You are reading the article Is Intel Core I7 Better Than Apple M1? updated in December 2023 on the website Daihoichemgio.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested January 2024 Is Intel Core I7 Better Than Apple M1?
Is Intel Core i7 better than Apple M1?Is Intel Core i7 better than Apple M1? Let’s find out
Apple’s impressive M1 chip was released in 2023 and remains a top-tier processor for their mobile devices even now, almost 3 years later. At the time, it was thought to be the most powerful mobile processor, but things have changed. Intel’s latest i7 mobile processors have also proved themselves to be pretty capable, so let’s compare the two.
Now Read: Best CPU for gaming 2023
Today, we find out: is Intel i7 better than M1?
What is the Intel Core i7?
Intel Core i7 is a family of high-end desktop and laptop processors. CPUs feature above-average specs and deliver incredible performance, but also have a fittingly high-end price point.
Today, we’re focusing exclusively on the mobile processors from the Core i7 lineup, since it would be unfair to compare the mobile Apple M1 chip with a desktop i7 processor.
Back when the M1 processor was released, it was often compared to the i7-1165g7. But with the release of Alder Lake, Core i7 mobile processors saw a considerable upgrade to their core and thread count, thanks to the inclusion of smaller efficiency cores on the CPU die.
The best i7 mobile processor we have available currently is the Core i7-1370p. It was released only recently and features some impressive specs.
Cores: 6 P.cores / 8 E.cores
Boost clock frequency: P.cores 5.2GHz / E.cores 3.9GHz
Base TDP: 28 W
Max TDP: 64 W
iGPU: Intel Iris Xe Graphics
Apple’s M1 specs
The base Apple M1 chip has the following specs:
Cores: 4 P.cores / 4 E.cores
Boost clock frequency: P.cores 3.2GHz / E.cores: 2.1GHz
TDP: 15 W
iGPU: 8-core GPU
How do Intel Core i7 processors compare to Apple’s M1 chip?
As obvious from the above specs, Intel Core i7 processors offer much better performance than the Apple M1 chip. While the M1 chip is optimized very well for the Mac, software optimization can only get you so far, and it can’t make up for a physical lack of cores or a lower clock speed.
The recent Core i7 CPUs are just incredibly powerful. Even the older 1165g7 outperformed the M1 chip in most scenarios, and the difference has only grown since.
However, it’s worth noting that the base Apple M1 chip still retains its throne in one area – power efficiency. It consumes a mere 10 to 15 watts of power, which is so low that the MacBook’s battery can last up to an impressive 18 hours.
Core i7 mobile processors, while they do offer better raw performance, aren’t close to being as power-efficient with their 64-watt max TDPs, and will cause their laptop’s battery to die sooner when placed under a heavy burden.
Raw performance is less of a concern on mobile devices than it is on desktop computers because factors such as portability, convenience, practicality, and battery life take precedence.
In battery life, at least, the M1 outperforms the Intel i7. If you’re looking for a laptop that has an extremely long battery uptime, go with an M1-equipped Macbook.
Final word
Intel i7 is indeed better than M1 in terms of raw performance. However, i7 mobile processors consume much more power than the M1 chip, reducing battery uptime. If you’re looking for power, go with the Intel i7. If you’re looking for longer battery life, go with Apple M1.
You're reading Is Intel Core I7 Better Than Apple M1?
Smartsheet Vs. Excel: Is Smartsheet Better Than Excel?
So, which is better for you? Let’s find out.
Table of Contents
Smartsheet vs. Excel: Which Is Better?Excel is a powerful statistical tool with project management capabilities, and Smartsheet focuses on collaborative task management.
However, both programs have many overlapping features, so let’s look at how they differ.
Features
Available views. Excel is limited to the traditional grid view, whereas Smartsheet has several customizable views, including Kanban boards, Gantt charts, grid views, and calendar views.
Collaboration and project sharing. Smartsheet is an online platform, so updates happen in real-time. It allows users to share and track milestones, automate notifications, and update the project simultaneously. Excel does have collaboration capabilities, but some features are limited when co-authoring, and you must share files via OneDrive.
