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.
MacBook Pro's M1 Max GPU is Over 3x Faster Than M1 in First Metal Benchmark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s a slightly overclocked 68030. ?68870? So, we can basically say it's a 68k chip?
That’s good stuff, even if they are artificial benchmarks, it gives us a good indication of where the Max GPU is going to land.
He’s just going to move the football or pick and choose what he’ll acknowledge as valid and will dismiss anything that doesn’t fit his narrative. Just a friendly warning, reminder, et al.
How about a Mcclaren F1! New they cost under $900,000 and now one just went for $20 million so I would call that the opposite of your assertion.
There is a YouTube channel called Max Tech that did a thorough review of the M1 air and M1 pro against intel versions and if I remember rightly they proved that it could handled FCP 4K very well indeed.
Watch it anyways incase I got something wrong.
Perhaps Apple keeping MacBook Air pricing lower was to incentivize buy in to the Apple Silicon family. It worked, and the end user gets the benefit of a phenomenal little laptop for the money, and Apple gets to quickly phase out Intel Macs. The M1 Pro/Max is another substantial door closed for Intel. Once the larger iMac integrates the M1 Pro/Max Intel is all but dead in Mac. It may stay around for a few years in the MacPro but I can’t imagine who would fork out money for that at this point seeing the writing on the wall.
Should this mean that the M1 Max will not be used in the forthcoming iMac Pro and Mac Pro (as expected, by the way)? How would Apple call a chip to equip the Mac Pro if "Max" has already been used and supposedly nothing comes above it since it is already "max"? I suppose Apple will launch a new series of chips, with another letter, to be their power-hungry silicon to equip the most powerful Macs. "P-series" for power, maybe?
It's not rocket science. Apple claims M1 Max iGPU is 4x faster than M1 and there are a lot of data already out there for M1 so we can deduce the performance. If M1 takes 37.21 mins then 4x faster puts the M1 Max at ~9.3 mins.
https://www.cgdirector.com/redshift-benchmark-results/
Apple's M1 Max iGPU 4x faster than M1 claim:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021...the-most-powerful-chips-apple-has-ever-built/
Last edited:
While I was waiting for these new models, I used my M1 MBA to edit four 4k projects for a client in FCP - the thing was flawless. The only issue was that without a fan, the CPU would raise up in temps after a bit, and need time to cool, so I got the sense that it was throttling. I will saw however, the performance was still incredible. But I am looking forward to a bit better cooling for sustained CPU loads. The M1 will shock you compared to your 2018.
It's not rocket science. Apple claims M1 Max iGPU is 4x faster than M1 and there are a lot of data already out there for M1 so we can deduce the performance. If M1 takes 37.21 mins then 4x faster puts the M1 Max at ~9.3 mins.
https://www.cgdirector.com/redshift-benchmark-results/
You forgot to add the disclaimer from that site...
"We are keeping these results separate from the Nvidia / CUDA Results for now, as Redshift Metal isn’t as mature as Redshift CUDA yet, and the benchmark runs were done on eGPUs and/or beta macOS versions. Take these scores with a grain of salt. They’ll stabilize and improve over time."
Last edited:
Another caveat I would add is that Apple are only just beginning so therefore once we are about 3 generations in we will see GPU scores from Apple absolutely thrash anything from any PC, even gaming ones.
The 32 core version will beat your card easily so is truly truly impressive what Apple has achieved here.
Dude you are obsessed with 512x512, as long as a game looks better than the original Wolfenstein 3D on PC who cares! lol
M1 Pro or Max will run any game just fine. They might not be 8k or 16k or 32 million k or whatever gamers are obsessing about now but it will be good enough and with respect it annoys me when gamers constantly argue about specs and quality which would be like arguing about a Bentley Bentayga not being better when even if they got better they would then argue that particular car is not good enough.
Sometimes people should just accept what they have is more than good enough and enjoy life instead of wasting it moaning.
with 64gb ram it will load twice as many at once plus what are so many people getting obsessed here, the Mac is not meant to be a hardcore main machine. If people want one then buy a Playstation of Xbox.
