Architecture matters too, but does not result anywhere near an order of magnitude difference, conventionally.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7292282?baselin...
Look at GB instead. GB is highly correlated to SPEC.
M1 is significantly faster in ST and MT while using a lot less power.
You are comparing a 7nm processor to a 5nm one, and yet the gap isn't even very large. Which was entirely the OPs point.
Does a 5nm AMD chip perform similarly to the 5nm Apple chip at the same wattage? (Again, performance does not increase linearly with wattage, as you're likely to cite something violating this logic in the next response)
You seem to not understand the point being discussed though, so no reason to discuss further
The gap is huge. AMD's 7nm chip typically uses ~5x more power than the M1 and is still slower.
>Does a 5nm AMD chip perform similarly to the 5nm Apple chip at the same wattage? (Again, performance does not increase linearly with wattage, as you're likely to cite something violating this logic in the next response)
No it does not. Apple's chips are significantly more efficient.
>You seem to not understand the point being discussed though, so no reason to discuss further
What is your point?