Apple is falling behind, M4 Max nowhere close to RTX 5090.

[Alameda]

I don't think so

Nividia doesn't just makes chips. they produce GPUs, both the IP, and the actual graphics cards. These GPUs are capable of handling tasks like AI, crypto, and obviously gaming. Apple designs, and sells computers that have thier own designed GPU, so the comparison is fair. They themselves have compared the Apple silicon GPU performance to that of Nvidia. So. they thought it was an apples to apples comparison why should we be so quick to dismiss it?

Apple has tried to improve its ability to play games, during a prior WWDC event, they unveiled that cyberpunk 2077 is getting ported to apple silicon and talked at how well it was performing. Again, this is very much in the wheelhouse of Nvidia.

So for AI (which apple is pushing), and gaming, I think it’s fair to compare how Apple is doing vs dominate force in both areas.

No. This is ridiculous.

A Macintosh is a personal computer. It is not file server. It is not a gaming console. Is not a truck! Its hauling capacity is terrible! nVidia’s mobile phones are terrible! They can’t run off batteries or make phone calls! So terrible.


Apple’s AI technology is aimed at providing features to end users, not at being a blade server farm. If you’re developing a giant AI system, you’ll probably use a Mac to write code which will run on a big nVidia server farm. You might develop a iPhone app on a Mac which uses this nVidia based server farm.

Apple isn’t targeting the data center and gaming consoles. If they were, they’d be offering different products. And Apple’s failures in AI relate to their failure to provide truly useful end user solutions, which isn’t a problem you fix with benchmarks or faster hardware. They just need to implement some great ideas.

 

[martint235]

Such clickbait is just that, only clickbait. Excuse me if I do not waste bandwidth paying attention to such obvious clickbait nonsense.

One reason it can immediately be identified as obvious clickbait nonsense is because it is comparing Apples and oranges. Apple makes and sells devices while Nvidia makes and sells chips; both entities are among best-in-class at the different things that they do. Forcing some hardware comparison is just Apples/oranges clickbait.

I only managed to read the first two pages. It definitely seemed to trigger something in the fanboys (16 pages) but no one questioned why everyone is discussing a comparison between a laptop system on chip and the current class leading graphics card.

 

[Alameda]

I only managed to read the first two pages. It definitely seemed to trigger something in the fanboys (16 pages) but no one questioned why everyone is discussing a comparison between a laptop system on chip and the current class leading graphics card.

Plenty of people have said the comparison makes no sense.

 

[maflynn]

A Macintosh is a personal computer. It is not file server. It is not a gaming console. Is not a truck! Its hauling capacity is terrible! nVidia’s mobile phones are terrible! They can’t run off batteries or make phone calls! So terrible.

You're right, and my PC, with a AMD GPU is a personal computer and my M4 Studio is a personal computer and people are comparing Apple's Soc that its in its laptops and desktops against desktops that have nvidia gpus

Edit, let me just add that people saying how FPS shouldn't be used, yet its a great indicator of a GPUs capability whether we're talking nvidia, amd, intel or apple. I had to buy a M4 Max studio because the FPS was so poor playing games. I'm happy to return the M4 Pro mini and getting the studio, its a fantastic computer and I have regrets but that high end computer has the equivilent gpu processing power of a 4070, and isn't that the topic of this thread? Is apple falling behind nvidia with its gpu products?

 

[theorist9]

I only managed to read the first two pages. It definitely seemed to trigger something in the fanboys (16 pages) but no one questioned why everyone is discussing a comparison between a laptop system on chip and the current class leading graphics card.

You should have read to page 4 :

[Also, a lot of the posts contributing to thread length are like these shown below, which are clearly not fanboyism. You can't go by thread length alone.]

Big picture, I think Apple does a good job with its laptop offerings relative to NVIDIA, but falls short in comparison to their desktop line.

Yes, the 5090 laptop GPU is significantly more powerful than the top M4 Max GPU in the MBP. But the former requires significant compromises, namely a hot, noisy laptop with limited battery life. Most people want a more balanced package, and AFAIK only the MBP offers that with a top-end GPU.

