3 ms·

This is click-bait. There really isn't all that much software that does the same exact thing on both NVIDIA and Apple hardware, so benchmarks will largely favo

This is click-bait. There really isn't all that much software that does the same exact thing on both NVIDIA and Apple hardware, so benchmarks will largely favor the hardware that has had more integration. Unlike AMD & Intel, which are easily directly compared, I think there'll be many big differences between Apple and NVIDIA. They do many things in completely different ways. It'll be interesting to see more comparisons as more software is adapted and written to fully take advantage of Apple hardware, the way much of it is currently written to fully take advantage of NVIDIA.

dekhn 5y ago
This article is responding to a very specific slide that Apple showed claiming they were faster than the fastest GPU. This article demonstrates that along a wide range of expected functions for a GPU, Apple's slide was misleading (in multiple ways). While it is definitely true that Apple's new system is a hog for multimedia problems, it's not a "3d-GPU-rendering" system, it's a "2d-GPU-rendering" system, and that's a secondary market for GPUs that nvidia didn't optimize for. Further, I'm fairly certain if nvidia and adobe did optimize more for GPUs, that their products would be significantly faster. However, at that point we start to get into some very interesting issues about whether the GPU should be a bus-attached, or core-attached device.
- wildrhythms 5y ago
  >a very specific slide that Apple showed claiming they were faster than the fastest GPU That is not what the slide showed. The slide shows Apple's chip reaching the same performance numbers given the same amount of power delivery on each GPU. The Verge, this PC Gamer article, and you, are conveniently missing that clearly presented metric.
  - guiambros 5y ago
    Yeah, Apple's slide seems carefully cropped to show discrete GPU limited going to 320W, so the M1 comes on top on a performance vs. power ratio. But the 3090 Ti has TBP of 450W [1], which likely explains why its raw performance easily beats the M1. [1] https://www.hardwaretimes.com/nvidia-made-the-rtx-3090-ti-as-a-testbed-for-rtx-4080-4090s-high-power-consumption-of-over-500w https://www.hardwaretimes.com/nvidia-made-the-rtx-3090-ti-as...
    - dekhn 5y ago
      hey clipped that data to manipulate the graph. Note also "GPU performance" is a metric that includes many things. What did they test, specifically, here? ML training? Gaming? Or 2D ops used commonly in photoshop? I found this review useful: https://www.theverge.com/22981815/apple-mac-studio-m1-ultra-max-review https://www.theverge.com/22981815/apple-mac-studio-m1-ultra-... TL;DR: many professionals who work in 2D or psuedo3D could buy this and immediately be more productive than they were on their previous Apple device. But that chart is still extremely misleading.
    - caycep 5y ago
      that's kind of my beef w/ the 3000 series gpu's in general. Yeah, they're fast and all. But at significantly more TDP and with default coolers larger (> 300 mm) that can fit into my (previously perfectly fine "full size GPU") case? Are they really that much better than my 1080?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I'm aware of that (it was covered already in the press), and it's clear what the slide intended to show. This is standard apple reality distortion field. I work in the field of high performance computing and we know how to interpret a graph that is intended to deceive the naive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
dundarious 5y ago
It’s fair if “better” means “better for end-users”, which is all that matters in practice. It’s especially fair given that Apple is generally credited for having a capabilities focus rather than spec focus, i.e., they are credited for the same end-user focus. I think the article is poorer for not explicitly making this argument, but it’s right to focus on end-user capabilities, IMO.
- mytherin 5y ago
  Better for end users depends entirely on their workloads, and is a moving target. Presumably as Apple’s new chip gets more adoption more games will be designed and optimized for it. There are already games (partly) optimized for it, so why not run those? Why is Tomb Raider more representative of an end-user workload than World of Warcraft?
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I agree it's a moving target, but the point is that the current capabilities matter most, potential future capabilities matter less, and spec sheet or artificially constrained benchmark comparisons matter least. I'm bullish on Apple Silicon, but it is far more likely for your average gamer or GPU compute coder to think that the M1 Ultra is not better than an RTX 3090. It's not being "unfair" if you don't highlight a game that has been specifically optimized, if such games are few and far between, and it is far from assured that that will change. A really good comparison would highlight those cases where AS-specific optimization does improve things significantly, but even there, it should really emphasize that the comparison of M1 Ultra to an RTX 3090 is only favorable given an artificial power constraint on the latter (Apple mention it rather than emphasize it, but a good journalist will emphasize it). So is AS more technically impressive, and does it have more growth potential in the hardware and software (as adoption hopefully grows)? Absolutely. Is it currently materially "better"? For a desktop, by almost any measure, no.

