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.
M5 gaming
- Thread starter M4pro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would depend on CP2077 being updated to take advantage of it. They show off Blender because Apple contributes to it, and can make sure it’s optimized for Apple Silicon.
This thread is in the gaming forum and we’re discussing gaming performance. Comparing the M5 to nvidia is apropro
I don’t think @leman reply implies otherwise. They merely said the fact that the 5050 was Nvidia’s lowest gpu doesn’t mean it’s at the lower end of the gaming market, and certainly not comparable to the base M5.
Feel free to compare the Pro or Max to other Nvidia cards. As @crazy dave said, Nvidia is not in this market.
I would guess testing with and without ray tracing. The CP2077 would be a raster test for gaming and Blender would be an RT heavy test. So they covered RT and raster performance.
Why not simply compare it to a 5090 mobile at that rate if power and size make no difference? If Nvidia made say a 5040 then fine, but they don't. Nvidia literally doesn't compete in that market. The competition for Apple's M5 comes from GPUs found in Intel's Lunar/Arrow Lake (& upcoming Panther Lake) and AMD's Strix Point.
Yup
I compared nvidias low end gpu to the m5 since that’s also low end.
I did so when I was looking to buy my M4 Max Studio, and once the M5 pro/max/ultra comes out I’ll do so again
It's not the same low end. The point of my earlier comment was, if Nvidia's smallest card was the 5090 mobile making it the lowest end Nvidia GPU, would you still compare that to the base M5? Of course not, or at least I hope not? I hope that highlights the silliness of the logic at play here.
Now I did say earlier that Nvidia doesn't make anything comparable to the M5 GPU, but that's not entirely true. It does make the T239 SOC for the Switch 2. I would argue that's not really fair to Nvidia as that's technically an older GPU design (sort of, my understanding it's a hybrid Ampere with extra features), but that's the closest thing they currently make and was released just a few months ago. So if you want to compare Nvidia's low end to Apple's low end, by all means compare the Switch 2 to the M5 as that is technically Nvidia's lowest gaming solution, not the 5050.
There is talk of Nvidia and Mediatek releasing PC chips later this year/early next year, but we don't have confirmation on what kind of chips. If the rumors are accurate, the smaller of the two might, might be base M-comparable and we'll get an actual Nvidia GPU to compare to the base M. Until then, you've got AMD Strix Point, Intel Lunar/Panther Lake, Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite, and I suppose the Switch 2 if you really want something from Nvidia.
Maybe?
I'd wait for M5 Pro/max to drop personally but if you're happy with the currently level of performance you have on CPU, don't need more than 32 GB of RAM and just want to get the new wireless, bluetooth, neural engine, new warranty, etc. you can probably get all that now for less money.
M5 base will certainly be faster in single thread, close on multi-thread CPU, GPU will be not quite there though depending on the workload.
Name a non-tech company with a bigger market cap?
uh... that's what is wild?
You're comparing an entire low-end mobile SOC that runs in like 30 watts (cpu, GPU, SSD, RAM) to GPUs that run in 250-300 watts? The M5 will fit in an ipad....
Sure, they're older but the laws of physics have not changed in the past 5 years.
The only real valid gaming comparison to the M5 is something like the steamdeck and other handhelds of that nature. Its not entirely fair as the M5 mac will have better cooling and larger battery but its closer than comparing to a discrete GPU running in 5x the power budget.
In fairness the 5050 mobile* doesn't quite have that power budget - it's more like 50W in its base configuration (if the OEM overclocks, which many do and is probably reflected in its Blender scores, it can be up to 100W). Though by the same token, the base M GPU has also historically been like 10-20W with as you said 30W for the base M SOC (the M4 might've increased that I can't remember).
*I believe even OC variants of the 5050 desktop GPU tend to be under 200W, but definitely over 130W (the base 5050 desktop GPU)
Last edited:
So 50w for the 5050 mobile, PLUS THE CPU, RAM, SSD, etc.
30W for the macbook would be the entire power budget; MBA only ships with a 35 watt power adapter for example. The ipad Pro ships with a 20W adapter (or used to, if i recall).
You just can't compare the M5 GPU to anything from Nvidia without adding the power budget for the intel CPU, etc.
And in any case, the M5 is the crappiest SOC Apple make in that generation; What people should be comparing it to is an intel CPU with Intel XE onboard graphics, or an AMD APU in a similar price range/power budget.
I know:
I was just providing a small, perhaps pedantic, correction on the 5050's actual power budget (and again it can and will go to 100W just by itself - possibly more - depending on the OEM settings and a lot of the Blender results are probably for the higher powered units). We're not in any disagreement.
Yeah to be clear, pretty sure you do know, but others in thread seem to be ignoring that.
So, 1.44x more FPS in reality in Cyberpunk 2077. Which is really big and very noticeable, given the same number of GPU cores.
Last edited:
A term vastly overused by Apple to the point its meaningless now. As for gaming some light retro games on the Mac, newer heavyweight games have a Windows system for that as the Mac can't come close on selection of performance. As much as I'd like to ditch Microsoft it's not really practicable, is easier to silence the OS and enjoy the games I like.
Q-6
If you're not running competitive online multiplayer, linux is a totally viable gaming option now. Often more performant than windows these days.
I've looked at Linux but still comes up lacking for my needs. Am pretty much OS agnostic so not against the idea. Windows is far from perfect, nor is it as broken as some make out. Think most who have issues with Windows is down to their own actions, PEBCAK being the most likely culprit...
Q-6
I'm comparing Apple's M5 MacBook Pro, and how it will perform against other laptops that use Nvidia GPUs. If you think that's an unfair comparison, then you probably missed a lot of discussions particularly in the In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs thread.
So you're saying the M5 is more of a handheld/console processor and we shouldn't compare it to PCs? That's a first.
Last edited:
I've all but ditched Windows/Microsoft, so much so, I'm working at clearing off OneDrive and I'll be uninstall Office. I found that Crossover on my M4 Max Studio gives me nearly everything I need, and where it falls down, there's Nvidia's Geforce Now.
I'm saying it runs in the same power budget, and that if you want to compare GPU performance of a low end integrated part, you should compare to a low end integrated part. In PC land it is playing in the same space as machines with intel/amd integrated graphics.
The M4 Max is comparable to the high end AMD 40 core integrated solution.
Yes, macs are expensive at that performance level and no, apple do not have an equivalent to high end discrete parts.
From a gaming PC perspective the 5050 is low end on the Nvidia stack. They don’t sell a PC part that is lower.
Why would CP2077 need to be updated to take advantage of the additional RT performance?