Project organization. Smartsheet allows you to create a custom project dashboard by dragging and dropping widgets to organize key information better. Further, it’s possible to create task lists with subtasks in Smartsheet. With Excel, this level of work management needs to occur manually.
Version history. With the desktop Excel app, it’s hard to track document versions and edit histories. Smartsheet features changes-over-time tracking and allows you to see who did what and when in each cell in each document. It also allows you to limit access via sharing controls so that only certain team members can alter certain parts of the sheet.
Data analysis. Excel is one of the most popular tools for statistical analysis and tracking datasets. Excel has several features that make it perfect for this job, from shortcuts to formulas that can remove much of the manual work involved in a field like accounting. Smartsheet has several data visualization features, and for light work will be more than suitable. However, Excel is currently the most powerful solution for data analysis.
Excel outperforms Smartsheet when analyzing large amounts of data, using complex formulas, filtering, or running macros. Smartsheet, on the other hand, is the clear winner when it comes to project management capabilities.
However, it’s now possible to export data from Smartsheet to Excel and back again. The best resource management software may combine the two — Smartsheet for project tracking and Excel for data-intensive activities.
Integrations and CompatibilitySmartsheet is available online via the web-based app and as an Android/iPhone app. Also, it integrates with around 130 professional services, including Box, Dropbox, Zapier, Salesforce, Jira, DocuSign, Google, and more.
Excel is available as a web-based app and on Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS. It integrates with nearly 800 other apps, including Power Bi and Azure – over six times the amount that Smartsheet integrates with, though this gap is constantly narrowing.
PricingSmartsheet and Excel are similarly priced, though Excel is more flexible in purchasing options.
Excel Online is free, but it’s a heavily slimmed-down version of the desktop app. The desktop app costs $159.99 as a one-off fee or $6.99 per month as part of Microsoft 365.
Smartsheet is available at $7 per month for Pro users and $25 per month for businesses.
Ease of UseBoth Excel and Smartsheet are relatively easy to use, though to get the most out of either app, they both have a substantial learning curve.
In terms of collaboration, Smartsheet is far easier to use. Multiple users can make changes to a document without the headache of having multiple versions floating around. It’s also easier to access the program from different devices.
However, Excel remains more or less ubiquitous, meaning that overall functionality and integrations are much broader. A side-effect of this is that there are endless Excel templates, how-to guides, and detailed tutorials on the internet you can tap into.
Smartsheet vs. Excel: Which Is Better?Smartsheet and Excel are powerful tools in their own rights, but they have different primary functions.
If you’re looking for a project management tool, then Smartsheet will likely be more useful than Excel. However, start with Excel if you need a powerful data visualization and analysis tool. If you need resource management and a powerful statistical tool, you might consider investing in both programs and combining their capabilities.
Ten Ways Ipad Air 2 Is Better Than Ipad Mini 3
Deciding between the original iPad mini and the iPad 4 was tedious due to a feature gap stemming from the notable hardware differences between the two. On the other hand, the choice between the iPad mini with Retina display (or the iPad mini 2, as it’s now called) was a no-brainer. Both came outfitted with essentially the same hardware— from the sensors to the A7/M7 chips to the cameras — so the decision came down to picking your preferred screen size.
Here are ten iPad Air 2 features that the iPad mini 3 lacks which make the bigger model a better buy and arguably the right device to boost your tablet computing.
1. Fully laminated Retina displayThe iPad Air 2, the first Apple tablet with the fully laminated display. We’re talking about the same process technology Apple uses in iPhone manufacturing, which makes the images appear as if they were painted directly on the glass. By combining the three separate screen layers — the cover glass, touch sensor and LCD — into one, optical bonding doesn’t just eliminate the gaps between the layers, but gets rid of the internal reflectance caused by those gaps. In turn, you’ll enjoy richer colors, better contrast and sharper, more vivid images overall on the iPad Air 2.
2. Antireflective screen coatingWith a custom-designed antireflective coating, the iPad Air 2 reduces glare by a whopping 56 percent, making it “the least reflective tablet in the world”. The new mini doesn’t have it, meaning its 7.9-inch Retina screen just isn’t as clear and readable in different kinds of environments as the iPad Air 2’s 9.7-inch panel is.
