Sidebar Sidebar
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

Lets be honest.

First, Apple put crappy GPUs in Airs and even iMacs and Mac Pros.

Second, M1 is good enough for the majority of Air and Mini users, even Macbook pro 13 users.

Third, 1050ti is an old graphics card, so is rx560, we are currently at 3080ti from Nvidia and 6900xt from AMD, which both obliterate M1 GPU power in comparison, however both of them are not intended for mobile computing and Air-like computers.

So in truth you can game on Macbook Air, but not in 8k and/or high frame rates, as this is reserved for 3080ti and 5900xt GPUs, plus if you really want to game, you are better off with PS5, Xbox X or a PC with high end GPU.

However Macbook Air will run Fortnite (I know the legal battle between Epic and Apple) or PubG without any problems and that is fine for most people.

ps: However it will be interesting to see, what the future M chips will bring to Macs (pro and iMac models) and how quickly or even if they will try to close this gap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
I hope to find out soon how the MacBook Pro m1 will run. My tracking under UPS says delivery today! Excited about this! 😊
 
boss.king said:
I feel like the M1 performance so far seems incredibly impressive, but it also shows how little effort Apple was putting into Macs for the last few years.

It’ll definitely be interesting to see what the more powerful chips with better graphics can do though.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to design a SOC like the M1? Oh, and don't forget the effort that Rosetta 2 took? Then there is all the underlying software inside MacOS. All that while maintaining a set of releases of Intel based kit and keeping the M1 etc secret.
I'll be looking forward to your new SOC that can wipe the floor with the M1. When is it due for release? 2030 perhaps? (sic)
 
  • Like
Reactions: grefenius and Vazor
Pretty impressive! Even if the comparisons are with older graphics cards.

I look at it this way - Intel would need to have their integrated Iris GPU equivalent to a Nividia 1080 or AMD RX580, and their CPU equivalent to a Core i9 while sipping power better than the Y-series chips to match what Apple has done here with the M1.

And you can get this in a Mac Mini starting at $699.

Again, pretty impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMLC88, hxlover904, FCX and 2 others
StevieD100 said:
Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to design a SOC like the M1? Oh, and don't forget the effort that Rosetta 2 took? Then there is all the underlying software inside MacOS. All that while maintaining a set of releases of Intel based kit and keeping the M1 etc secret.
I'll be looking forward to your new SOC that can wipe the floor with the M1. When is it due for release? 2030 perhaps? (sic)
Click to expand...
I'm confused. I said their SOC performance seems incredibly impressive, and somehow you've taken that as an attack?
 
StevieD100 said:
Rosetta 2
Click to expand...
1605538061273.jpeg


Not bad either....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ex2bot
DrV said:
An interesting tie between Nvidia and Apple M1: Nvidia is in the process of acquiring ARM Inc. (whose processor instruction set architecture Apple has licensed.)
Click to expand...
No it’s not what you seem to think.
Apple’s license allows them to make major changes to the chip design it’s just the base instruction set that Apple license.

To explain it for the majority of people that don’t understand it correctly.

Intel and AMD CPU’s both use the x86 and x64 instruction sets. But as you may know, the chip design between Intel and AMD are quite different. But they both are designed to support the same instruction set but deliver it via different core architecture designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zemsantos
Sounds great for an iGPU, only makes me more excited for an AS dGPU ( or dGPU alternative).
People saying that the 1050 is a 3 y/o GPU have to remember that the 1050 is a dGPU and the M1 is Apple's entry level chipset with an iGPU.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Deelron, Rokkus76, Strigoi and 5 others
These are great numbers for low power, integrate, mobile SoCs. I expect all the low power parts to really perform well. Whether Apple can take this and scale it up to full power parts that would be found in an MP remains an open question. NVDA has been making graphics cards for a very long time, is good at what they do, and firing on all cylinders right now (unlike Intel).
 
The questions I have are:

1: How does a real game like surviving Mars or a Civ 6 play?
2: Is it scalable, what is the 16” MBP for example going to have in it?
3: Are there any limitations or scenarios it performs poorly?

If it really is as good as it sounds then frankly it’s a game changer. For some reason though (and it’s probably because we’ve got used to AMD / Nvidia) I’m sceptical still. The real world testing it’s going to get in the next few weeks is really exciting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
Chompineer said:
I'm not sure if you know this or not, but both of those cards listed are both A) Old, and B) Veeeery low end.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the fact that we are comparing an integrated GPU to the performance of a discreet GPU from even 3 years ago is amazing. This is an amazing GPU. That fact that it doesn't tromp a modern discreet GPU doesn't negate that fact.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Deelron, emmiranda, hxlover904 and 8 others
I hope we get an affordable mac pro mini with apple silicon. No reason to build a Hackintosh really with performance like this.
 
I just want it to run Dolphin which an iPhone and even the previous MacBook Air could do okay. So I’m happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
All it means for me it that exept Intel, Apple will also ditch AMD's GPUs. Until now, I could not imagined Apple's GPUs will be faster than ones form AMD/nVidia.

Good news!
 
I just ran a test on the same site and compared the M1 with the 2017 iMac Pro (AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64) and the M1 graphics chip seems to beat the OnScreen results over the built in iMac Pro AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 chip! That to me is impressive for Apple's integrated graphics on the M1 SOC chip. Here is the side by side comparison of the M1 and iMac Pro graphics from the same site referenced in this article: https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did1=90754264&os1=OS+X&api1=metal&hwtype1=GPU&hwname1=Apple+M1&D2=Apple+iMac+Pro+(Retina+5K,+27-inch,+Late+2017)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hxlover904
Falhófnir said:
What components are you talking about then, given this is a thread about the graphics performance of Apple's chip?
Click to expand...
Their laptops as a whole. They've been stuck with what Intel can offer them (although not really, Ryzen has been available for a while now) and stuck with Intel onboard graphics for most of their machines (although, again, not really, there are plenty for thin and light laptops out there making use of dedicated graphics) and yet they've still barely updated their laptop designs in 4 years, even when its become clear that they run pretty hot.

But to be clear, the takeaway here is a positive one - I'm happy they're trying again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: emmiranda and ohio.emt
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back