I hate the "M1 vs Intel MacBook" comparison. Every Intel MacBook back to 2016 has broken thermals. They're all running at maybe half their rated clock speed. 13" MBP is a 4GHz part running at 1.4GHz. 16" MBP is a 4.8GHz part throttled to 2.3GHz. You're comparing M1 vs. a broken design which Apple broke.
Don't congratulate Apple for failing to ship trash.
There's an argument for efficiency on a laptop, no doubt, but that's not what the parent commenter is talking about.
M1 is the highest perf-per-watt CPU today, no question. Ignoring efficiency, there are plenty of faster CPUs both for single-core and multi-core tasks. That's what "my Hackintosh did the build in 5 minutes" is showing.
You're misunderstanding Intel's specs. If you want the chip to run within TDP you can only expect the base frequency across all cores, not the ridiculous turbo frequency. The best laptop chip Intel has right now is the i9-10980HK with 8 cores at a 2.4GHz base frequency and a 45W TDP. Apple's laptops are more than capable of dissipating the rated TDP and hitting the base frequencies (and often quite a bit higher), although the fans can be a bit loud. So Apple's designs are not broken, at least not by Intel's definition.
You can relax the power limits and try to clock it closer to the 5.3GHz turbo frequency. But how much power do you need? I can't find numbers specifically for the i9-10980HK, but it seems like the desktop i9-9900K needs over 160 watts [1] to hit a mere 4.7GHz across all cores, measured at the CPU package (ie. not including VRM losses). Overall system power would be in excess of 200 watts, perhaps 300 watts with a GPU. Good luck cooling that in a laptop unless it's 2 inches thick or has fans that sound like a jet engine.
You've got it backwards. Apple chooses the TDP. Intel provides the CPU to suit. Apple is choosing TDPs which are too small and then providing thermal solutions which only just meet that spec. They could provide better thermals without hurting anything else in the machine and get a higher base clock.
I assume they do this for market segmentation; see 2016 Touch Bar vs. non-Touch-Bar Pro. One fan vs. two.
The TDPs look appropriate for M1 parts. They're too small for Intel. I'm guessing that (a) Apple predicted the M1 transition sooner and (b) Apple designed ahead for Intel's roadmap (perf at reduced TDP) which never eventuated.
So, unfortunately, Apple have shipped a generation of laptops with inadequate cooling.
> very Intel MacBook back to 2016 has broken thermals. They're all running at maybe half their rated clock speed.
Are you saying it's an unfair comparison? The Intel Macs are operating in the same environment as the M1 Macs. It doesn't matter if the Intel parts could be faster in theory, because you're still dealing with battery and size constraints. If you want unthrottled Intel CPU in a laptop, your only options are 6 pound, 2 inch thick gaming laptops with 30 minutes of battery life. Now comparing that (or worse, a desktop) to M1 is unfair.
> 13" MBP is a 4GHz part running at 1.4GHz. 16" MBP is a 4.8GHz part throttled to 2.3GHz.
Apple's thermal solutions could be better, but they are designed within Intel's power envelope specs. e.g. The i9-9880H in the current 16" MBP is only rated for 2.3Ghz with all cores active at its 45W TDP. The
i9-9880H is a 2.3Ghz @ 45W part that can burst up to 4.8Ghz for short periods, not the other way around.
That's one of my biggest sources of skepticism with the M1 on the long-term — in lieu of improving thermal management, they instead reinvented _everything_ to generate less heat. Which is great! The current state of thermal management at Apple will work great at low TDPs, but they've procrastinated instead of improving. If they don't ever learn how to handle heat, this arch will still have a hard ceiling.
There's nothing in M1 that indicates that Apple learned how to improve thermal management, but lots to indicate that they'd still rather make thinner/lighter devices that compromise on repair, expansion, or sustained high-end performance — the even deeper RAM integration, offering binned parts as the lower-end "budget" option instead of a designed solution, or offering Thunderbolt 3, fewer PCIe lanes, and a lower RAM cap as being enough for a MBP or Mini.
Don't congratulate Apple for failing to ship trash.
There's an argument for efficiency on a laptop, no doubt, but that's not what the parent commenter is talking about.
M1 is the highest perf-per-watt CPU today, no question. Ignoring efficiency, there are plenty of faster CPUs both for single-core and multi-core tasks. That's what "my Hackintosh did the build in 5 minutes" is showing.