3 ms·

To take this comment as a serious question: Maybe, it depends? Context is everything. Certainly compared to the same benchmark on the non-M1 hardware as presen

To take this comment as a serious question: Maybe, it depends? Context is everything. Certainly compared to the same benchmark on the non-M1 hardware as presented by the author, yes. In general this is a very specific test of multiple technologies and whether it is relevant or meaningful is certainly up for debate but if you take it on face value of the number being presented it is either impressive or not impressive based on what you are comparing it to. I think the very specific parameters of the test here make the result largely arbitrary and irrelevant to an end-user when you consider that WebGPU isn't currently relevant to users. Outside of the test and more generally the M1 delivers incredible performance relative to it's power consumption which I think is what is truly impressive about it. Personally I hope one day Apple will finally give up on trying to make a hard stance about keeping the Mac/iOS devices separate and just give the damn things a touch screen. I know they would prefer that I own both a Mac and an iPad but it's really absurd when the only thing separating them now is touch input.

sudosysgen 6y ago
It's really not. They are comparing it to ancient Intel integrated graphics. It's not the actual competitor in this class.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago
  Which is typical of devices in this size/cost. Intel Iris/UHD is exactly the competitor in this class. Some of the recent integrated AMD graphics are modestly capable but are also part of a 35w or higher TDP packages. Looking beyond this arbitrary test, results like these: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... are incredible for Rise of the Tomb Raider on those settings with that power consumption.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The correct comparison is not to integrated graphics. At that package and price the competition is against laptops with a mix of integrated and dedicated graphics.
    - hellotomyrars 6y ago
      I don't think that entirely holds up when you consider the size aspect but regardless the moment you are bringing a dedicated GPU into the equation you aren't holding things equal. It should be compared to integrated graphics because that is what is is both competing against and running circles around in performance, and what it is on-par with (better actually) in power consumption.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Really not, no. The design of the M1 laptops precludes the use of discrete GPUs. They replace laptops that have discrete GPUs (Macbook Pro). Also note that it is not correct to compare CPU+GPU power draw in other systems, as in M1 macbooks the power budget is shared between CPU and GPU which leads to throttling. Also, if you really want to get pedantic, the most powerful integrated graphics are much more powerful than the M1. They are just not ported to laptops, because it makes no sense since you can get much more performance at better power consumptions with dual integrated/discrete GPUs and switching.
        hellotomyrars 6y ago
        I think this has devolved to the point of no longer being constructive but I'll just summarize quickly the point I am making. The M1 performance is incredibly impressive in relation to the power it takes to do it. This is relevant and meaningful to a user of this type of device and allows fantastic battery life even under heavy load which is unmatched by other devices in its class. Yes it isn't the most performant, but it is the most efficient and it also isn't a slouch. I think that is impressive. That is all.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        There are GPUs that use the same amount of power for more performance. There are laptops with discrete GPUs that have similar battery life in those workloads where the M1 gets 20h. There is no improvement to user experience. This is trying to spin a closed platform that is not compatible with discrete GPUs as somehow a good thing. Just FYI. The M1 GPU consumes 0-30% less than the Xavier NX series GPUs, which are the next comparable thing, and delivers a third of the performance. It's way behind in every way to Volta or rDNA. A spade should be called a spade - it's a sub-par product due to Apple making closed, non-standard systems, with worse performance than it could have had.

sudosysgen 6y ago

It's really not. They are comparing it to ancient Intel integrated graphics. It's not the actual competitor in this class.

hellotomyrars 6y ago
Which is typical of devices in this size/cost. Intel Iris/UHD is exactly the competitor in this class. Some of the recent integrated AMD graphics are modestly capable but are also part of a 35w or higher TDP packages. Looking beyond this arbitrary test, results like these: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... are incredible for Rise of the Tomb Raider on those settings with that power consumption.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The correct comparison is not to integrated graphics. At that package and price the competition is against laptops with a mix of integrated and dedicated graphics.
  - hellotomyrars 6y ago
    I don't think that entirely holds up when you consider the size aspect but regardless the moment you are bringing a dedicated GPU into the equation you aren't holding things equal. It should be compared to integrated graphics because that is what is is both competing against and running circles around in performance, and what it is on-par with (better actually) in power consumption.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Really not, no. The design of the M1 laptops precludes the use of discrete GPUs. They replace laptops that have discrete GPUs (Macbook Pro). Also note that it is not correct to compare CPU+GPU power draw in other systems, as in M1 macbooks the power budget is shared between CPU and GPU which leads to throttling. Also, if you really want to get pedantic, the most powerful integrated graphics are much more powerful than the M1. They are just not ported to laptops, because it makes no sense since you can get much more performance at better power consumptions with dual integrated/discrete GPUs and switching.
      - hellotomyrars 6y ago
        I think this has devolved to the point of no longer being constructive but I'll just summarize quickly the point I am making. The M1 performance is incredibly impressive in relation to the power it takes to do it. This is relevant and meaningful to a user of this type of device and allows fantastic battery life even under heavy load which is unmatched by other devices in its class. Yes it isn't the most performant, but it is the most efficient and it also isn't a slouch. I think that is impressive. That is all.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        There are GPUs that use the same amount of power for more performance. There are laptops with discrete GPUs that have similar battery life in those workloads where the M1 gets 20h. There is no improvement to user experience. This is trying to spin a closed platform that is not compatible with discrete GPUs as somehow a good thing. Just FYI. The M1 GPU consumes 0-30% less than the Xavier NX series GPUs, which are the next comparable thing, and delivers a third of the performance. It's way behind in every way to Volta or rDNA. A spade should be called a spade - it's a sub-par product due to Apple making closed, non-standard systems, with worse performance than it could have had.