They are comparing integrated GPU performance and running at 10x lower power!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M1 Chip Beats GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560 for Graphics Performance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"we are currently at 3080ti from Nvidia and 6900xt from AMD, which both obliterate M1 GPU power in comparison, however both of them are not intended for mobile computing and Air-like computers."
As in any comparisons in life you need to have common ground to compare upon, whoever brings up the not yet released AMD 6900xt (should start rolling out soon though) and do any comparisons is being snarky (or.....) , you don't say that the 5600M is a ****** GPU (best AMD has as a discrete mobile GPU) because the 6900XT exists , same as you don't say the new Zen3 CPU`s sucks in multithread because we have a Milan server part.
But you can say that Zen3 is best in class CPU for his MARKET and the 5600M is best in class in its MARKET.
And now you can say that M1 is best in class in its MARKET , will ppl try and see how much above its weight can it punch ? sure , its always the case with the best in class products , its like in boxing , you have the MW champ , can he go up one category and take on the best LHW ?? its usually "NO" but sometimes we have special boxers that can.
Lets try and stop throwing around 350W 700$ GPU`s names in a 10W machine performance analysis , even if you say "I know its not intended to be in a laptop" , like its not so obvious that you can skip this entire claim.
It is mind boggling how many people are trying to downplay the performance by comparing to a 3080 or other dedicated cards. This is an integrated GPU. I don't know of another integrated GPU that is that good.
Fair enough, I guess they probably could have made more of an effort to design a more suitable enclosure sooner given it was quite obvious Intel's 10nm roadmap was belly-up by at least 2017. At least they're now back to doing what they do best, designing the whole system hand in glove
Keep imagining...because it's not true now, or likely ever. The fastest Nvidia cards are 50 x more powerful than the iGPU on the M1. For an iGPU it's impressive, but that's where it ends for now
I am not downplaying M1, its a great processor, probably even too good for the most people on Macbook Air.
In Apple words, a real leap forward that will put Macs in a new era....
However it is not the best GPU as some people hype it, not by a long shot.
In Apple words, a real leap forward that will put Macs in a new era....
However it is not the best GPU as some people hype it, not by a long shot.
A lot of people seem to mis that this smokes the Intel Iris and Intel UHD 630 graphics that ship in all mac books to this day. It also seems to come close the the discrete graphics in my MBP16 when you compare to the 5500M if you are looking at onscreen performance. Doesn't do as well in offscreen; without a reference I'm not sure exactly what that's referring to... I'm assuming off screen is the additional rendering done to create reflections and other such effects
If M1 can surpass low end desktop GPU, with merely 5W power, that's astonishing feat. Imagine the future variant of M1 or whatever it's called, it might reach Vega 56~64 / 2070 tier.
But still shame, I can't put all those power to play my favorite MSFS...
But still shame, I can't put all those power to play my favorite MSFS...
I am sorry, but I did not quite understand your comment. I wrote "instruction set architecture", not "core". Does that not specify quite accurately what Apple licensed? (Of course, I have not seen the license, so I rely on publicly available information.)
If — and that is a big if — Nvidia is allowed to acquire ARM, Nvidia holds the most important processor core and ISA IPR in the world ranging from Cortex-M0 to high end processor cores and ISAs. If Apple manages to demonstrate that ARM ISA is superior to x86/x64 in personal computing, and that the transition is not too painful, it is very bad news to Intel and good news to ARM.
So, at the moment Apple M1 may be Nvidia's best friend. Apple is not a real competitor in GPUs, and it is unlikely Apple will release a discrete GPU. GPU architectures are highly optimized modern architecures, and there is not so much space for making something radically better. At the moment M1 benefits from the integrated approach (iGPU is more power-efficient as there is no need to drive the bus) and TSMC's great chip process. The first one does not scale to discrete GPUs, and the second one is not Apple's technology.
The good news is that apple also as a ”discrete” GPU coming shortly. Additional cooling and more die area should allow it to compete with even much higher end GPUs.
I guess they're trying to compare this to machines it could replace - nobody will buy a MacBook Air to replace a real gaming computer, so it doesn't need to be compared to an RTX 2070, but a lot of productivity machines still use variants of the GTX 1050 so it's a relevant comparison.
Actually, I was wrong in my post. I overlooked that they did give context.
Looks very impressive for an iGPU.
For some comparisons to Geekbench Metal tests:
Apple M1: ???
AMD Radeon RX 560: 21336
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: 12310
Intel(R) Iris(TM) Plus Graphics: 8490
Intel UHD 630: 3776
For some comparisons to Geekbench Metal tests:
Apple M1: ???
AMD Radeon RX 560: 21336
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: 12310
Intel(R) Iris(TM) Plus Graphics: 8490
Intel UHD 630: 3776
For me, the big question isn't how good the M1 is (it's clearly very, very good), but rather where is the ceiling? In other words, just how far can Apple go with the fully integrated SOC and will they offer alternatives when that ceiling has been reached.
The big test for Apple will be in the coming months when they start rolling out their desktop machines and I'm intrigued to see it play out
I'm also ridiculously excited to see what the next Mac Pro will offer: I expect my current Mac Pro to last another 3 years, which gives them plenty of time to iron out any wrinkles
The big test for Apple will be in the coming months when they start rolling out their desktop machines and I'm intrigued to see it play out
I'm also ridiculously excited to see what the next Mac Pro will offer: I expect my current Mac Pro to last another 3 years, which gives them plenty of time to iron out any wrinkles
So your presumption is that professional testers would overlook this in a graphics test? The only time I actually heard anything like this was a guy testing the battery life of a Samsung (in power save mode) to an iPhone. Pretty dumb, right, but most professional tests know what they are doing. to see how it is done wrong, look at the database on geekbench and see the obvious low balls - probably running handbrake on their Dell while doing a test on Geekbench, not very professional - dah
TSMC certainly enable what Apple is doing with their silicon, but I think it's also down to them being able to work through every bottleneck to squeeze out more potential than a more 'off the shelf' part can manage with the same resources.
The real test is the 27-inch iMac. The AMD 6700 XT is out already. Can Apple hit a moving target and somehow surmount AMD’s future GPUs? That would be incredible, but I doubt it.
I think you'll find it's the article comparing the M1 with dedicated GPU's rather than the people....I guess the people are saying well if you want to compare like that, then compare it with cards that are seriously much faster rather than the one from 5 years ago that are not?
Slow down brother. For Apple's M1 chip in a MacBook Air to beat the GTX1050Ti is huge. I think that's proof enough to give Apple a chance to get to the iMac.