Where Apple continues to fall short is in desktop GPU's. You should be able to build a 5090 desktop PC with much less significant compromises. Yes, it's going to be bigger and hotter than the M3 Ultra Studio. But with sufficient cooling it should be reasonably quiet (maybe not quite a quiet as the Studio), and battery life becomes a non-issue. And it will have significantly more GPU processing power (losing out only* in the amount of RAM available to the GPU: 32 GB for the 5070 vs. ≈0.5 TB for the M3 Ultra).

[*Here I'm referring to the video side only; I believe the M3 Ultra's CPU side equals or exceeds the other top workstation CPU's, except in max RAM, where the latter can be >512 GB.]

Yep, this is where their mobile-first design shows some weakness. The hardware is quite clearly unable to sustain higher clocks, even if the thermal headroom is there, and the tightly integrated solution is less flexible and more expensive than that of other vendors.

I wonder whether they have a solution to this going forward, or whether they will focus on improving the baseline tech hoping that it will be good enough. They have the potential to significantly improve the GPU performance with only minimal increase of die area — dual FP units and matrix accelerators would significantly boost performance in several key areas where Apple is lagging behind.

 

[pshufd]

I suspect that Apple is perfectly fine with where the Mac is right now. Apple is the world's fourth largest personal computer vendor and is probably the most profitable computer vendor. Your reference to the Mac Pro is just a subset, even though you're correct only for the Mac Pro, which is the Mac that Apple sells the least of by a lot.

I don't think that they are that happy as they're rumored to be coming out with a $600 MacBook. I see a lot of discounting on the M4 Macs too.

The other rumor is that they're bringing out a lot of new features for either M5 or M6 but within a year.

Windows laptops are getting a lot better - but they can't beat Apple Silicon CPUs so they are competing in other areas. Apple makes their margins on RAM and storage so that's one place where Windows laptops compete.

 

[Bodhitree]

This is 2025 with demanding games, higher demanding elements like ray tracing and path tracing, frames per second is an indicator of a GPU's ability to perform.

Honest question, do you think Apple's GPU is keeping pace with nvidia's performance? Do you think Apple is leading, part of the crowd, or falling behind the leader regarding its GPU performance?

I think Apple’s GPU is providing something between the top level of current integrated graphics on the base chips, to a solid mid-range performance on the Max chips. It’s a very scaleable solution which keeps improving enough each generation to keep pace in the market, and even gain a little on the market leaders with new features like ray tracing in hw.

Whether it has to be top of the range is another question. It’s great advantage in the market is scale. There are a lot of MacBook Airs and Mac Minis out there, providing a large pool of uniform hardware which a game publisher/developer can target with one version of the software to get you x% additional sales. At some point it is going to be worth it, as the installed user base of Apple Silicon machines grows and Intel Macs get retired.

In the end Mac gaming may become something like the Switch, a large lower-powered but invariable platform which the biggest games like Cyberpunk 2077 or GTA 6 may target for more sales.

 

[nathansz]

Whether it has to be top of the range is another question.

It certainly doesn’t have to be. I’m more curious about whether or not it’s even possible. Obviously not on the SOC, but could they build a discrete gpu, or allow for a third party via thunderbolt?

I don’t know enough about how the SOC works to know if this is even possible, or if they’ve “designed themselves in to a corner”

 

[Abazigal]

Yes, 20 years ago, there was an expectation of 60 FPS, with mid-tier and low tier struggling achieve that threshold. 30 FPS was mostly the domain of consoles and mac gaming. Its a threshold that is largely regarded as unplayable today.

This is 2025 with demanding games, higher demanding elements like ray tracing and path tracing, frames per second is an indicator of a GPU's ability to perform.

Honest question, do you think Apple's GPU is keeping pace with nvidia's performance? Do you think Apple is leading, part of the crowd, or falling behind the leader regarding its GPU performance?

It's worth reminding everyone that the focus of Apple silicon isn't raw performance, but power efficiency. The performance is a by-product of that (eg: you are able to enjoy sustained performance even when your MacBook isn't plugged in to an external power source, unlike equivalent windows laptops with dedicated graphics cards). Users should also continue to enjoy longer battery life, meaning they can work longer even when away from a power outlet.

