Apple swipes at Apple Silicon with optional benchmark applications

Apple Silicon has been out for a few months, with Mac buyers attracted to the high-performance enhancements the M1 had over previous Intel chips used by Apple in some of its products aige. However, the processor manufacturer still wants to state that its own products are still superior in real-world usage.

However, in presentation slides published by Tom’s Hardware, questioning the hardware claims is comparable in some cases.

The slides compare a 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 and 16 gigabytes of memory against its own internal white box, packing the Core i7-1185G7 with four cores, eight cores, and clock speed highest of 4.8GHz, backed by 16GB of memory.

The slides usually appear to indicate that the Intel chip is either comparable or better than the M1 in a number of tasks, albeit with major chips. To begin with, the criteria use Intel’s “Real-world User Guide” tests, a collection of tests that do not appear to be actively followed by most other testers.

This includes performing various tests using WebXPRT 3 in Chrome, Microsoft Office 365, and AI-based tools from Topaz Labs. There are also criteria that use tools more frequently, including HandBrake and Adobe Creative Cloud apps, but the data initially displayed comes from the unused tests.

Intel says the results show its chip as “over 30% faster overall and nearly 3x faster in the online image enhancement subscale” over M1, while “Some duties like PDF export” in Office 365 “up to 2.3x faster. ”

Intel Handbrake tests also seem to completely avoid the use of hardware-based transcoding on the M1, while using Intel’s QuickSync hardware norms for Windows testing.

Despite Apple’s focus on machine learning support in the M1, Intel is trying to fight back with the bizarre claim that its chip is 6x faster for Topaz Labs testing than the M1. On the Premiere tests, Intel seemed to be 1.7x faster, while Photoshop and Lightroom Classic tests that relied on Rosetta 2 translation for compatibility resulted in distances “nearly 1.5x faster faster ”on Intel.

Strangely, under game performance, Intel reveals a wider range of outputs, including how Hitman runs better on M1 than its own chip, while showing Intel ‘s comparative performance or better on other titles including Borderlands 3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Even more bizarrely, Intel takes a moment to point out that there is a library of games that are not “running on M1,” including Hitman 2, Metro: Exodus, GRID 2019, and “countless more ”- which the company counted as zero frames per second compared.

Intel also said that the M1 failed eight out of 25 tests it used to represent a “day in the life” for its Evo processor update. These failures ranged from relatively simple tasks, such as “Switch to Calendar in Outlook” and to “Start video Conference” in Zoom, which are easy to accomplish even on a Mac M1.

To try to counter Apple’s MacBook Air battery life claims up to 18 hours in its own tests, Intel instead claims that battery life will be 10 hours and 12 minutes under different test conditions, i.e. stream usage Netflix “and tabs” in Safari. Intel suggested that it was in the same ballroom as the Acer Swift 5 using the Core i7-1165G7 performing the same functionality as using Chrome, at 10 hours 6 minutes of battery life.

Intel vs M1 content creation criteria by Intel [via Tom’s Hardware]

Swipes will also be made against Apple for the price and the form factor, though Intel forgets the MacBook Air in the list it just used in a different comparison, as well as display limits exterior and port options.

While a company aims to present itself and its products in the best light, and perhaps in a way that brings competitors down in comparison, Intel’s display shows that it does so by jumping through hoops. Cherry’s construction test results and using clearer-than-usual test methods show that Intel is pushing to paint itself in the best light.

Despite being confident that it would support Apple ‘s move to Apple Silicon, there is pressure on Intel to keep its position at the top of the chip food chain. It has been criticized for allowing competitors to swipe in, including Intel’s own customers like Apple moving to create their own slits, as well as seeing competitors like AMD and Nvidia are rising in markets like AI processing.