The one thing that's true is they do currently have a f-tonne more compatible games. But yeah, those ads are otherwise a desperate joke.
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 Max Chip May Have More Raw GPU Performance Than a PlayStation 5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uh your Ps4 games are running in PS4 mode, so of course you are not going to see a difference.
See this for a performance comparison:
Ray Tracing Performance Comparison - Tellusim Technologies Inc.
Tellusim Technologies Inc. Ray Tracing Performance Comparison
tellusim.com
Gaming is such a ridiculous argument and topic to discuss. Is every gamer in the world running an RTX 3080? I am not, I am using a 5700XT. A few of my friends are using a 1080. A popular streamer is running a 1080. The most popular video card on Steam is a 1060 with the 1050 Ti being #1 which the M1 standard competes with.
Not everyone needs to run games at 8k 120 FPS. There is really no reason for Apple to chase the most elite system setup to target gamers. The gamer market is niche, and the top end gaming market is even more niche. Out of the percentage of Windows users that game, how many are actually playing the Cyberpunks? How many of those Cyberpunks are playing at ABSOLUTE MAX? Most gamers play League of Legends, Minecraft, WoW, Starcraft 2 or other games like it.
Raw power is not really a big issue for Macs. It's sales. No one views the mac as a gaming machine so no one really buys a mac to game. The latest Intel 16" MBP w/Radeon 5600M is a very capable gaming laptop for its size, but there are few top games left being made for macOS. That's usually why I now fire up Windows 10 if I want to play a game.
A 10W laptop cannot do sustained 2.6TF. At least not on planet earth yet.
Also don’t forget Apple is on 5nm vs consoles like 7-14nm chiplets.. and Apple has a really really skilled engineering group than AMD at this point
"Baseless conjecture. Chip design matters too. Again, M1 has 1024 shader cores operating at 1.3Ghz at 10W and it exactly hits the advertised 2.6TFLOPs — as I sad before, I have verified it myself using a long sequence of MADD operations. AMD and Nvidia need 2-3x power to reach the same MADD throughput.
Bottomline: Apple's shader ALUs are simply more efficient than AMD or Nvidia shader ALUs
Yes, they have more experience building high performance GPUs. They have much less experience building low-power GPUs. Apple has spend a decade building a very power efficient GPU core, now they simply scaled it up to a med-sized GPU
And Apple offers actually useable sparse textures, programmable blending, tile shaders (persistent GPU cache between multiple shader invocations), shading determinism, advanced GPU-driven pipelines, advanced GPU SIMD shift operations and a developer friendly API (with a shading language that supports data and function pointers, typed bindings, C++ templates, dynamic linking etc.). I didn't realize this was an e-peen measuring contest."
#48
What generates all that heat, I wonder? 🤔
Perhaps when your GPU (alone) performs at the same level of previous generation architectures, but consumes 40% less power, maybe, just maybe, it also creates (at least) 40% less heat?
🙄
Now who’s failing to use logic?
Watts does not equate to TFs as much as you think… There’s a whole lot of other things like CPU RAM GPU timing, efficiency of calculations, hardware features available, the intelligence to turn hardware features on chip on and off, the locality of cache and ram to processing, the software support… all of that has more impact
While you are partially right, I believe the M1 Max wouldn't need as much heatsink as a PS5 or XSX, given that the ARM M1 CPU/GPU generates less heat than an x86 competitor (which is what the consoles use).
The Vega comparison isn't really that straightforward. Yes, Vega had more TF than a PS5, but it's also older tech, which the M1 is not.
But I agree that while 10.5 might be a peak performance, I don't believe it'll hold that sustained... I would bet that if you 100% push the M1 Pro, it will kick the fans hard on the 16 inch but keep running at 100%. The M1 Max might throttle a bit. Maybe to 9TF or something like that. Which would still be pretty great, given the size of the damn thing.
Regardless, Apple made a really good SOC. The M1 was already amazing and the M1 Pro and Max do not dissapoint. Interested to see how future M2's and M3's will be.
For me personally, I'm a software dev and I don't play on a Mac so if I had to buy a mac (I don't, I have a company provided 13'' Pro with the M1) I would go for the M1 Pro with 32Gb of RAM. No need for extra GPU power, but I would love some more RAM.
