All modern chips are SoCs, and have been for a very long time. If they split CPU and GPU, they will still be SoCs.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
All modern chips are SoCs, and have been for a very long time. If they split CPU and GPU, they will still be SoCs.
The first geekbench result was with the 32gb config.
We now have the CPU benchmark with the full bandwidth 64gb memory layout. The multithread score has increased by another 1000, making its score 20% higher than a 5800x.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/co ... e=10489714
We now have the CPU benchmark with the full bandwidth 64gb memory layout. The multithread score has increased by another 1000, making its score 20% higher than a 5800x.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/co ... e=10489714
Unless Apple have another strategy and a very different design. Maybe Apple have something very different for the Mac Pro but I think it’s unlikely.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
Their M1 Max has twice the transistor count of a 3090, there's only so big you can go before yields plummet and costs skyrocket. Be interesting to see what they pull out of the bag.
I don’t think Apple are anywhere close to running into issues. Costs aren’t much of an issue either.
It's marketing ********, guys.
1) You can't compare TFLOPS directly when using different architecture. It's nonsensical.
3090 - 35.6 TFLOPS, 6900xt -20.6 TFLOPS. Almost 40% difference yet the real performance difference is 3-10% depending on a game\task
2) They didn't even show what exactly was tested when they compared GPU performance. Show us some games running with the same settings and same resolution! Ah, wait. there are no games.
3) Forget about AAA games on M1.
Metal API+ ARM=> no proper gaming.
Metal API essentially killed Mac gaming even on x86 architecture (bootcamp excluded). Going Metal (typical apple "we-know-what's-best-for-you-no-matter-the-facts way) instead of Vulkan was a huge mistake.
I have no doubt M1 max will be a great laptop for video editing and stuff... but if you think about getting it in hopes of running proper non-mobile games on it with good graphics settings, resolution and performance then think twice...
1) You can't compare TFLOPS directly when using different architecture. It's nonsensical.
3090 - 35.6 TFLOPS, 6900xt -20.6 TFLOPS. Almost 40% difference yet the real performance difference is 3-10% depending on a game\task
2) They didn't even show what exactly was tested when they compared GPU performance. Show us some games running with the same settings and same resolution! Ah, wait. there are no games.
3) Forget about AAA games on M1.
Metal API+ ARM=> no proper gaming.
Metal API essentially killed Mac gaming even on x86 architecture (bootcamp excluded). Going Metal (typical apple "we-know-what's-best-for-you-no-matter-the-facts way) instead of Vulkan was a huge mistake.
I have no doubt M1 max will be a great laptop for video editing and stuff... but if you think about getting it in hopes of running proper non-mobile games on it with good graphics settings, resolution and performance then think twice...
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
Big whoop… it’s not going to be the most amazing thing for gaming.
the people who actual care about getting things done will not mind that it can’t run Battlefield.
the people who actual care about getting things done will not mind that it can’t run Battlefield.
For the previous Mac Pro "toaster", those 28 core Xeon W3275M had a list price of around $7,500. While I'm sure Apple got a good discount, those kind of prices allow them to go crazy with die sizes. Reticle limit is only around 600mm² though, so with M1 Max already over 400mm² they don't have that far to go.
Mac Pro needs some Apple SuperGlue, SuperAppleInterconnect or similar.
Meanwhile Intel think they should get the Apple business back?
https://www.techpowerup.com/288048/...ts-apple-business-back-with-better-processors
Guess this is all mostly delusional talk for shareholders?
Apart from some idiots online, nobody really claimed these are good gaming machines, they can theoretically be, if Apple sorts out software issues and delivers AAA games, but that doesn't exist right now.
Apple made no gaming claims either. The focus was definitely GPU compute tasks. There's only one user here delusional about gaming on these macs and has been posting nonsensical stuff ever since these were announced, everyone else gets it
Exactly. Novody serious expected it to be a gaming machine either, apart from those whose entire understanding of a GPU's use case is "game game game".
