I get that not everyone likes Apple (I don’t exactly love them either), but M1 was a very strong showing, IMO. Intel helped Apple look better, with all the execution woes and Kaby Lake refreshes. Had Intel been executing all these years, M1 would still be just as workable, but maybe not as competitive. I have no complaints about general performance--it renders web pages as fast as anything (Firefox), and my biggest demand is photo editing (20MP RAW) and occasional video editing. The point really was just to run the benchmark on this chip, and to see if it was even possible/playable. I really don't play video games any more, so I could care less how well it actually did, but it reminded me of playing on the last gen consoles (PS4/XboxOne). Despite the FPS dips, it actually seemed fairly consistent and didn't look too bad. Again, I wouldn't want to play it on a passively cooled setup anyway. For all I know, it started throttling during the bench.
Yes, all the companies can hype up their stuff. Intel has been hard at it lately, where some of the first words their new CEO said was how they can't be getting beat by a lifestyle company, and then a month or two later, they start bashing Apple and getting creative with their Blue Slides. All these companies know the excitement that builds around their launches, so they will use that to their advantage. Their are certainly some biased "review" sites out there for each camp, so you definitely want to go to the right sources for honest assessments. Anandtech isn't what it used to be, but they still keep it pretty scientific, and I found their assessment of the M1 to be spot on.
I don't necessarily have an issue with Apple, more with the people who are fanboys of Apple, and generally any fanboys
Yes, Intel "helped" them, Intel is 14++++++ for life
, but that does not mean that Apple only made a good chip just because Intel is stuck in time, Apple made a good chip regardless of Intel, and I am partially impressed by it. I am more curious though what lets say AMD can do with 5nm comparatively to M1, and what Intel can do with their 7nm, even if that might take 2 more years or more to get to 7nm.
Anyway, comparing different architectures is extremely tricky when it comes to performance, and then adding a different software stack makes it even more complicated.
In CPU general task M1 is quite strong, if the GPU is involved not so much it seems, and a "gaming" task seems to bring the chip to its knees, and I don't mean only GPU, but looking at the CPU scores in that screenshot, they are quite low CPU wise. I wonder if that is mainly because of the "we use so little power we don't need a cooler" mantra and the chip is energy starved and temperature limited, not a great combination in electronics.
If what you got is native code and that is the power of the chip, that does not look well for the future of M1 as a chip for the masses, if its Rosetta emulated, than the emulation is really bad, and I say this knowing all the benchmarks of the M1, it should not be anywhere as weak in the CPU section...but again, different architecture and god knows what software running it.
Anyway, you said you don't plan to game on it, so this is a rhetorical discussion, anything else, if you are happy with your purchase, generally that is a good purchase
And regarding hype, I am to old to to be swayed by some fancy words and some cute pictures or some paid promotional videos, if you don't want to be suckered into spending money on useless stuff, that's a trait one must acquire
And Intel's "lifestyle company" reference was just lame, you fight with your product not by throwing a tantrum because the "lifestyle company" showed you hot to better design a chip
And the thing that I should have said from the start, thank you for sharing the result, its interesting to see and think about.