3. Thinner profileAt just 6.1 millimeters, the iPad Air 2 is the thinnest iPad yet. By comparison, the iPad mini 3 is the iPad Air-7.5 millimeters thick. You may not care about thinness at all, but many people do and the 1.4 millimeter difference is definitely visible to the naked eye.
4. A8X processorWith a billion more transistors and faster architecture, the iPad Air 2’s new A8X processor delivers a 40 percent gain in compute performance and more than double the graphics performance (2.5 times faster, to be precise) versus the A7 chip ticking inside the iPad mini 3 (and the previous iPad Air). Your apps and games will run a lot smoother on the iPad Air 2 and iOS 8 will be more responsive and fluid on it compared to the iPad mini 3. And thanks to the A8X, the iPad Air 2’s cameras have enhanced face detection and better noise reduction.
5. M8 motion coprocessorThe iPad mini 3 still contains the last year’s M7 motion coprocessor whereas its bigger sibling packs in the latest M8 chip that debuted last month on the new iPhones. Whereas the M7 continuously measures data from the accelerometer, compass and gyroscope sensors without taxing the main processor, the M8 adds support for a new barometer sensor. And because it continuously calibrates all five sensors — barometer, gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS and compass — the M8 helps improve power efficiency.
6. Better iSight and FaceTime HD camerasMoreover, its front-facing camera is virtually unchanged, as opposed to the iPad Air 2’s FaceTime HD shooter with an improved sensor for crisper video calls, even in low light. In short, you’ll take better selfies on the iPad Air 2.
7. Burst modeThe iPad mini 3 does’t support Burst camera mode because that feature requires the A8X processor, which the mini doesn’t have. Compared this to the iPad Air 2, which lets you fire off ten photos per second, with the software automatically detecting smiles and blinks to pick the best shot.
8. Slow-mo video captureThe iPad Air 2 can shoot dramatic slow-motion videos at 120 frames per second, a feature not found on the new mini. In fact, the iPad Air 2 is the first iPad with Burst mode support.
9. Three times faster 802.11ac Wi-Fi 10. Barometer sensorAn all-new barometer, exclusive to the iPad Air 2 and new iPhones, senses air pressure to provide relative elevation that can be fed to iOS 8’s Motion app. You just can’t do that on the iPad mini 3 without using a specialized accessory compatible with Apple’s HealthKit.
It would be premature to say that Apple has deliberately underpowered the iPad mini 3 in order to push undecided shoppers toward a pricier iPad Air 2. If you ask me, engineering teams have been spread thin and may not have had enough time to pack all of the new features into a smaller device yet.
Apple will continue to sell both previous versions of the iPad mini and the original iPad Air at reduced prices starting at $249 and $399, respectively.
Speaking or prices, 16/64/128GB iPad Air 2 models are $499/$599/$699 while the iPad mini 3 will run you $399/$499/$599 for the same 16/64/128GB storage tiers.
Add an extra $130 for 4G LTE cellular connectivity.
Are you disappointed that the latest iPad mini doesn’t keep up with the iPad Air 2 hardware-wise? Do the aforementioned goodies justify the iPad Air 2’s higher price tag, do you think?
And finally, are the aforementioned hardware features worth an extra $100?
For more in tech specs wars, check out Jeff’s quick and dirty iPad Air 2 vs iPad Air comparison.
Should Science Make Us Better Than Well?
by John MacNeill
another way of saying “afflicted with roughly the same diseases as everyone else.” But as we’ve seen in this special issue, we are belly-flopping our way into a world in which more and more medical interventions hold the promise of making us better than well, to borrow a memorable coinage from Peter Kramer’s 1993 book Listening to Prozac. We’re working on an entire suite of biological enhancements: smart drugs to improve memory beyond normal, doping methods that promote muscle growth by inhibiting certain proteins, gene therapy to stimulate the birth of neurons in the brain to above-normal levels. If you can imagine it, some scientist is mucking around in it. I know this firsthand. In my lab at Stanford University, we’re developing gene-therapy approaches to, among other things, transfer genes into the hippocampus–an area of the brain involved in learning and memory–with the goal of making a rat learn better under stress, a state that typically impairs cognition.