The ability to game has never been an area of focus for Apple, and I would expect people buying a Mac to go in knowing this tradeoff very well. Apple silicon will never be able to match the most powerful GPUs from other brands, and that's fine as well, because those top options tend to come with drawbacks that often don't get brought up in this sort of discussions.

 

[maxoakland]

For the products relevant to the market (mostly ultraportable laptops, all in ones and small form factor desktops) I’d much rather have my m4 max than a 5090.

Is it as fast as a 5090 at gaming?

No

Almost no one cares.


The fact that you’re even comparing a 100 watt SOC with integrated graphics to a flagship discrete GPU shows how impressive th M series are.

True but Apple should have products that can meet or exceed that performance

 

[nathansz]

It's worth reminding everyone that the focus of Apple silicon isn't raw performance, but power efficiency.

That begs the question, could their SOC do raw performance? Or is it crippled due to the focus on power efficiency?

 

[TechnoMonk]

comparing apples anemic gpu's to Nvidia or amd is certainly not comparing apples and oranges

it is comparing gpus and gpus

Meh. If I need to run my m4 max 128 GB RAM GPU work loads on Nvidia I need to spend 50k. Nvidia dropped the ball on consumer level GPU with 32 GB VRAM, it’s glorified junk for my purposes. If you game or can get by with low vram, buy RTX 50XX. My Linux workstation with AMD threadripper and RTX 4090 gets less and less work, I rather run 20 mins extra on m4 max than run out of GPU memory on my Linux workstation with 128 GB RAM.

 

[throAU]

True but Apple should have products that can meet or exceed that performance

Why?

Its irrelevant to their core market; should they make robots and cars as well?

And before you say "mac pro" go look up the sales figures for the Mac Pro. Its a rounding error.

 

[MacCheetah3]

This:

I suppose it depends on what you want to do with your computer, my m4 pro is not as performant playing games as my 1400k/rx6800 hackintosh was, but I was willing to make that trade off for the many other advantages

Older but relevant:

Puget Mobile 17" vs M3 Max MacBook Pro 16" for Content Creation

How does the new Puget Mobile 17" compare to the top-end M3 Max MacBook Pro 16" in performance for content creation?

www.pugetsystems.com

Similar benchmarking approach, which shows both sides, strengths:

RTX 5090 vs Apple M4 Max: Which One Creators Should Buy? | Benchmarks, AI, 3D, Video/photo Editing - Hostbor - Tech Reviews, Home Labs & AI Computing Guide

I’ve always been fascinated by the endless battle between dedicated GPUs and integrated solutions for creative professionals. Today, we’re examining two powerhouse options that represent...

hostbor.com

:: Steve Burke voice :: By the way, that’s comparing to an actual RTX 5090, not the RTX 5070 Ti Super (mobile)… I mean RTX 5090 mobile.

 

[nathansz]

Meh. If I need to run my m4 max 128 GB RAM GPU work loads on Nvidia I need to spend 50k. Nvidia dropped the ball on consumer level GPU with 32 GB VRAM, it’s glorified junk for my purposes. If you game or can get by with low vram, buy RTX 50XX. My Linux workstation with AMD threadripper and RTX 4090 gets less and less work, I rather run 20 mins extra on m4 max than run out of GPU memory on my Linux workstation with 128 GB RAM.

Obviously depends on what you need a computer to do

What are you doing exactly?

Trying to think of a workload of any application that works out cheaper or faster in macOS on Apple silicon…..

 

[uacd]

You got interesting discussion brewing on here!

I've already made few comments there but need to add few things too.

Mac gaming isn't a bad thing actually, given how Apple treats game optimization. They have huge list of rules on how game needs to work, how much heat it must generate and so on.
In the recent years it has been a hot button topic in PC world. Many gamers were pissed off by the fact that all new titles come unoptimized for their older machines, and that it basically looks like planned obsolescence but in PC world. And at the first glance it isn't clear who to blame: dev teams who don't care about making game run good on as many machines as possible, distributors or hardware manufacturers.