I have said this in another thread, but as a game developer Apple's problem is not hardware but Marketshare. I am writing a game and targeting Windows only because that is the most largest environment for potential sales. The R&D/Testing/Distribution and support costs of a MacOS version of my game far outweighs the potential revenue I would gain from a macOS variant. And I am even using an engine that does support MacOS easily. Most game developer's are not. So if it costs me more than I would gain from potential sales from an engine that supports it, AAA developers using engines that don't have macOS support will be even less likely to port it on macOS.
It doesn't matter if Apple's $700 Mac Mini has an equivalent of an RTX 3090 in it, marketshare is what matters. The Mac mini itself can play any recent game. Not max of course. My 1080 and 5700XT can still play games well. But the most popular video cards in Steam are the 1060 and 1050 Ti.
Cyberpunk recommended video cards: GTX 1060 6GB / GTX 1660 Super or Radeon RX 590
Certainly you won't play it at 8K 120 FPS, but if optimized well even the Mac mini can play it at medium settings.
It doesn't matter if Apple's $700 Mac Mini has an equivalent of an RTX 3090 in it, marketshare is what matters. The Mac mini itself can play any recent game. Not max of course. My 1080 and 5700XT can still play games well. But the most popular video cards in Steam are the 1060 and 1050 Ti.
Cyberpunk recommended video cards: GTX 1060 6GB / GTX 1660 Super or Radeon RX 590
Certainly you won't play it at 8K 120 FPS, but if optimized well even the Mac mini can play it at medium settings.
"Not yet" was available until late 2020....so "yet" became a real thingSo the whole planet earth is saying that can sustained that...
I like my share of games too, subscribed to GamePass Ultimate and saving for a PS5 or series X. AT some point my 2012 rMBP with bootcamp was the best (and most pricey) machine I used to play Assassin's Creed 2. But that was just an outlier in the grans scheme of Apple things.
I don't think Apple's GPU would be the best showcase for games, because even with excellent raw power they still don't support modern gaming technologies like DLSS or Raytracing.
Sigh. Ok, I will repeat it for the third time — I myself have written a GPU benchmark that tests the peak FLOPS throughput and M1 does exactly 2.6TFLOPS. Power consumption in powermetrics was 10W. I don't have the laptop anymore, so I can't send you the screenshots. But I can share the code if you are interested.
And since your are probably going to say that my code is wrong — I calibrated it on my 5500M (where it returned almost exactly 4TFLOPS, as advertised) and I have also verified my results with people who know this stuff much better than I do.
By the way, this might shock you, but the iPhone 13 Pro can do over 1TFLOPS sustained FP32
Sortof agree, but the price of GTX 3080s and 3090s suggests there is quite a bit of demand for $3k devices to play games on.
GPU power isn't always for games. Apple reached out to Blender to push money into that so it seems clear to me the priorities are on making games rather than playing them. And people using Blender and Unity as Apple demo'ed are making games for iOS where Apple makes a lot of money. There is no incentive for Apple to bring games to the Mac when the money is in developing.
it depends on the gaming you do , of course...the metal support games will be on top...and also the general PvP games will work just fine, like CSgo(i think its called) dota, LoL, blizzard games etc
Ok, but these consoles uses such a huge heatsinks because they use ancient x86 crap.
And that is really great news! Now if the Linux games especially AAA titles don’t start to arrive fast and furious then that means someone i.e. Publisher did not want to take the risk to develop for Linux. It’s the same thing Apple finds itself in.
Linux has an even much lower marketshare than Apple. I happen to like Linux especially Linux Mint and Manjaro. The reason we don’t see big titles on the Mac and Linux has little to do with the tech and software and more to do with userbase. I was reading not too long ago on a gaming website that some big budget games are already approaching half a billion dollars.
Who is this a problem for? Why does this keep coming up? Why do people constantly complain that product X doesn’t fit everyone on the planet?
If you want a Windows gaming rig, just buy one. Apple coming out with Apple Silicon doesn’t make your rig slower. It has zero impact. Just like gaming rigs and PS5’s have zero impact on which Mac I am buying, because if it aint MacOS, I aint buyin’!
I don’t play games on a laptop. I prefer to hookup my PC’s, XBOX series X and PS5 to 50” 4K TV’s.