What we’re really talking about here is becoming above average, and that’s where things get tricky. The average person often has trouble with the mathematics of averageness. So even though air travel is safer than traveling by car, most people fear the former more than the latter because people like to be in control and because the average person considers himself to be a better-than-average driver. Or there’s the physician who ignores findings in clinical research in favor of her gut feeling, because the average physician thinks she is a better-than-average physician. And then there are the mathematically challenged social critics who sincerely believe that our schools should be producing nothing but above-average children. The ideal of fostering an above-average society is, by definition, doomed.
Still, with an imagination steeped in science-fiction literature–and a deep-rooted trust in our ability to solve humanity’s problems–it’s not hard to dream up fanciful ways in which science will make us better than well. But I think it’s a good idea to consider whether this sort of tinkering is a good idea. What are some of the worrisome aspects of us White-Labcoat Guys futzing with our bodies and minds? A partial list:
the Spurs, with their prosthetic forearm extenders. Who cares? It’s as exciting as watching to see if the PC team defeats the Macs at virtual synchronized swimming.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with making us better than well, but there are certain lines that should not be crossed. One boundary I hear often is that we should not alter the normal chemistry of the brain. In this scenario, it would be fine to perform gene therapy in, say, the bladders of aging men, to banish the inevitable increase in what a polite doctor might call urinary urgency, so that middle-aged men would need to go to the bathroom only once a day, at exactly noon. The problem with this “keep the brain sacrosanct” strategy is that we already alter the brain’s neurochemistry all the time. The average person who has gotten no sleep the previous night is pretty useless–unless she makes herself neurochemically better than well with the timely ingestion of a cup of caffeine.
Another popular do-not-cross line involves inheritance: We should not manipulate the germline, which would allow hardwired genetic changes to carry on to the next generation. In this view, if you want to splurge for cosmetic surgery to get some fancy neon antler implants, that’s your puzzling prerogative. Just don’t manipulate your germline so that you pass on the antler trait to your kids.
But couldn’t controversial science also determine what traits are not passed between generations? Consider Tay- Sachs, a congenital disease in which massive deposits of lipids build up in the brain, destroying it–and the child–within a few years. Most people would agree that this constitutes a less-than-well disease state, and they would be comfortable with prenatal screening to eliminate the disease from the gene pool. But what about other ideas for manipulating the germline by elimination? It is generally considered an example of “well” to be able to have healthy children. But in parts of China and India, being guaranteed to have a healthy boy would count as better than well. Is it OK to determine the gender of a child through in-vitro techniques, allowing only a certain type of sperm to cozy up to an egg?
Once we have the means to make someone better than well, what should we do with that ability? Suppose Big Pharma develops a smart drug to manipulate cognition so that an individual thinks better and learns better under stress instead of having those abilities impaired. What’s wrong with that? As I mentioned, my lab is working on this; to me it seems like a good idea to give such a drug to safety workers whose actions could determine whether the next Chernobyl occurs. But should it be something a student can take in preparation for an SAT exam? How about the stressed-out death-squad commander making a snap decision as to how best to ethnically cleanse a village of civilians?
The great promise of technology in Western civilization is that it will make all our lives better. It’s a nice sentiment, but it rarely works this way. In their book The Axemaker’s Gift, James Burke and Robert Ornstein document how most technological innovations have done precisely the opposite of leveling the playing field, concentrating more power into the hands of the few, starting with the first dawn-of-man guy to invent a really good cudgel.
The same applies in medicine. It is those high on the socioeconomic ladder who are most likely to hear about a medical innovation, to understand its implications, to have a cousin whose friend’s sister can get them at the top of the list to receive it, and to be able to afford it (whether thanks to health insurance or deep pockets). During the past few decades, the U.S. has had an unprecedented economic boom, has been at the core of the biotech revolution, and has spent the highest percentage of its GDP on health care of any country on Earth. Despite that, we rank something like 29th in life expectancy, in large part because we’re moving in the direction of a dichotomized nation–where our urban poor are elderly by age 60, crippled with heart disease, obesity and diabetes, while our wealthy septuagenarians are wrestling with the decision of whether to go for the knee replacement this close to ski season. The best of our biomedical science doesn’t always trickle down very far.
