May be an unpopular take here: comparing the spec, we already knew that (3090 is faster.) We can look at theoretical peak FLOPS (32bit), and also available memo

May be an unpopular take here: comparing the spec, we already knew that (3090 is faster.) We can look at theoretical peak FLOPS (32bit), and also available memory, and internal bandwidth. Of the 3, 3090 clearly wins in FLOPS, kind of a draw in internal bandwidth depending on how you read into it, and M1 Ultra has more memory. Now, Apple’s benchmark, like all benchmark releases by their own manufacturer including Intel, use tests that’s favorable to their specific hardwares. No 2 workloads are the same, there probably exists some workload that your hardware run fastest comparing to the competition. In this case, relying on GPU alone doesn’t seem to make the M1 Ultra comes first, but they have a secret weapon: unified memory. Anyone who uses GPGPU for example will know that the latency to copy back and forth between main and GPU memory can be a deal breaker in some workload. So to choose a a benchmark making M1 Ultra stands out then would involve picking some intensive workload that involve moving data between the GPU and CPU. That movement would diminish a bit of the gain from 3090 and if choosing the mix right, M1 Ultra can come out on top. I’m not accusing Apple to be disingenuous, at least not in the sense that is not a common practice in the industry. Apple’s chart is very uncommon though. Eg at a few points they keep showing the same statistics comparing it to another thing, where consecutive charts are just changing the “other thing”. Any sane person would put all of them in the same chart. The reason? Probably because nothing is in scale so drawing all of them in the same chart is meaningless.