At this point each time when I see every new 200GB+ game (with my 100 Mbps internet) I just look at it like "NAAAH. I better waste my time on something actually worthy". This is exactly where cloud gaming comes handy because all it needs basically is a stable Internet connection. You don't need to have few fast SSDs to store them, newest video card or sometimes don't even need to own games at all, all you do is subscribe and click "play', like gaming/cyber cafes back in the days. I think in future years cloud gaming would become even more popular.

Nowadays Apple computers are simply more affordable and require way less initial investments than their PC counterparts. Some NVIDIA GPUs alone can cost as much as fully-furnished M4 iMac. For me as a consumer and prosumer who wants machine to be capable, fast and versatile Mac is a better choice, and if I would ever need gaming there are services like GeForceNOW or handhelds like Switch (which are very fun to be honest, games are super expensive but on the other hand you don't need lots of games).

Another trend I wanna see is game simplification. I had never been craving AAA or AAA on Mac specifically. Just some fun racing games like Asphalt or old Need for Speed, maybe some games like Sonic (again just for fun), Harry Potter and so on. Games do not need to be more than 30Gb in size in my opinion, more is waste of storage space. I still don't get why games are not released in different distributions like "light version" and "full version" (with extra textures and other trash most people will never need)

 

[Abazigal]

That begs the question, could their SOC do raw performance? Or is it crippled due to the focus on power efficiency?

I really don't know, but if I were to hazard a guess, it would be difficult. I am looking at the state of the Mac Pro, where it sports the same processor as the Mac Studio, and I suspect Apple is having a hard time getting it to scale.

The problem is that apple silicon appears to have been designed for laptops first and foremost. They focus on low heat generation and great battery life, with excellent performance (considering the limitations you would come to expect in a thermally-constrained device like a laptop). On a desktop, you still get benefits like a more silent and compact device (aka Mac mini and Mac Studio), but it also means that you won't really get any benefit in a larger desktop form factor like the Mac Pro.

It comes back to the saying "your strength is your weakness", but given that the majority of Macs sold are laptops and Mac Pros constitute a vast minority, it's not an issue Apple management loses sleep over.

 

[throAU]

That begs the question, could their SOC do raw performance? Or is it crippled due to the focus on power efficiency?

If it was scaled sufficiently it could get 5090 or better performance at large cost. However the market for that is not there, Nvidia and AMD already play in that datacenter AI space and apple is already making money hand over fist with smaller devices.

Where apple as a company excel: software integration, permium materials, and UI is totally irrelevant in that market.

No. This is ridiculous.

A Macintosh is a personal computer. It is not file server. It is not a gaming console. Is not a truck! Its hauling capacity is terrible! nVidia’s mobile phones are terrible! They can’t run off batteries or make phone calls! So terrible.


Apple’s AI technology is aimed at providing features to end users, not at being a blade server farm. If you’re developing a giant AI system, you’ll probably use a Mac to write code which will run on a big nVidia server farm. You might develop a iPhone app on a Mac which uses this nVidia based server farm.

Apple isn’t targeting the data center and gaming consoles. If they were, they’d be offering different products. And Apple’s failures in AI relate to their failure to provide truly useful end user solutions, which isn’t a problem you fix with benchmarks or faster hardware. They just need to implement some great ideas.

This 100%.

The value (hardware build and software UI) add that Apple offer applies in their end user focused market. It is 100% irrelevant to datacenter or gaming console. Apple, as large a company as they are, work because they target specific niches they can perform in.

 

[nathansz]

Nvidia and AMD already play in that datacenter AI space and apple is already making money hand over fist with smaller devices.

I just want to be play some games on my off time and not be frustrated by there performance

This was a non issue when I was running hackintosh since I was able to add my own beefy gpus

 

[nathansz]

irrelevant in that market.

Yeah I don’t care about that market either

There are many things you can do with a computer.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Meh. If I need to run my m4 max 128 GB RAM GPU work loads on Nvidia I need to spend 50k. Nvidia dropped the ball on consumer level GPU with 32 GB VRAM, it’s glorified junk for my purposes. If you game or can get by with low vram, buy RTX 50XX. My Linux workstation with AMD threadripper and RTX 4090 gets less and less work, I rather run 20 mins extra on m4 max than run out of GPU memory on my Linux workstation with 128 GB RAM.

