exactly...they are all looking at what each other is doing and picking and improving each idea they see moves them on; as consumers we should be glad they do, otherwise every phone would be compromised missing that great feature.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M1 Chip Beats GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560 for Graphics Performance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They do those things in a half-arsed way, when the tech isn't really ready yet and Apple is already working on it. It's not like Apple sees Samsung implement its horrible face unlocking then thinks, wow, we should do that.
Only thing Apple followed was big screens. Real tragic cause they suck.
I say BS...Samsung do OLED, highest screen resolution, waterproofing, wireless, 5G, cameras, multi-tasking and the like half-arsed? you’re dillusional
Good to know. Thanks for clarifying. Didn’t realize people stacked four at once 😲
My motherboard has 2 x16 slots and I have seen some with 3. I haven't seen any with 4 but I haven't gone and looked. The 1050 ti runs really cool which I like. Mine is running at 41 degrees right now. If you know of a video card that can drive 4x4k and runs a lot cooler, and runs under $200, I'm interested. The high-end cards may run cooler but I don't need the capabilities of a $400 card.
Motherboards with 4 x16 slots exist, but my memory is hazy as to how many people actually used those among my ML friends. Would probably need a high-end PSU too.
it is scraping the bottom of the barrel even if it was discrete full sized GPU. "capable of playing every game I ever wanted to play" doesnt say anything because what *YOU* want to play could be barebones indie titles that dont push graphics, thus "it can play everything i want!" is laughably meaningless outside of context.
1000 series is now 2 generations of graphics computing behind as well so im really not feeling out why this is fantastic. wake me up when it's comparable to something...current?
It isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I'd say that a 1030 is scraping the bottom of the barrel although I think that there are even cheaper still graphics cards.
that tells me you think a 1050ti, a chip relevant 2 generations of GPUs ago is somehow impressive 2 generations later in a *new* computer.
and part of the problem is: no one has done a meaningful tech dive benchmark for this, also because many of the major titles used for this arent running on m1.
so if apple arcade or world of warcraft are what you care about, then no issues there.
Grand Theft Auto 5, BeamNG Drive, CS:GO, Valorant, and PUBG aren't indie titles or low-graphics.
I get that the 1050ti is low-end, but it works. "Gamers" sometimes pretend they need faster hardware than they really do, just like Dodge Challenger owners.
Last edited:
GTX 1050 Ti TDP is 75 watts. The 1030 TDP is 30 watts. So I'd consider the 1030 the low-end. That makes sense given nVidia's model numbering system.
uhhh. i like playing higher than the low end? exactly who are you to "pretend" that you have any idea what tier of hardware someone "needs"? i cant push any of the fidelity i play at with a 1050ti, end of discussion. go sort that out in your own head.
this isn't a discussion about "need" or the assumption that a 1050ti isn't good "enough" to handle the low-end. that's exactly the point, good job acknowledging that it is. that's exactly the parent statement: the 1050ti is bottom of the barrel 2 generation old tech that is not impressive and is not a metric for "this is great".
For integrated graphics, it is great. It probably beats everything out there. You act like not being able to play on high settings means not playing the game at all when you suggest that I only tried indie games on the 1050ti.
Last edited:
So? Your 3080 Super is well below bottom of the barrel compared to the NCAR's Cheyene supercomputer at computing and rendering the graphics for next week's weather. But is does require a bit more power. Roughly 8 megawatts continuous. But the cost of that machine's power bill makes no difference in my comparison. Right?
Intel ships with UHD 630 for tenth generation chips and for 8th generation chips like what you can get on the 2018 Mac Mini. Geekbench 5 opencl score is around 5,635 for UHD 630. It's about 22,059 for Tiger Lake but you can only get Tiger Lake on mobile chips and they don't have models with high core counts yet. M1 Geekbench 5 is about 18,169. The GTX 1050 Ti is about 21,603.
So much better than previous generation Intel but Tiger Lake is ahead and shipping (kind of). I'm probably fine with UHD 630 myself. As long as it can support 3x4k.
This is an obtuse view of what Apple has done. Apple is not the first to try to move consumer computing to ARM. But they are the first to standardize their entire software ecosystem onto one platform - unifying mobile and desktop. Microsoft tried with stock ARM processors and failed.
You also ignore the fact that Apple just did not make a stock ARM processor. it uses the instruction set but it is a custom implementation that has demonstrated benefits over strict stock ARM. Additionally, Apple has developed an SOC around the core processor that has additional elements that deliver performance you won't get in a Qualcomm chip. It is the result of over 10 years of work that competitors won't be able to just "do" in the near term. It won't be that easy.
OK, lots of points to discuss here....
I would not be so optimistic that other software/hardware vendors could "easily" replicate Apple's design advantages. There is a lot of Apple-specific design in the M1 that supports Apple software, and vice versa. Yes, Microsoft produces their own hardware, but they lack experience in designing their own CPUs, and have not demonstrated great ARM products - unlike Apple, which has been building their own highly successful ARM-based products for a decade.
Is Microsoft really "ready" for an ARM/RISC change-over? They have started on this path, certainly, but results so far are not great. They may see the writing on the wall for supporting Intel chips though. AMD looks slightly better but will have to keep up with Apple's advances.
Obviously, the M1 design is unique to Apple at present, and I would argue that the level of hardware and software integration probably *is* unique in the industry, at least for mass-produced SoCs. I agree that there are many vendors making ARM processors mostly in the embedded/mobile space and a handful in the enterprise/server space, but there are not many in the mainstream consumer laptop/desktop market. Apple clearly has the lead here, although others (like Qualcomm or Samsung) will try to get a piece of the action.
I certainly think that Apple Silicon will shake up the industry a bit, once the advantages of ARM/RISC-based consumer PCs become more widely known. At least other manufacturers know what they need to achieve now to be competitive, and Apple has set the bar quite high, all of which will only benefit consumers in the long run.
Last edited:
What does MacOS lack specifically?
Why is it "limited"? What specific software is no longer available to you, and is this because it's running MacOS or running on an ARM processor?
For high-volume consumer SoCs, yes.
But the IBM chips for 370-compatible Z-series mainframes might be considered even more tightly integrated with the OS and (Cobol !) apps than Apple's. And the Z15 CPU cores run at 5.2 Ghz, with 240 core system configurations.
Interesting!
But starting at $160,000 for the 65-core base model, I'll probably pass.....
I used to work with Oracle Exalogic servers with up to 1320 cores, but they cost about $1 million a pop, so I also wasn't tempted.
exactly! the only fact that M1 is at least as good as current offer is enough to see how fast ARM is evolving, in 2 years ARM would DOUBLE X86 performance (comparing same end, not portables Vs workstation of course…) .
hopefully iMacs are coming today and benchmarks soon