7 ms·

Well presumably the apple machine would be much cheaper, given the price points people are talking about the M1 coming in at.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Unless it was sold at a loss, no. The GPUs in the consoles are much, much more powerful than in the M1, they have completely different memory configurations, and have much faster storage as well as hardware decompression systems. To get to this level, cost would significantly increase, add in expensive cooling and so on and you'll get to a price higher than the consoles. Indeed, the slower Mac Mini is more expensive. Also, even then the margins would be too low for Apple to be interested.
- supermatt 6y ago
  The GPU in a ps5 is equivalent to an RTX 2060. The onboard graphics in the m1 is (almost) equivalent to a GTX1060. That is only one generation behind.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    No, it really isn't. It's equivalent to a 1060 running outdated graphics APIs on barely supported drivers. I assure you it's not comparable to a 1060, and when people start benchmarking them on Vulkan or DirectX instead of decade old OpenGL this is will be apparent.
    - supermatt 6y ago
      The benchmarks don't take advantage of Metal either! Obviously we will have to wait for more sophisticated benchmarks that can take advantage of otherwise unsupported features - but based on raw performance, they ARE comparable. That is not even up for debate. As should be clear - these aren't consoles. But apple certainly have the knowledge to create one. Markup on apple products is typically 50%. That gives a LOT of wiggle room for them to meet the pricing of your famed loss leaders (that are ALREADY a generation behind at release!).
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The benchmarks might not take advantage of Metal, but they take advantage of modern drivers. If you want to know just how much of a disaster NVidia GPUs are on Mac OS, you can test them on Windows vs Mac OS and you will notice a huge difference. It's so bad that people were working on OpenGL to Metal translation layers. The 1050Ti is indeed much more powerful than the GPU in the M1, as even on OpenGL, where it is generally 30% slower than the competition vs on DirectX, and even though it has to deal with horribly bad drivers, and even though it's extensions are not fully supported on Mac OS, it stays competitive. And Apple does not have the knowledge to be competitive with AMD in GPUs, not even remotely close. If you want to look at raw performance, we can. The M1 GPU does 2.6 teraflops. The GPU in the PS5 does 10.28 teraflops. The PS5 is, in raw performance, 4 times faster than the M1 chip.
        supermatt 6y ago
        > The 1050Ti is indeed much more powerful than the GPU in the M1 The 1050ti is 2.1 teraflops, vs the 2.6 for the M1! Also, M1 GPU has "extensions" that aren't being benchmarked... > The PS5 is, in raw performance, 4 times faster than the M1 chip. I already said that the ps5 GPU is a generation ahead of M1, so it is no wonder it is more performant. Anyway, like I said, we will have to wait for some comparable benchmarks. Not sure how that will ever happen though.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The PS5 isn't just a generation ahead, 4 times more compute power is 2-3 generations. As for the 1050Ti, while it has a bit less raw compute power, it uses many tricks like variable rate shading, streaming memory compression, and vastly faster memory, that the M1 doesn't have. The difference between those features, exposed via extensions but not used on macOS, is that they actually significantly speed up the rendering of video games. If there were in the M1 chip, I don't know why Apple wouldn't expose them. NVidia does, on every platform except macOS because Apple doesn't want them to. As for benchmarks, the best you're going to get is a Vulkan benchmark running on the Nvidia card via the native driver and on M1 via MoltenVK.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Unless it was sold at a loss, no. The GPUs in the consoles are much, much more powerful than in the M1, they have completely different memory configurations, and have much faster storage as well as hardware decompression systems. To get to this level, cost would significantly increase, add in expensive cooling and so on and you'll get to a price higher than the consoles. Indeed, the slower Mac Mini is more expensive. Also, even then the margins would be too low for Apple to be interested.

supermatt 6y ago
The GPU in a ps5 is equivalent to an RTX 2060. The onboard graphics in the m1 is (almost) equivalent to a GTX1060. That is only one generation behind.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  No, it really isn't. It's equivalent to a 1060 running outdated graphics APIs on barely supported drivers. I assure you it's not comparable to a 1060, and when people start benchmarking them on Vulkan or DirectX instead of decade old OpenGL this is will be apparent.
  - supermatt 6y ago
    The benchmarks don't take advantage of Metal either! Obviously we will have to wait for more sophisticated benchmarks that can take advantage of otherwise unsupported features - but based on raw performance, they ARE comparable. That is not even up for debate. As should be clear - these aren't consoles. But apple certainly have the knowledge to create one. Markup on apple products is typically 50%. That gives a LOT of wiggle room for them to meet the pricing of your famed loss leaders (that are ALREADY a generation behind at release!).
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The benchmarks might not take advantage of Metal, but they take advantage of modern drivers. If you want to know just how much of a disaster NVidia GPUs are on Mac OS, you can test them on Windows vs Mac OS and you will notice a huge difference. It's so bad that people were working on OpenGL to Metal translation layers. The 1050Ti is indeed much more powerful than the GPU in the M1, as even on OpenGL, where it is generally 30% slower than the competition vs on DirectX, and even though it has to deal with horribly bad drivers, and even though it's extensions are not fully supported on Mac OS, it stays competitive. And Apple does not have the knowledge to be competitive with AMD in GPUs, not even remotely close. If you want to look at raw performance, we can. The M1 GPU does 2.6 teraflops. The GPU in the PS5 does 10.28 teraflops. The PS5 is, in raw performance, 4 times faster than the M1 chip.
      - supermatt 6y ago
        > The 1050Ti is indeed much more powerful than the GPU in the M1 The 1050ti is 2.1 teraflops, vs the 2.6 for the M1! Also, M1 GPU has "extensions" that aren't being benchmarked... > The PS5 is, in raw performance, 4 times faster than the M1 chip. I already said that the ps5 GPU is a generation ahead of M1, so it is no wonder it is more performant. Anyway, like I said, we will have to wait for some comparable benchmarks. Not sure how that will ever happen though.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The PS5 isn't just a generation ahead, 4 times more compute power is 2-3 generations. As for the 1050Ti, while it has a bit less raw compute power, it uses many tricks like variable rate shading, streaming memory compression, and vastly faster memory, that the M1 doesn't have. The difference between those features, exposed via extensions but not used on macOS, is that they actually significantly speed up the rendering of video games. If there were in the M1 chip, I don't know why Apple wouldn't expose them. NVidia does, on every platform except macOS because Apple doesn't want them to. As for benchmarks, the best you're going to get is a Vulkan benchmark running on the Nvidia card via the native driver and on M1 via MoltenVK.