5 ms·

Look at the chart. The question isn't about "max power" performance as much as it is power consumption: Apple claims its chip is reaching similar performance nu

Look at the chart. The question isn't about "max power" performance as much as it is power consumption: Apple claims its chip is reaching similar performance numbers to its competitor given the same amount of power. In fact, the Verge's article[0] that this PC Gamer article is shamelessly and effortlessly reposting, does not dispute that, but is moving the goalpost to "well what if the competitor had more power?" Yawn [0] https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22982915/apple-m1-ultra-rtx-3090-comparison-specs-charts-cpu-gpu-performance https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22982915/apple-m1-ultra-r...

benreesman 5y ago
The M1-era is a very difficult time for the crowd who just wants to criticize Apple for the sake of it. I use both an M1 and an M1 Max every day alongside Threadrippers and Xeons and while Apple misses a lot, they fucking killed it this time.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  What are you using the machines for?
  - benreesman 5y ago
    The M1s are my desktop and laptop respectively, the Xeons are for deployment scenarios, and the Threadripper box is used mostly for big builds. I don't have my current project building on `darwin-aarch64` yet so I haven't been able to do a comparison, but I suspect that once I can get my hands on an M1 Ultra that it will build a big C++/Haskell application faster than the 64-core Threadripper does. 800GB/s of memory bandwidth is insane. You write programs differently for a computer where your main memory is effectively an on-die L3 cache at 128GB.
    - HellDunkel 5y ago
      Thank you! I had no idea that building software would require such processing power. Does the bulid/compile process make any use of the GPUs?
      - benreesman 5y ago
        Oh I don't think I'd go so far as to say building big C++ (or Rust, or Haskell, or ...) projects requires a ton of compute: it's just one way to tune the inner loop of your development process, the so-called "edit-compile-test" cycle. I've worked on projects that take hours to build from scratch and tens of minutes to do incremental builds on. When making a non-trivial modification and running the tests is 14 minutes, it's just human nature to end up with a 30-minute coffee-trip/HN-browse. When it's 30 minutes, you only get 16 of those in a standard work day. Getting anything meaningful done takes days or weeks when you only get to change your code 16 times a day. You can change Python code 16 times an hour if the changes are individually modest.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ianai 5y ago
It’s definitely the crowd showing why apple will never target the larger gamer market. Apple would have to target a market audience that is pretty opposite what apple tech is about. As one YouTuber said it “gamers are high touch, etc”. Though I do have to fault apple for even bothering to compare this SoC to the 3090. They were always going to get very strong animus from people who wouldn’t bother to remember the TDP qualifier “up to 200w”. If they really want to compare themselves to the 3090 then they need to make an SoC whose TDP approaches the TDP of a comparable CPU+GPU at low and high ends. Ie make the chip much bigger.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  The chart shows the 3090 being beaten at 320w.
zamalek 5y ago
On Apple's graph there is a clear line showing that their performance is better, irrespective of power. If Apple wanted to play in the "perf for watts" space, then they should have made sure to keep their claims within that space. Everyone is playing to the goalpost that Apple established.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Yeah, the arguments sounds good until you go and look at the actual chart from Apple. The 3090 can apparently draw around 380 Watts. [1] Apple shows its performance leveling off at 320W, whereas the M1 Ultra is performing better at 100W, and not leveling off. But assume for a second that the M1 Ultra suddenly flatlines right there. Fair enough, they don't want to show that. But in what world does that 3090 curve ever end up substantially out-performing the M1 Ultra with just 60 more Watts? The graph is clearly wrong. Unless you change the argument to saying that they are measuring something silly that doesn't matter in the real world. [1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpNdP3h0Hs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpNdP3h0Hs Edit: And I'm an Apple fan, writing on my M1 Air, which I love.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
So, if I made a GPU that has 1GFLOP (but can never go above that) and uses 0.000001W, would you jerk me off because "tEcHniCaLlY It'S aBoUt pOwEr CoNsuMpTiOn", even though it's wildly inferior, just because you extrapolate that to GFLOPS if it was using 300W ?
dekhn 5y ago
Can you answer the simple question about why the dotted line stretching from the max apple performance is higher than the GPU?Because that's what the chart says (in addition to the power details).
tyrfing 5y ago
> For the most graphics-intensive needs, like 3D rendering and complex image processing, M1 Ultra has a 64-core GPU — 8x the size of M1 — delivering faster performance than even the highest-end PC GPU available while using 200 fewer watts of power. This is the exact statement Apple made. Do note that the words "similar performance numbers at the same power" are not in there. You are the one moving goalposts here.

benreesman 5y ago

The M1-era is a very difficult time for the crowd who just wants to criticize Apple for the sake of it. I use both an M1 and an M1 Max every day alongside Threadrippers and Xeons and while Apple misses a lot, they fucking killed it this time.

