While everyone is obsessed by render speeds and distracted by benchmarks, let’s look at what arguably should be every technologist’s prime concern in the 21st century— the effects of these news CPUs on the planet, especially in the midsts of a rare energy crisis. Until recently we didn’t have much to compare them to, but with Apple’s M1 Pro and Max being out there in the wild, and I myself having used one for over a week now, we have some serious leg to stand on when stating that Intel is blatantly disregarding this planet’s efforts to revive itself.

Intel’s new Alder Lake was awaited by tech enthusiasts as nearly the second coming of Intel, a “slap-back from Intel to Apple” for leaving them. A sort of “we can show the world that we can outperform the M1” move, and get back customer confidence or even make “Apple fanboys” rethink their allegiance. Well, the second coming is here, and the numbers are in. Intel’s target to create a CPU that outperforms the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max has been met. 10% faster in single-core, and 50% faster in multi-core performance. That wouldn't be too suspicious news if we were actually comparing the right things. It’s baffling that so far every reviewer out there keeps ignoring the fact that one is a SOC, the other is a CPU.

The wrong comparison

Most of those who want to turn this into a debate, jump immediately to the fact that one is a desktop-grade CPU the other (in its graphics-less iteration) is a laptop-grade CPU. Except, it’s not! Apple’s M1 is not a CPU. Period. Sure, even apple compares their SOC to other laptops out there or even their own desktops, but the comparisons pertain to processing power, graphics capabilities, and power efficiency. Intel’s Alder Lake, while featuring both cores for efficiency and performance, is essentially still just a CPU, relying on a number of other individual physical components, to be of any use in a computer. The M1 however, is a SOC with a CPU, unified memory, efficiency and performance cores, media engines, and GPU cores. For all intents and purposes, it’s a computer in itself waiting to be slapped onto a motherboard connecting it to outputs. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying it a bit, but you get the point.

To those arguing that Alder Lake is a desktop component, while M1 is for laptops, I’ll just say, get your facts right. The M1 already sits cozily in the 24" iMac, and if the rumors are to be true, the iMac Pro and an updated version of the Mac Mini will feature the M1 Pro/Max. That part of the comparison is fair, but only until we look at power consumption which is the main point of this story.

The Intel Alder Lake’s small print

“One Intel Alder Lake please, and a nuclear power plant on the side while you’re at it.” — is the way I would walk into a shop intending to buy this CPU. What I find to be a massive oversight in the EU legislation, is the apparent lack of regulation around computer parts’ energy rating. The other day I bought a new 4K monitor and had not only on the box but inside the box as well, a huge sticker stating the energy rating on a scale of A+++ to D. You’d find the same on fridges and many other electronics, like your TV.

This, somehow doesn’t seem to apply to internal parts of a computer, and it should, and maybe should start with CPUs such as Intel’s Alder Lake and Apple’s M1 SOC range. At first look, Alder Lake looks like a smashing new component you’d want in your computer. Heck, if I’d have a PC tower, I would probably be impressed as well by the benchmarks. That being said, one of the most crucial specs of it are — well, not hidden — just not advertised. The fact that this CPU is about 20% more power-hungry than its predecessor, outputs more heat than your stove at 241W peak power is very casually just thrown into the spec-sheet as if it were business-as-usual.

Except that it’s not and it’s infuriating to see Intel compete exactly the way it always did — throw more electrical power at the problem and pretend it doesn’t matter, or no one will notice. In comparison, the general consensus seems to be that the M1 Max SOC draws around 70–120W of power at peak loads. That’s essentially half or less, and if we take into account claims that an enthusiast-grade Alder Lake will draw somewhere between 400–500W of power, then we may as well just stop with the futile comparisons because from Apple’s perspective the M1 Max is already to be considered an enthusiast machine, one that a select few will need, and a few more buy, just because they can.

Irresponsible competition

To all those hailing Intel’s effort of staging a come-back and competition overall being good for consumers, I’d advise you to stop and think for a second. This particular CPU is anything but good for the consumers. Forget the initial purchase cost, which is high — because Intel — it also comes with a lot of hidden costs:

• a need for an expensive cooling system,
• a need for a more powerful power source (PSU),
• a GPU,
• a potential need for a more efficiently ventilated case,
• your high energy bill for the foreseeable future.

All of the above components draw additional power. And power — last time I checked — doesn’t come for free. In Europe, there’s a legit energy crisis, one compared to the one in the 70s. In the UK, smaller energy companies are dropping like flies due to the high cost of energy. Price hikes in many European countries have been applied and passed on to the consumer three times in 2021 alone! Our world leaders are talking more about climate change than ever before, the carbon tax has been increased, efforts to cut down pollution are underway, consumers are advised and educated to opt for energy-saving devices, and amidst all this concerted pro-planet effort Intel walks in all excited with their Alder Lake power-hungry nightmare, not just to environmentalists, but any sane human being who doesn’t want to pay an arm and a leg for doing work on their computer, playing a game or watching Netflix.

Intel’s Alder Lake is a slap in the face of every cost-conscious, or environmentally responsible customer.

It’s not about which CPU wins

I know we tech nerds care about the numbers, I suppose we’re built like that. We compare and contrast, often side with companies and brands for mostly technical reasons. But I think it’s high time to put those performance numbers aside and look at it all from — I suppose — a more philosophical approach — what is the knock-on effect of a certain technology choice. I for instance upgraded to the iPhone 13 Pro because I knew it would provide me with great battery life and result in me using less power. Same for the M1 Pro. These weren’t the only considerations, of course, but they were convincing factors at the end of the day.

While I do not want this story to be interpreted as a pro-Apple and anti-Intel post, I must say that as it stands, Apple’s philosophy is much more aligned with the world’s efforts to save the planet. Is it perfect? By no means. But looking at taking the power you have and squeezing as much performance out of it as possible rather than designing something really powerful and then just accepting the environmental costs with a shrug as Intel seems to do, I think is a much more future-proof approach. If Intel does turn around and create something even more energy efficient than the M1, I’ll be the first one to congratulate them, and at that point, I’ll call it a real competition. As it stands, I cannot consider Intel’s efforts to be anything else but an ignorant capitalistic race with utter disregard to consumers’ needs and environmentally conscious efforts.

Attila Vago — Software engineer, editor, writer, and occasional music critic. Pragmatic doer, Lego fan, Mac user, cool nerd. JS and Flutter enthusiast. Accessibility advocate.