Before you opt for prosthetic x-ray eyes or genetically engineered opposable big toes–or whatevers –to make you better than well, you have to have de-cided what constitutes well. And this is where we, as individuals and societies, have a pretty bad track record of making sensible judgments about what counts as normal. For example: In the early 1990s a hormone called leptin, which suppresses appetite, was discovered. People went hog-wild at the news, assuming that we’d found the magic fat pill for society at large. As it turns out, though, most overweight people don’t suffer from a shortage of leptin.
There are certain people, however, who have a mutation resulting in extremely low leptin levels. An article in the journal Science reported on three Pakistani families whose members were described, in an unexpected departure from scientific argot, as “chubby.” You know what happens next–in swoops the Leptin SWAT Team to give these people synthetic leptin, suppress their appetites, melt away their chub, propel them toward a successful life of winning elections, having strings of highly publicized affairs with glitterati, appearing on the cover of People, et cetera.
This is a disturbing domain. We are already in a world that promises ways to make people better than well with a nose job, breast implants, cosmetic products to straighten out their kinky hair, or tanning salons to keep them bronze year-round. Such modifications sometimes do wonders for the quality of someone’s life. But we don’t need fancier science to be even better at egging on and then accommodating people’s insecurities or their shame at who they and their people are.
Which brings us back to the mathematical difficulties so many people have with averageness: No matter how marvelous the state-of-the-art science, no matter what miracles are accomplished by my kindred Bio-Elves of the Laboratory, the majority of society will still not be able to be taller than average, smarter than average, more beautiful than average, and so on.
I think it’s scarier than average.
Robert Sapolsky is a professor of neuroscience at Stanford University, a MacArthur “genius” Fellow, and author of five books, including Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers.
Apple M1 Vs. M2 Chip: What’s The Difference?
While they share some similarities, notable details are worth differentiating. However, to stay on track, you might want to see everything you need to know about the M1 chip before proceeding.
So Apple’s M1 vs. M2 chip. How are they different? Keep reading to learn more.
Apple’s M1 and M2 by numbers
There’s no justice to the duo’s power without considering some figures and specs. The table below summarizes the notable differences between Apple’s M1 and M2 chips.
M1 vs. M2 chip: Price differencesThe 2023 M1-powered MacBook Air starts pricing at $999, which significantly costs less than the 2023 M2-powered MacBook Air, set to hit the market in July 2023 at a starting price of $1,199.
The M1-powered MacBooks have variants, though, with the M1 MacBook Pro selling for as high as $1,299. The 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M1 Max chip will even reduce your savings by $2,499.
Undoubtedly, the M2 generation will also have its variants, and you can only expect that the price of the highest spec will nearly cut your budget scale. In addition to the 2023 MacBook Air, Apple also features the M2 chip in the MacBook Pro (2023). The Pro version will start selling for $1,299 when released in July 2023.
As with M1 MacBooks, you can expect to see more of the M2 variants unveiled in more MacBooks as time rolls.
M1 vs. M2 chip: Neural engine and secure enclaveSource: Apple
Apple’s new M2 chip combines the power of the next-generation neural engine with the secure enclave to amass an efficiency that brings it to a 40 percent better performance than the M1. The secure enclave is typical of all Apple’s SoCs and is the primary encrypting unit in the M series. This hasn’t changed in the M2 chip either.
Most people will admit the M1’s ability to peak at 11 trillion total operations per second (TOPs) is enough to achieve complex computing tasks. However, seeing that M2 chip neural engine can process up to 15.8 trillion TOPs is quite impressive. Such a difference in performance and speed will be too obvious to go unnoticed while operating an M1 and M2-powered MacBook simultaneously.
GPU cores comparisonSource: Apple
Apple says the M2 chip graphic performance is higher than that of M1 by 25 percent and could peak as high as 35 percent. Well, not without expending more power. But that’s a significant improvement.
The GPU in the M2 chip has ten cores, which is now two more than the M1 GPU. Indeed, it’s safe to claim that M2’s GPU is superior to the M1’s. Further, as opposed to the M1’s 2.6 teraflops, the M2 chip delivers 3.6 teraflops at a texture filter rate of 111 gigatexels per second and features a transmission rate of 55 gigapixels per second. All these further bring the M2 chip to the MacBook performance forefront.