dekhn 5y ago

This article is responding to a very specific slide that Apple showed claiming they were faster than the fastest GPU. This article demonstrates that along a wide range of expected functions for a GPU, Apple's slide was misleading (in multiple ways). While it is definitely true that Apple's new system is a hog for multimedia problems, it's not a "3d-GPU-rendering" system, it's a "2d-GPU-rendering" system, and that's a secondary market for GPUs that nvidia didn't optimize for. Further, I'm fairly certain if nvidia and adobe did optimize more for GPUs, that their products would be significantly faster. However, at that point we start to get into some very interesting issues about whether the GPU should be a bus-attached, or core-attached device.

wildrhythms 5y ago
>a very specific slide that Apple showed claiming they were faster than the fastest GPU That is not what the slide showed. The slide shows Apple's chip reaching the same performance numbers given the same amount of power delivery on each GPU. The Verge, this PC Gamer article, and you, are conveniently missing that clearly presented metric.
- guiambros 5y ago
  Yeah, Apple's slide seems carefully cropped to show discrete GPU limited going to 320W, so the M1 comes on top on a performance vs. power ratio. But the 3090 Ti has TBP of 450W [1], which likely explains why its raw performance easily beats the M1. [1] https://www.hardwaretimes.com/nvidia-made-the-rtx-3090-ti-as-a-testbed-for-rtx-4080-4090s-high-power-consumption-of-over-500w https://www.hardwaretimes.com/nvidia-made-the-rtx-3090-ti-as...
  - dekhn 5y ago
    hey clipped that data to manipulate the graph. Note also "GPU performance" is a metric that includes many things. What did they test, specifically, here? ML training? Gaming? Or 2D ops used commonly in photoshop? I found this review useful: https://www.theverge.com/22981815/apple-mac-studio-m1-ultra-max-review https://www.theverge.com/22981815/apple-mac-studio-m1-ultra-... TL;DR: many professionals who work in 2D or psuedo3D could buy this and immediately be more productive than they were on their previous Apple device. But that chart is still extremely misleading.
  - caycep 5y ago
    that's kind of my beef w/ the 3000 series gpu's in general. Yeah, they're fast and all. But at significantly more TDP and with default coolers larger (> 300 mm) that can fit into my (previously perfectly fine "full size GPU") case? Are they really that much better than my 1080?
- dekhn 5y ago
  I'm aware of that (it was covered already in the press), and it's clear what the slide intended to show. This is standard apple reality distortion field. I work in the field of high performance computing and we know how to interpret a graph that is intended to deceive the naive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dundarious 5y ago

It’s fair if “better” means “better for end-users”, which is all that matters in practice. It’s especially fair given that Apple is generally credited for having a capabilities focus rather than spec focus, i.e., they are credited for the same end-user focus. I think the article is poorer for not explicitly making this argument, but it’s right to focus on end-user capabilities, IMO.

mytherin 5y ago
Better for end users depends entirely on their workloads, and is a moving target. Presumably as Apple’s new chip gets more adoption more games will be designed and optimized for it. There are already games (partly) optimized for it, so why not run those? Why is Tomb Raider more representative of an end-user workload than World of Warcraft?
- dundarious 5y ago
  I agree it's a moving target, but the point is that the current capabilities matter most, potential future capabilities matter less, and spec sheet or artificially constrained benchmark comparisons matter least. I'm bullish on Apple Silicon, but it is far more likely for your average gamer or GPU compute coder to think that the M1 Ultra is not better than an RTX 3090. It's not being "unfair" if you don't highlight a game that has been specifically optimized, if such games are few and far between, and it is far from assured that that will change. A really good comparison would highlight those cases where AS-specific optimization does improve things significantly, but even there, it should really emphasize that the comparison of M1 Ultra to an RTX 3090 is only favorable given an artificial power constraint on the latter (Apple mention it rather than emphasize it, but a good journalist will emphasize it). So is AS more technically impressive, and does it have more growth potential in the hardware and software (as adoption hopefully grows)? Absolutely. Is it currently materially "better"? For a desktop, by almost any measure, no.