You are clearly not looking at compute speed, but need the additional memory. I'm curious how you end up at 50k though. Mind to do a quick run through on components and price? (although I don't expect this to happen).
You could run four 5090 or two RTX Pro 6000 (192GB) in a single system and have the memory you need and be nowhere near 50k. You don't need the processing power of a A100/H100/etc. card as those two options are already faster when it comes to compute than M4 Max.

Here's a crazy idea, get a Spark. It's based on Grace architecture and has 128GB of unified memory. Asus is offering this (Ascent) at a cheaper price than the original Spark from Nvidia. You're looking at $3k for a single unit and can use 2x QSFP to connect two of them.

 

[throAU]

I just want to be play some games on my off time and not be frustrated by there performance

This was a non issue when I was running hackintosh since I was able to add my own beefy gpus

You can do this today with M4 max. It plays things "well enough" in a laptop.

I say that as someone with a gaming PC and most of the consoles.

But irrespective of that, this is not a reason fro Apple to "need" to put out a 5090 competitor.

I get it, you want a high end gaming mac. its not happening.

 

[Alameda]

You're right, and my PC, with a AMD GPU is a personal computer and my M4 Studio is a personal computer and people are comparing Apple's Soc that its in its laptops and desktops against desktops that have nvidia gpus

Edit, let me just add that people saying how FPS shouldn't be used, yet its a great indicator of a GPUs capability whether we're talking nvidia, amd, intel or apple. I had to buy a M4 Max studio because the FPS was so poor playing games. I'm happy to return the M4 Pro mini and getting the studio, its a fantastic computer and I have regrets but that high end computer has the equivilent gpu processing power of a 4070, and isn't that the topic of this thread? Is apple falling behind nvidia with its gpu products?

Apple is a poor gaming system because the software isn’t there. GPU performance isn’t the problem; the problem is that there are a lot of games out there that aren’t available for Mac.

The AI comparison is like Prius versus Porsche. “The Prius isn’t as fast, so it’s not as good a car!” Well… if you’re driving Uber all day, a Porsche would stink, wouldn’t it? If you have a long commute and want high gas mileage, the Porsche would not be as good.

Benchmarks are only valid comparisons when all other variables are constant. And, even then, is it valuable?

Here is an example: I use DxO PhotoLab on my M1 Mac. When I use heavy noise reduction, an Export can take 20-30 seconds. It doesn’t matter to me, because I can just move on to my next photo; I don’t need to wait for it. My sister in law just bought an M4 Mac and I was teaching her PhotoLab. To my surprise, the Export was instant.

Now, when we say “Instant,” it could mean 1 second, 2 seconds, or maybe 0.5 seconds. The difference between M1 and M4 in this case is noticeable, but if the M4 does it in 1 second, does it matter that an M5 can do it in 0.5 or 0.25 seconds? No. Maybe it will be 4x faster at a 1 second task, but it’s only a second to begin with. Great sounding benchmark but not useful improvement. Look elsewhere.

 

[maxoakland]

Why?

Its irrelevant to their core market; should they make robots and cars as well?

And before you say "mac pro" go look up the sales figures for the Mac Pro. Its a rounding error.

Apple tried to make cars. Did you forget that?

Also do you think a powerful computer is that out of the market of a company that makes computers?

Apple still sells the Mac Pro and the Mac Studio. They still make professional software. People still want to develop games on Macs (I do)

And powerful GPUs have become even more important recently

 

[nathansz]

Apple is a poor gaming system because the software isn’t there. GPU performance isn’t the problem; the problem is that there are a lot of games out there that aren’t available for Mac.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The gpu performance is most definitely “not there”

One of the few games I regularly play is “the long dark”. When I still had my last hackintosh with an rx6800 it had no problem running it at 60fps in macOS at 4k with all graphics settings at their highest

On my m4 pro it struggles to stay at 40fps with the graphics settings dialed down