Well, while Intel are the repeat posterboy of why throwing money at problems does not work*, you have to wonder if all those $billions they threw at shareholders in recent years (share buyback to prop up the shareprice) would have been better spent on fabs or architecture!That's all Intel Marketing can do these days...
* 1990s comms, Itantium, Larrabee, 5G modems, Atom contra revenue etc. all $billions down the drain.
Definitely going OT now but...
Almost certainly, but did some of the successes result in a company with a wider/more diverse business model (which is generally a good thing?) and it's not like they've competely died in the x86 area.
My previous employer used an Atom variant in their product almost exclusively because of the deal they got on it that made anything else look bad. Even though the Atom was a bad choice technically, and was an utter pain from a software perspective. Whether Intel really ended up making any actual profit from that (and others) I have no idea.
For the previous Mac Pro "toaster", those 28 core Xeon W3275M had a list price of around $7,500. While I'm sure Apple got a good discount, those kind of prices allow them to go crazy with die sizes. Reticle limit is only around 600mm² though, so with M1 Max already over 400mm² they don't have that far to go.
Mac Pro needs some Apple SuperGlue, SuperAppleInterconnect or similar.
Meanwhile Intel think they should get the Apple business back?
https://www.techpowerup.com/288048/...ts-apple-business-back-with-better-processors
Guess this is all mostly delusional talk for shareholders?
You see what alder lake has and what the M1 max is and yeah Intel have no chance of getting Apple's business back anytime soon. Apple has always focused on performance efficiency, that's its mantra and they have class leadership in performance and efficiency now, there is no reason to go back to power hungry Alder lake and yea Alder lake is still power hungry and so will Raptor lake be hungry.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
Dedicated ProRaw and ProRes hardware is also very cool, which gives further credence about where the expect these Pro CPUs to be used. Really looking forward to seeing the specialists get their hands on them and show the improvements in their workflow performance.
Apart from some idiots online, nobody really claimed these are good gaming machines, they can theoretically be, if Apple sorts out software issues and delivers AAA games, but that doesn't exist right now.
Apple made no gaming claims either. The focus was definitely GPU compute tasks. There's only one user here delusional about gaming on these macs and has been posting nonsensical stuff ever since these were announced, everyone else gets it
Exactly. Novody serious expected it to be a gaming machine either, apart from those whose entire understanding of a GPU's use case is "game game game".
The sales of the gaming style laptop will be in the toilet now. It looks as the uptake of this Apple M1X is is expected to smash records and be by far the most capable and actually useable mobile platform with desktop levels of performance.
Windows was supported on the M1 and
it looked as if Microsoft was willing to work with Apple, but Apple have pulled back, probably when Apple looked at £3k RTX3080m systems and chuckled once they analysed the performance per watt of Ampere.
Apple probably feel they can gain traction in gaming by default because they have the better hardware and a unified platform. Mopping up extra sale and taking the laptop gaming market seem like certainties unless AMD can strike back quickly for X86.
Many highend gaming laptops aren’t sold for gaming use. My firm has purchased them as we need CPU and GPU performance at times but they aren’t really fit for purpose.
Nvidia have probably pushed many people away from laptop gaming with prices they charge for their chips and more recently the insane power use. Pairing a 150 watt GPU with a 100 watt hour battery when you’re competitors are at a fraction of that just hurts the market. Nvidia need a GPU that can match that can beat that in the M1 Max for 25 watts and from their recent performance they are not capable of building that chip.
We know Intel and AMD are coming for the graphics market in a big way, but in at least the short term the laptop gaming market is up for grabs.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
I think you're straying into make-believe territory at this point. There aren't any games to play and Apple have made no suggestion this is the direction they're heading.
The chip is capable, the overall platform is not.
Apple have the hardware advantage and the laptop gaming market is distressed. Why wouldn’t you go after the extra sales and gain some penetration.