Where am I assuming that? I split the gamer target group in a way that seems reasonable and tried to explain why Apple has no incentive to care about gaming.
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 Ultra Outperforms 28-Core Intel Mac Pro in First Leaked Benchmark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And Apple has completely went against any “norms” consistently over the last 10 years, so not sure what your point is?
OpenGL and OpenCL were deprecated in Mojave….and Apple’s OpenCL version hasn’t been updated since approx 2010 so is not optimised for Apple Silicon chips.
macOS 10.14 Mojave: The Ars Technica review
Dark Mode and iOS apps make this desert-themed release feel surprisingly verdant.
arstechnica.com
Many of the pro customers are probably already aware of what Apple has coming for the new Mac Pro. Apple has always worked hand and hand with any large sites that use their high-end hardware. Those folks most likely already have been briefed and maybe even test sites for the new hardware.
I don't think I'm too far out on a limb that I can say that VERY few people are going to change their careers - or choose it in the first place - over something as trivial as computer vendor.
Last edited:
I find it odd that there are so many gamers on these forums discussing gaming performance. Pro and semi-pro Macs have never, ever targeted this market. These machines are for creative professionals and gaming performance is completely irrelevant.
I think I know where this is headed. Next, 4 M1 chips joined together and is going to be called "Ultra Max". Every spring event they can keep adding to this.
Geekbench is not the best tool for measuring power of Apple GPU. Tests used there are too short, and gpu is done faster than clock of gpu reaches full speed. Ignore geekbench GPU scores.
Did you know that apple gpu can have power consumption under 7mW? And that its clocks are dynamic, depending on load? Why do you think macbook pro with max chip are able to last so long on battery?
What you state would be totally and completely useless as it is ONLY valid for YOU ONLY or few like you and most other people dp not duo exactly as you do so is just a pissing contest for egos.
Geekbench is a neutral way to compare base scores and then if you really need to see how it compares to your situation then have at it and be happy.
Isn't that the only comparison that matters? How a system works in someone else's situation is not very helpful to my situation (unless they are identical).
Because sometimes “norms” aren’t just “norms”, they’re indicative of underlying fundamental forces—whether physical, or economic, or otherwise. The reason chipmakers work up from small to large is to deal with the economic and physical realities of chip fabrication. With a new set of designs (or a new process node), starting with smaller dies allows for better ROI on the same size wafer, since more dies will likely pass validation and be usable in products. As the process is refined, it becomes easier to scale the design up as yields increase, preventing the chips from being prohibitively expensive out of the gate. This is even MORE a factor for a company like Apple, which has to my knowledge been historically very averse to letting go of margins on their products.
Now, to be fair, obviously the Mac Pro is a high margin product because it’s targeted at folks who have money to burn. Still, there are limits to even that product’s ability to cover up low chip yields behind thousands of dollars of markup.
The first Mac Studio GPU Test Geekbench 5 Metal.
Mac13,2 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Mac13,2 with an Apple M1 Ultra processor.
browser.geekbench.com
Good question. Unfortunately, Geekbench in the case of metal does not give the amount of units.
Well 103,161 doesn't seem to square with Apples claims so I'd assume (hope) 48 core.
Last edited:
Curious didn’t that get disproven as a law by Intel themselves the last few years? Ironic since Moore was one of the Intel founders
No, it was not disproven. The time constant was adjusted a bit, but overall it’s continued to hold up. And the original version of the law, which speaks to the number of transistors and not to speed, etc., has held up very well.
I thought so. Thanks...
Gordon Moore co-founded Fairchild semicondutor, and Intel and was Intel CEO for a spell. Pretty amazing that physics still applies, at some level, even today.
Thing is, Moore’s Law doesn’t really depend on physics, but instead on human ingenuity. The thing that propels it is that every couple of years humans figure out some way to double the number of transistors they can squeeze together into a processor. Sometimes it’s lithography advances. Sometimes it’s metallurgic advances. Sometimes it’s semiconductor engineering. Sometimes it’s materials science.