Hacker News
points by Grombobulous 2 days ago | 0 comments
Actually, they don’t! Intel Core Ultra Series 3 beats Apple laptops as of the M5 on battery life.

IIRC the Framework 13 Pro beats the MacBook Pro at both video streaming tests and office productivity with 300 bits brightness tests. (Framework live-streamed the video playback test, and the office provided productivity tests I referred to were done by Just Josh Tech)

Perhaps the M6 has leapfrogged but that remains to be seen.

[–] porridgeraisin 2 days ago
In usual developer type tasks, among my friend group what I hear is that panther lake laptops are competitive with M4 laptops. But, M4s do that with a 55Wh battery, whereas most panther lake laptops come with a 70Wh battery. So if you're discussing chip performance per watt then it's probably an edge to apple silicon.
[–] Grombobulous 2 days ago
72.4 Wh is the size of the M4 MacBook Pro battery, about the same size as the Framework 13 Pro.

Intel and now Qualcomm are really not far off on performance per watt. Mostly Apple maintains an advantage on single core performance.

The Panther Lake integrated GPU in the X7/X9 SKI is actually faster than the one you get in the base M5.

[–] porridgeraisin 2 days ago
You're right. I think I remember those numbers from an Air vs 3xxH comparison.
[–] dmitrygr 2 days ago
Neither of those have comparable perf
[–] Grombobulous 2 days ago
They do, please look up reviews of Panther Lake 338H/358H. Example: Lenovo Thinkpad X9 15p Aura Edition
[–] dmitrygr 2 days ago
I did. I am seeing single core geekbench scores of 2700 compared to my MacBook Air at 3500. This, for a laptop that is thicker and heavier than my air.
[–] Grombobulous 1 day ago
1. It’s Geekbench, not a real experience of using the system. A geekbench number being xx% slower doesn’t mean that the system is xx% slower at doing tasks. It’s a synthetic benchmark.

2. The Intel chips beat out the M5 in multi-core and GPU.

3. These Geekbench scores are close enough that they are in the same performance class. We aren’t talking about 1,000 versus 3,500. The end user isn’t noticing a performance difference between 2700 and 3500, especially since that number is single core only (most workloads can take advantage of multiple threads these days).

Even if we concede that the Intel chip is slower for single core tasks only we can’t just lie and say it’s not in the same performance class. It’s very clearly comparable by objective data.

What we can say definitively by objective measures is that Intel is behind by a year at most, which essentially doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of “which laptop to I buy?” It’s close enough that the processor shouldn’t be part of the buying consideration for the majority of consumers. Intel is not years and years behind what Apple is putting out there, this is not the M1 where Apple was beating Intel in performance and getting double the battery life. We are looking at much more incremental differences where the buyer will not notice a difference over the lifespan of the product.

[–] dmitrygr 1 day ago
multi core scores? So you'll happily accept a 100,000-core pentium one class CPU to replace your laptop? it will have higher multicore score. No? Really? Oh? why not?
[–] Grombobulous 1 day ago
What are you talking about? Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

Here’s a fun one: look up Cyberpunk 2077 benchmarks on Panther Lake compared to M5. It runs natively on both Windows and Mac.

[–] dmitrygr 17 hours ago
It was the logical conclusion of your claim that multicore score matters more. Lots of tasks are serial not parallel, that is why single core score matters.
[–] asadotzler 2 days ago
why tack on the goalpost moving? And geekbench single core isn't the only measure of performance.
[–] dmitrygr 2 days ago
in my original post, i said "perf", i am not sure what you imagined, but i am not moving anything, geekbench single core score is a perfectly reasonable thing to measure under the name "perf"
[–] jwilcoxson 2 days ago
Competition is a beautiful thing.