4 ms·

>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 reachin

>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]

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]