Apple’s M1 processor and Macs were undoubtedly the biggest tech news that closed last year. The performance, especially for a first try with a desktop-class ARM-based processor, made many question Intel’s supremacy in this area. There are of course still things that Apple’s silicon may not be able to do right now, but that’s only a matter of time. In the meantime, Intel seems to be on the offensive with a number of benchmarks that show just how inferior the Apple M1 really is.
Given that Intel is making the claims in favor of its own products, it’s not really difficult to take things with more than a grain of salt. The chip manufacturer supplied the numbers Tech news sites to let them spread the word, but that strategy may have failed instead. These pages naturally tried to question these claims and revealed some uncertain aspects of Intel’s boasting.
Intel naturally picked its struggles and focused on areas of performance and, surprisingly, battery life. While there are few arguments that the benchmarks actually produced these results, the question arises as to whether these benchmarks really convey the full story. For example, some cite Intel’s selection of software like Topaz Labs’ AI tests, as the apps are specifically designed to take advantage of Intel-specific hardware acceleration, which is an unfair advantage.
There are some points that are almost not figments that Intel doesn’t even need to point out anyway. It’s no surprise that the Apple M1 is “underperforming” in some games because it just can’t run them. Intel’s argument, of course, is that software compatibility is an issue on Macs, but that also depends on what you’re measuring against. Similarly, the Apple M1 Macs fail the Evo Platform tests because the metrics for these were created by Intel itself.
To be fair, there are also a few things that Intel-based Windows PCs have an edge over Macs, like in terms of form factors and choices, but that’s always been the case with Intel-based Macs, too, anyway. That doesn’t exactly count as a measure of performance anyway and just sounds like a company that tries to point out all the shortcomings of its new competitor regardless of the context.