M1 vs. M2 chip: CPU coresSource: Apple
The M1 has a 4+4 CPU core configuration. This hasn’t changed in the M2 chip, and the instruction and data caches on either configuration patch remain the same. But the M2 chip tips its high-performance cores with an expanded shared caching capacity of 16MB as opposed to the M1’s 12MB.
They both have spectacular CPU cores, averagely holding 8 CPU cores, which is higher than what most CPUs could deliver. Even a dual-core CPU is enough to handle most complex tasks.
However, while the M1 chip features 16 billion transistors, the M2 chip extends to 20 billion transistors, handing it more capability to expand to 10 cores. Undeniably, the M1 core blazes in its current form, but the M2 performs 18 percent faster at the same power consumption rate; this is an appreciable improvement.
Unified memory strengthSource: Apple
As opposed to the M1 chip, which delivers 68GBps memory bandwidth, the M2 processing unit can read and write data at the rate of 100GBps. A memory bandwidth almost 50% faster than the M1’s is worth showing off in a gadget.
Although the M2 chip has two variants currently, you can look forward to more from Apple, considering the firm’s track record of continuous unit upgrades. You’re looking at a possible M1 Ultra-like variant in the M2 chip once Apple starts rolling out M2 versions. And undoubtedly, this will offer far higher bandwidth than the M1 Ultra, which runs at 128GBps.
Although the M1 chip already delivers a 16GB unified memory capacity based on LPDDR4x, which is enough for most arduous tasks, the M2 takes this further to 24GB on an LPDDR5 memory interface. This takes latency further down significantly and reduces power consumption, a typical attribute of LPDDR5.
M1 vs. M2 chip: Power consumptionConsidering the specs of the GPU and CPU altogether, both the M1 and M2 chips have improved performance and speed, but, of course, not at the expense of power consumption.
Besides, maximized performance with minimal power consumption isn’t an attribute of many processing units. The M2 chip performs better than the M1 chip in many areas at the same power consumption rate.
Overall, there’s no significant difference in the power consumption rate between M1 and M2. But it’s great to see that the M2 chip maintains the M series power conservation legacy despite all the improvements.
Apple’s M1 or M2 chip: Which is best for you?Deciding what’s best for you between an M1 and M2 chip depends on some factors. However, I must mention that while the M2 chip is significantly more performant than the M1, an M1 MacBook isn’t out of the game, as it will answer the call on complex computing tasks.
No matter how fast a system is, its speed should ideally corroborate its performance. Indeed, the M1 chip has laid the blueprint for high speed and improved performance in the M series chips with its specs. The M2 chip takes it even further, considering its superiority over the M1 chip.
Read More:
Author Profile
Idowu
Idowu is an avid tech writer and a software surfer who loves covering knowledge gaps in consumer software, including anything related to iPhones. Well, when he’s not reading and learning new things, you’ll find Idowu losing gallantly on a solid chessboard or virtually on Lichess.
Why Guest Blogging Works Better Than Article Marketing
A week ago, while I was perusing some marketing forums, I found a thread about the effectiveness of article marketing today. Halfway through the thread, there was a post about which one was better – article marketing or guest blogging.
Benefits of Guest BloggingFor me, I have found guest blogging is definitely more effective in getting traffic back to my site, as well as getting links on pages that are usually guaranteed future PageRank. Why is guest blogging more successful for these two purposes?
1) Guest blog posts usually stay on the homepage longer.
Unless you are guest blogging for sites that produce several articles a day, like Mashable, your guest blog post is likely going to be on the homepage for a while. On this site, posts are usually on the homepage for at least two days, whereas sites that only post once a day will likely have your post on the homepage for a week.
Articles on article directories, on the other hand, will likely not make the first page unless it is featured, or the site posts latest articles on their homepages. But chances are, with the volume of articles that a directory receives, even those will not stay on the homepage for that long.
2) Blogs have their own subscriber base.
