Using cherry-picked benchmarks, beleaguered Intel has resorted to claiming that its line of big, hot, slow, inefficient processors can best Apple’s first generation M1.
In presentation slides published by Tom’s Hardware, the claims over comparable hardware are questionable in some cases.
The slides compare a 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 and 16 gigabytes of memory against its own internal whitebox, packing the Core i7-1185G7 with four cores, eight threads, and a maximum clock speed of 4.8GHz, supported by 16GB of memory.
The slides generally appear to show Intel’s chip as being either comparable or superior to the M1 in various tasks, though with major caveats. For a start, the benchmarks use Intel’s “Real-world usage guideline” tests, a collection of trials that don’t seem to be actively followed by most other testers…
While a company aims to present itself and its products in the best light, and potentially in a way that brings competitors down in comparison, Intel’s presentation indicates it is doing so by jumping through hoops. Cherry-picking test results and using more obscure testing procedures than typical suggests Intel is straining to paint itself in the best light.
MacDailyNews Take: Unsurprisingly, Intel has no answers to their self-inflicted conundrum other than to jerry rig benchmarks in an attempt to fool the ignorant because they’ve been thoroughly embarrassed by Apple (and even by AMD) and hopelessly outclassed by Apple’e first generation entry-level M1. Much more embarrassment awaits the outmoded snail in months and years to come which no rigged benchmarks will be able to hide.
Again, beleaguered Intel should seriously consider becoming a maker of “lifestyle” hotplates. At that, they’d really excel.
(Our apologies to computer fan makers worldwide. We know you love Intel utterly and completely.)