3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.