Most blogs have their own subscribers, meaning there are people that will get every post on that blog delivered to their email or their RSS reader. Plus, there are subscribers who follow blogs on social networks – they will see the blog’s latest posts through the blog’s Twitter stream, Facebook page, Stumble shares, and so on.
When it comes to article directories, some do offer RSS feeds for particular categories or, if you’re lucky, you might have someone who follows your articles directly through your own RSS feed. The latter is likely to have fewer followers than a blog though.
3) Blog posts are promoted by both the poster and the blog itself.
What really separates guest blog posts from articles is the promotion. Whenever a blogger places a guest post on their site, it is in their interest to promote the post to their network to drive traffic to their site. The guest blogger (9 out of 10 times) will likely be promoting their guest post to their network as well. This will drive two different follower bases to the post, leading to much more social sharing (assuming the content is good).
4) Guest blog guidelines are usually stricter than those on an article directory.
Bloggers typically have higher standards (or guest blogging guidelines) when it comes to what they will allow as guest posts on their site. They want more words, photos, resourceful links, and sometimes even fully formatted posts ready to drop into WordPress. And because they do not receive a high volume of guest post submissions (in comparison to the number of articles entered daily on popular article directories), the blog owner will spend more time reviewing the submission and is likely not to accept anything that does not meet their high standards.
Article directories typically have a shorter article length requirement, and many do not allow pictures, links or other embedded content – just text. So long as your article doesn’t set off any automated checks in their computer system, lower quality articles will get approved easily. And, of course, if the article content itself is lower quality, it is less likely to get featured by the article directory or promoted by others.
5) Networking opportunities created by guest blogging.
One major benefit of guest blogging over for article writing is the networking opportunities and relationship you build. If you produce great content for a guest post on a blog, the blog owner will probably be very appreciative, especially if it does well.
How does this help you in your link building efforts? Simple – it the blog owner owns other sites, you have a prime opportunity of getting featured on those as well.
An example of this happened just recently. I was emailing different infographic gallery sites to suggest inclusion of a fun, animated SEO infographic that visually explains quality link building and PageRank value.
One of the infographic sites got back to me surprisingly fast – it turned out the owner also runs a blog that I regularly contribute articles to. They added the infographic I suggested the same day in a new post!
Making Article Marketing More EffectiveNow that you know some of the benefits of guest blogging over article marketing, what can you do to make your articles just as valuable as guest blog posts?
1) Write higher quality articles to get featured.
Do a little research to see which articles get featured on the article directory you are submitting to, preferably in your category. Or look at some expert blogs on your topic – Postrank, for example, will give you the top blogs on almost any subject. Writing better content will make it more likely that a directory will find it valuable and feature it on the homepage and even tweet it (which would be great on EzineArticles, since they have almost 60,000 followers).
2) Get involved with the article directory’s community.
3) Promote your articles.
Social promotion of your articles on article directories is likely to get your article more exposure, especially if you are networking with other article writers on your preferred article directories. Find people on Twitter and Facebook that would be interested in the topic you write about and connect with them. Be sure to interact with them often (by retweeting their posts, answering their questions, liking their links, etc.) so that they will get to know you better and would be then likely to promote your content with their network as well.
4) Build links to your articles.
There are independent directories where you can submit articles from Squidoo, HubPages, and other site’s articles.
If the article directory has an author RSS feed, you can submit your author feed to RSS submission sites.
5) Connect with top article writers.
Going back to getting involved with the article directory community, be sure to also try to network with some of the top article writers on the site. Getting in good with other writers may help you get your article get linked in one of theirs as well, giving you exposure on top rated articles on a particular network.
Even a friendly link request to another author can pan out successfully. After writing an article on how to promote Squidoo lenses, I messaged a few related lens writers to suggest mine as a good resource for their readers, which resulted in getting a dofollow link on an existing PR 4 lens on SEO tips.
Using these techniques will help your articles become more powerful in terms of ratings, rankings, and traffic.
Your Article Marketing vs. Guest Blogging StrategyWhat do you find more beneficial for driving traffic and building links to your website – article marketing or guest blogging? What other tips can you think of to help promote your articles on directories to make them more valuable?
Update the detailed information about Is Intel Core I7 Better Than Apple M1? on the Daihoichemgio.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!