I'm ok with that and excited as well. This only puts pressure on the competition to put out better products. I use my 5700 XT in a Hackintosh and do game on it via Windows. The problem I would have with such a monster of a GPU in a Mac is that it would be mostly useless; no games I play available on it (Battlefield, NFS, Forza, etc). I suppose it could help with some After Effects / Premiere Pro work but not sure how much of the new Apple GPUs is actually utilized in Adobe apps.
you are assuming that only the number of cores is what matters and that all "benchmarks" would behave the same way. The fact is on Apple’s webpage there is actually a benchmark for redshift that states a 4x improvement over the previous MacBook Pro with AMD 5600M.It's not rocket science. Apple claims M1 Max iGPU is 4x faster than M1 and there are a lot of data already out there for M1 so we can deduce the performance. If M1 takes 37.21 mins then 4x faster puts the M1 Max at ~9.3 mins.
https://www.cgdirector.com/redshift-benchmark-results/
Apple's M1 Max iGPU 4x faster than M1 claim:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021...the-most-powerful-chips-apple-has-ever-built/
I don’t have results for that model but according to your site the model with 5500M took 25.3 minutes, so that means a M1 Max would be less than 6.3 minutes, so probably equivalent to a RTX 2060 or even 2080 and not a RTX 1660. That would make sense considering the TFLOPs and the memory bandwidth available.
What will be interesting is gaming performance in a Windows VM. The base M1 was pretty much useless for this because you could only allocate 3 high performance cpu cores (most games struggle with less than 4) and 4-8gb of ram to the VM. Combining that with GTX1050 equivalent 7-8 gpu cores make the entry M1 Macbooks a low end gaming machine in a VM... but 4 high performance cpu cores, 16-32gb of ram and 24-32 gpu cores? Now we're talking.
As for the iPad/OS X compatibility, the median age of an iPad users is 41, for gamers its 34. 3/4 of households already have a gaming device, which means converting them to the Mac which probably means an exclusive must have game. In addition, if they design it for the lowest spec iPad and iPhone they're already hampering it and if you already have an iPad there is no reason to buy a Mac to play it. I have no doubt there will be crossover games but I doubt any will be the AAA titles that appeal to gamers.
I doubt Apple is all that interested in the types of games that would bring gamers to the Mac.
Iagree, and I've argued that same point. The problem is market size. The cost to enter it, especially since Apple appears to go it alone with the environment, means the potential returns are too small and the risks to high to take the chance. Better to use resources in an established market an dnot take a risky bet with a low return..
I am not a gamer, but am looking at the attractiveness of the Mac gamer market, and by the looks of it it's not very attractive.
Which actually reinforces the point that if the Mac market was viewed as worthwhile we'd have seen a lot more games ported or released on Macs, even in the Intel era since the specs were equivalent to what you listed there. That it never happened tells me the market is just not worth the effort. That could change, but by Macs growing marketshare not by faster machines.
The new machines are fast, and I get mine Tuesday, and Apple seems to be aiming at its creative and business market with it, not games.
How well do those games run on the ARM architecture, since that is what a VM will be using? Does a topend Surface run them well?
Wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Virtualizing Windows on ARM then x86-64 emulation of games and praying it even launches. Nope.
Good question. I've given up on trying to guess what Apple will do. As of this point I am leaning towards "M" standing for mobile. The M1 was clearly designed for laptops, but had enough oomph to stick in other low-end desktops. And they said the M1 Pro/Max were specifically designed for high-end ("pro") laptops. Those could very well end up in the first iteration of the new iMacs as well.
I would think they're working on a desktop class series. There are rumors of a possible 40-core CPU/128-core GPU SoC in the pipeline destined for the Mac Pro. Which sounds ridiculous, but Apple did concentrate on making the new CPU and GPU cores much more efficient in the A15 while also increasing performance.