HellDunkel 5y ago
What are you using the machines for?
- benreesman 5y ago
  The M1s are my desktop and laptop respectively, the Xeons are for deployment scenarios, and the Threadripper box is used mostly for big builds. I don't have my current project building on `darwin-aarch64` yet so I haven't been able to do a comparison, but I suspect that once I can get my hands on an M1 Ultra that it will build a big C++/Haskell application faster than the 64-core Threadripper does. 800GB/s of memory bandwidth is insane. You write programs differently for a computer where your main memory is effectively an on-die L3 cache at 128GB.
  - HellDunkel 5y ago
    Thank you! I had no idea that building software would require such processing power. Does the bulid/compile process make any use of the GPUs?
    - benreesman 5y ago
      Oh I don't think I'd go so far as to say building big C++ (or Rust, or Haskell, or ...) projects requires a ton of compute: it's just one way to tune the inner loop of your development process, the so-called "edit-compile-test" cycle. I've worked on projects that take hours to build from scratch and tens of minutes to do incremental builds on. When making a non-trivial modification and running the tests is 14 minutes, it's just human nature to end up with a 30-minute coffee-trip/HN-browse. When it's 30 minutes, you only get 16 of those in a standard work day. Getting anything meaningful done takes days or weeks when you only get to change your code 16 times a day. You can change Python code 16 times an hour if the changes are individually modest.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ianai 5y ago

It’s definitely the crowd showing why apple will never target the larger gamer market. Apple would have to target a market audience that is pretty opposite what apple tech is about. As one YouTuber said it “gamers are high touch, etc”. Though I do have to fault apple for even bothering to compare this SoC to the 3090. They were always going to get very strong animus from people who wouldn’t bother to remember the TDP qualifier “up to 200w”. If they really want to compare themselves to the 3090 then they need to make an SoC whose TDP approaches the TDP of a comparable CPU+GPU at low and high ends. Ie make the chip much bigger.

jtbayly 5y ago
The chart shows the 3090 being beaten at 320w.

zamalek 5y ago

On Apple's graph there is a clear line showing that their performance is better, irrespective of power. If Apple wanted to play in the "perf for watts" space, then they should have made sure to keep their claims within that space. Everyone is playing to the goalpost that Apple established.

jtbayly 5y ago
Yeah, the arguments sounds good until you go and look at the actual chart from Apple. The 3090 can apparently draw around 380 Watts. [1] Apple shows its performance leveling off at 320W, whereas the M1 Ultra is performing better at 100W, and not leveling off. But assume for a second that the M1 Ultra suddenly flatlines right there. Fair enough, they don't want to show that. But in what world does that 3090 curve ever end up substantially out-performing the M1 Ultra with just 60 more Watts? The graph is clearly wrong. Unless you change the argument to saying that they are measuring something silly that doesn't matter in the real world. [1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpNdP3h0Hs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpNdP3h0Hs Edit: And I'm an Apple fan, writing on my M1 Air, which I love.

ohgodplsno 5y ago

So, if I made a GPU that has 1GFLOP (but can never go above that) and uses 0.000001W, would you jerk me off because "tEcHniCaLlY It'S aBoUt pOwEr CoNsuMpTiOn", even though it's wildly inferior, just because you extrapolate that to GFLOPS if it was using 300W ?

dekhn 5y ago

Can you answer the simple question about why the dotted line stretching from the max apple performance is higher than the GPU?Because that's what the chart says (in addition to the power details).

tyrfing 5y ago

> For the most graphics-intensive needs, like 3D rendering and complex image processing, M1 Ultra has a 64-core GPU — 8x the size of M1 — delivering faster performance than even the highest-end PC GPU available while using 200 fewer watts of power. This is the exact statement Apple made. Do note that the words "similar performance numbers at the same power" are not in there. You are the one moving goalposts here.