Article note: Oh, shit, now that there are independent numbers, looks like Apple wasn't cooking the results via thermal throttling the competition as much as I thought. That's a genuinely impressive part.
Enlarge/ Apple's new octa-core ARM big/little CPU is putting its high performance x86 competition on notice. (credit: Apple)
Original story 9:00am EST: There's a lot of understandable excitement around Apple's ARM-powered devices right now. And we've got traditional reviews of those devices and their ecosystems, for Apple fans and the Apple-curious. This is not one of those reviews—though reviews are coming imminently for some of the new Macs. Instead, we're going to take a closer look at the raw performance of the new M1 in comparison to more traditional x86 systems.
The M1's CPU is a 5nm octa-core big/little design, with four performance cores and four efficiency cores. The idea is that user-focused foreground tasks, which demand low latency, will be run on the performance cores—but less latency-sensitive background tasks can run slower and lower on the four less-powerful but less power-consumptive efficiency cores.
In addition to the eight CPU cores, the version of the M1 in the Mac mini has eight GPU cores, with a total of 128 Execution Units. Although it's extremely difficult to get accurate Apples-to-non-Apples benchmarks on this new architecture, I feel confident in saying that this truly is a world-leading design—you can get faster raw CPU performance, but only on power-is-no-object desktop or server CPUs. Similarly, you can beat the M1's GPU with high-end Nvidia or Radeon desktop cards—but only at a massive disparity in power, physical size, and heat.
Article note: Wow. There are some choices in that chart people will argue with, but it's a great presentation.
I've been comparing the current situation to that era in the 2000s when Netburst was failing and AMD hired the old Alpha folks resulting in the early Athlon 64 parts, but AMD actually pulled harder this time.
Enlarge/ Spoiler: When it comes to performance over the years, Intel is the slow and steady tortoise to AMD's speedy-but-intermittent hare. (credit: Aurich Lawson / Getty Images)
The comment wars between Intel and AMD fans have been hot for the last few release cycles, with a lot of digital ink spilled about which company has—or has not—improved significantly over the years. There's been no shortage of opinions about the current raw performance of each company's fastest processors, either. We thought it would be interesting to dive into archived performance benchmarks of the fastest desktop/enthusiast CPUs for each company to get a good overview of how each has really done over the years—and perhaps to even see if there are patterns to be gleaned or to make some bets about the future.
Before we dive into charts, let's start out with some tables—that way, you can see which CPUs we're using as milestones for each year. While we're at it, there are a couple of irregularities in the data; we'll discuss those also and talk about the things that a simple chart won't show you.
Twenty years of enthusiast computing
Year
Intel Model
AMD Model
Notes
2001
Pentium 4 2.0GHz (1c/1t)
Athlon XP 1900+ (1c/1t)
2002
Pentium 4 2.8GHz (1c/2t)
Athlon XP 2800+ (1c/1t)
Intel introduces hyperthreading
2003
Pentium 4 Extreme 3.2GHz (1c/2t)
Athlon XP 3200+ (1c/1t)
2004
Pentium 4 3.4GHz (1c/2t)
Athlon 64 FX-55 (1c/1t)
2005
Pentium 4 3.8GHz (1c/2t)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2c/2t)
2006
Pentium Extreme 965 (2c/4t)
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2c/2t)
Intel takes the undisputed performance lead here—and keeps it for a decade straight.
2007
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (4c/4t)
Phenom X4 9600 (4c/4t)
Intel and AMD both launch the first true quad-core desktop CPUs
2008
Core 2 Extreme X9650 (4c/4t)
Phenom X4 9950 (4c/4t)
2009
Core i7-960 (4c/8t)
Phenom II X4 965 (4c/4t)
2010
Core i7-980X (6c/12t)
Phenom II X6 1100T (6c/6t)
Intel and AMD both introduce hex-core desktop CPUs
2011
Core i7-990X (6c/12t)
FX-8150 (8c/8t)
2012
Core i7-3770K (4c/8t)
FX-8350 (8c/8t)
Intel abandons hex-core desktop CPUs—but few miss them, due to large single-threaded gains
2013
Core i7-4770K (4c/8t)
FX-9590 (8c/8t)
AMD's underwhelming FX-9590 launches—and it's Team Red's last enthusiast CPU for four long years
2014
Core i7-4790K (4c/8t)
FX-9590 (8c/8t)
Intel's 5th generation Core dies stillborn. AMD releases low-power APUs, but no successor to FX-9590
2015
Core i7-6700K (4c/8t)
FX-9590 (8c/8t)
2016
Core i7-7700K (4c/8t)
FX-9590 (8c/8t)
Strictly speaking, 2016 was an Intel whiff—Kaby Lake didn't actually launch until January 2017
2017
Core i7-8700K (6c/12t)
Ryzen 7 1800X (8c/16t)
Launch of AMD's Zen architecture, return of the Intel hex-core desktop CPU
2018
Core i9-9900K (8c/16t)
Ryzen 7 2700X (8c/16t)
2019
Core i9-9900KS (8c/16t)
Ryzen 9 3950X (16c/32t)
AMD's Zen 2 architecture launches, Intel whiffs hard in the performance segment
2020
Core i9-10900K (10c/20t)
Ryzen 9 5950X (16c/32t)
AMD's Zen 3 finally crushes Intel's long-held single-threaded performance record
Although both Intel and AMD obviously launch a wide array of processors for different price points and target markets each year, we're limiting ourselves to the fastest desktop or "enthusiast" processor from each year. That means no server processors and no High-End Desktop (HEDT) processors either—so we won't be looking at either Threadrippers or the late model XE series Intel parts.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
