Including games. But if you look at the work in cross-platform graphics and video editors, then the current M1 Max is still inferior to solutions like the 3080.
Because historically, the desktop Mac has always been more powerful than the MacBook Pro.
The iMac pro is dead
I did not see/hear Apple’s exact claim, though I am seeing the words “match” or “matches" in regard to M1 Max vs. RTX 3080.
ymcinema.com
This is really great, but what is the point in drastically reducing heating and consumption in the matter of a desktop workstation? This is indisputably important for mobile solutions, but we are talking about a large monoblock with iMac Pro level, which must have a very powerful cooling system and consumption should not play a significant role here at all. If I (or someone) is interested in performance, then I don't care much about performance-per-watt.I did not see/hear Apple’s exact claim, though I am seeing the words “match” or “matches" in regard to M1 Max vs. RTX 3080.
In the testing/demonstration showcased in the following article:
What’s the Ideal Laptop for Video Editors: RTX Studio or Apple M1 Max? - Y.M.Cinema Magazine
As reviewers rushed to the Apple stores to purchase their new expensive toy, which is the MBP (MacBook Pro) M1 Max, benchmarks data flew in, comparing the new beast to an older (Intel-based) MacBook Pro, or to its main rival, the RTX Studio. But, what can we learn from those reviewers...
The RTX 3080 (mobile variant) does outpace the M1 Max by ~30%. However, the RTX 3080 of the competing laptop, an MSI GE66 Raider 11UH, is designed/manufactured/configured for up to 130W of graphics subsystem power consumption. This is in comparison to the M1 Max package (CPU, GPU, SSD controller, etc) power peaking at 92W. While not the full story, specs and tests of the latest CPU and GPUs show that power consumption is a generally acceptable comparison, a necessity to push the limits of performance. Last but not least, is the Apple Silicon native/optimized version of Premiere Pro out of beta status yet? Nonetheless, you are looking at about twice the power consumption (and heat) for only about a third more performance. To me, that seems like a great achievement by Apple.
To an extent, I agree that Apple needs to stop this thinner is always better mentality. For example, I want Apple to add a little thickness to the iPhone to remove the awful camera bumps (or “boil” as someone once said). I am not privy to Apple’s design/engineering decisions, so I can only comment on current products. To be blunt, I do not foresee any Mac other than the Mac Pro being in a remotely traditional desktop workstation form factor. Anyway…. In its latest iteration, the iMac appears about as thin as the MBPs — the 24-inch iMac specs only include the stand depth, not the computer’s actual thickness. Consequently, thermal limits and overall power efficiency are still extremely important. Looking from another perspective, the Mac mini is ~80% the size of the Nvidia RTX 3080 Founders Edition (~1397 cubic cm vs. ~1755 cubic cm). The primary use of space in both is cooling (i.e. fans, heatsinks). In other words, Apple would need to sacrifice a substantial amount of efficiency design, physical size included, to accommodate extracting every last drop from the silicon — basically, nearly 180-degrees of what Intel, AMD, and Nvidia care about.
iMac Pro was discontinued, but they can always bring back the product line.
Yes, but it’s a rumor with pretty good evidence behind it: Hector Martin, the very talented guy leading the effort to port Linux to Apple Silicon Macs, found while reverse-engineering the interrupt controller on the M1 Pro/Max that the chip has built-in support for dual CPU configurations (the original M1 didn’t).
Interesting! Thanks for the info!
