“Most valuable brand” is a big stretch. “Most valuable brand in the tech world” maybe.
The Apple platform represents about 10 to 15% (depending on who you ask) of market share, out of that percentage, not every every mac user is a consumer, i.e., professional and corporate usages. From there we have to ask ourselves how many consumers who own a mac are actually interested in playing games? I suspect that number is a lot lower then many apple fans here would like to hear.
But what is the FPS? I believe the M4 (non-pro) was getting sub-30 fps without metalfx and with that, it was in the 40 fps range for cyberpunk
At 1280x800? ChatGPT reply seems higher than I would expect for the settings Apple used.
Here’s some money / “the bottom line is” / in-the-real-world-companies-have-to-be-good-at-analyzing-markets-and-making-smart-financial-decisions talk:
Apple did go that way with their M3 Pro chip design for the MBP.
What am I missing here?
You’re missing “with 1280 shading units” and “70% higher performance than Nvidia's Blackwell per Ghz and SM.”
Yeah, but when I see unbriedled enthuseium stating 1700 blender scores are wild and amazing, when that score isn't terribly high - I wanted to put what the M5 can do in context of what nvidia is performing. Again, I'm not diminishing the fact that Apple is able to accomplish this at low power, but for people who are using blender, or needing high performance. Low power consumption isn't necessarily high on the list. It may be for many apple fans but for people needing to make money on their computers, performance is usually at the top of their must have list.
But this thread isn't talking about the CPU, but the GPU, its in the gaming forum, with discussion on gaming performance The M5's gaming performance will be very good, and Apple is moving in the right direction, but comparing the M5 against Nividia, these numbers are not insane or revolutionary. They're good but they're not RTX 50 series good.
It's more that Nvidia doesn't have a base M5 analog. They simply don't make a GPU that size that's meant for the kinds of devices that Apple puts the base M5 chip into - there are no discrete Nvidia GPUs that go into an iPad. Thus we can extrapolate what Apple's Pro and Max GPUs will offer as compared to Nvidia. For the first time Apple's 16-core Pro will be competing with 5050 and 20-core will be competitive with the 5060. Previously you had to get a 20-core M4 Pro to compete with the 4050. The Max GPUs could easily be competitive with the mobile 5080/5090s, maybe even beat them depending on scaling, whereas both M4 Maxes were below the 4080 mobile (the 4070 mobile is apparently not great so even the binned M4 Max had no problem clearing it). Now this is all in Blender where Apple themselves have spent a lot of effort into optimization, so not every piece of software, not even renderers, will be like so. But still that's a big, big improvement compared to the M4 vs 4000-series GPUs.
We can see from Blender the uplift is the same, maybe even better, with ray tracing heavy tasks.
I don’t understand this at all. Surely you can see that if their lowest end chip is able to perform well for it’s size, then it isn’t a terribly big stretch to think that their higher end devices will be more than competitive with Nvidia.
What’s cool is how closely the M5 result matches the M3 Pro chip result.
But I showed Nvidia's lowest end mobile chips and how it was comparing against the the M5.
Do we not think if the RT performance in CP2077 was that much better they would have shown it off?
lol. I’m literally the only person on the planet who doesn’t immediately turn Raytracing off when gaming.
Given Apple's history with this type of marketing speak, maybe 10%-15% more FPS if you are lucky. I doubt the increase will be enough to noticeably affect game play.
Ok. I’m not sure how this is relevant. Their lowest end devices use many more cores and power. You aren't revealing anything by comparing these devices.
