6 ms·

My favorite quote: "It's sort of like arguing that because your electric car can use dramatically less fuel when driving at 80 miles per hour than a Lamborghini

My favorite quote: "It's sort of like arguing that because your electric car can use dramatically less fuel when driving at 80 miles per hour than a Lamborghini, it has a better engine -- without mentioning the fact that a Lambo can still go twice as fast." https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/17/m1-ultra-nvidia-rtx-3090-comparison/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/17/m1-ultra-nvidia-rtx-309...

stavros 5y ago
Right, but if I can strap two electric cars together and go as fast as the Lamborghini for less fuel, isn't that still better?
- jayd16 5y ago
  That link was about GPU power and according to the benchmarks it can't go as fast with two.
  - stavros 5y ago
    I did read the link, this indicated to me that it sort-of can: > Apple's M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips connected together, and as The Verge highlighted in its full Mac Studio review, Apple has managed to successfully get double the M1 Max performance out of the M1 Ultra, which is a notable feat that other chip makers cannot match. Unless you're talking about power per watt? GPU workloads are generally inherently parallelizable so performance per watt is actually what generally matters, rather than raw FLOPS.
    - pengaru 5y ago
      In the analogy the Lamborghini would be an RTX 3090, and the macrumors article makes it abundantly clear the Ultra isn't even half of the RTX 3090 performance.
      - stavros 5y ago
        Right, but rather than getting bogged down with the analogy, do we agree that performance per watt is what matters? It doesn't matter whether you need 2 or 2.43 of them to match an RTX 3090, if it has better performance per watt, it's better.
        pengaru 5y ago
        > Right, but rather than getting bogged down with the analogy, do we agree that performance per watt is what matters? No, I am not in agreement with you, the RTX 3090 is clearly better at being a GPU.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        > clearly better better is subjective, it depends on your needs. sometimes performance per watt is more important especially when you're mobile or trying to be conservative w/ electricity.
        pengaru 5y ago
        > sometimes performance per watt is more important especially when you're mobile or trying to be conservative w/ electricity. There is an obvious implicit context when you're comparing performance to an RTX 3090, and it is not mobility or your electric bill.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        There may be only one implicit context for you, which is why I said "better" is subjective. Personally the M1 Ultra would be better imo as a desktop GPU than RTX 3090 in certain contexts. Putting it in a van, traveling with it, etc. I'll probably wait until the next go around of them, but I'm loving nearing desktop performance w/ reduced loads.
        pengaru 5y ago
    - readams 5y ago
      It doesn't go as fast as a 3090 even with two. It does go about twice as fast as an M1 Max.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      First graph with geekbench scores. RTX3090: 215,034 M1 Ultra: 102,156
      - arecurrence 5y ago
        The GB Compute test is widely viewed as worthless for the m1 Ultra chip because it’s too fast for the chip to ramp up. It’s even too short for the m1 Max.
      - mikhailt 5y ago
        Geekbrench has already been debunked a long time ago by Anandtech as not sustaining the full load enough to show the real pref. The CPU and GPU tests finishes too fast for the system to ramp up to the full power load. That's not to say that M1 Ultra is equal or better than 3090, just that Geekbench isn't the right test for this. You can see more detailed analysis here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4
        smoldesu 5y ago
        Is that an indication that the M1 has latency issues vis-a-vis power delivery, then?
      - g42gregory 5y ago
        That’s nice to know, but for me the M1 Ultra performance is not very relevant. Apple has a history of introducing proprietary architectures, not-quite-compatibles interfaces and non-standard software. MacOS has nice UI? Great, I will use it. Anything computationally intensive? - Why bother? I would use only Linux on the back end. It’s very easy to couple mid-range Apple product with high-end Linux workstation at your desk. I don’t need to run compute-intensive Deep Learning load while I am at the coffee shop.
        jayd16 5y ago
        >I don’t need to run compute-intensive Deep Learning load while I am at the coffee shop. Well they're putting it in a desktop and claiming desktop performance... If Apple is going to put up graphs saying they beat i9 and 3090RTX machines, it's worth investigating even if I plan to put Linux on it. In this instance it seems like the reality doesn't match the hype as well as in the laptop space, but if it had I would surly consider the option.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  No. You have two electric cars both going at 80 mph, with twice the weight. Strap them together aaaaaand.... They're still two electric cars going together at 80mph. But if you're counting wheel rotations, well now you have 8 spinning wheels. Top speed will still not match the Lamborghini.
  - stavros 5y ago
    What's it called when you make an analogy for convenience and someone stretches it way past its breaking point as if it still applies to the original point?
    - ask_b123 5y ago
      https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/305332/is-there-a-word-or-expression-for-extrapolating-an-analogy-way-beyond-the-point https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/305332/is-there-... > overstretched or overblown analogy / reductio ad absurdum
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Weight barely matters for top speed. Air drag is the real factor.
phyalow 5y ago
I am quite happy with my Macbook Pro M1 Max, which remains virtually ice cold even running heavy compute (I am still yet to hear the fans spin up) and having a battery life that can accomodate easily 12+ hours of real work. Any Windows laptop with a 3090 inside it, will be a hot and loud brick in comparison. Granted I dont play video games, and my ML compute is run in the cloud it fits my needs nicely. I would argue in terms of sheer generalised productivity nothing else comes close.
- aenis 5y ago
  Same here. Great computer. The only thing I am missing is a bit more reliable support for waking up external monitors. Between my now two m1/m1 max macs and 6 screens I use, one (an Asus 2k display which is slow to wake up from sleep) often requires unplugging to wake up. That is not a m1 issue - its been like that with macos since... forever, but it's irritating.
  - Osiris 5y ago
    I use a 4 monitor setup for my workstation. I switched to a desktop computer in part to not have to deal with this exact issue with a MacBook.
  - srcreigh 5y ago
    What is your monitor layout?
    - aenis 5y ago
      I have those 6 screens plugged to two different macs, so just 3 on each. Big screen in the center, and two in portrait mode on the sides. One uses 43" 4k for the center screen, the other uses a 34" ultrawide. The m1 max drives its displays directly, the m1 via a starlink tripple 4k displaylink hub. The problems, in my case, are specific to monitors that take a good few seconds to come back from standby. Macos seems to be impatient and considers them dead. I am down to just 1 screen with this problem, and will replace it at some point.
  - 5y ago
mikhailt 5y ago
According to Max Tech analysis here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4, the GPU seems to max out at 60-70w at the moment for full load, even if the heat is well-managed. If Apple let it go up to 100-120w, we could see much more performance out of the GPU but for now, something is not set up correctly on macOS. So, we may have to wait to see what Apple says or if they'll unlock the full performance in future software updates. They did do this in the past with M1 hardware a few times. Same result here from another channel where it appears GPU isn't at full power atm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CUoHwMtRsE&t=1172s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CUoHwMtRsE&t=1172s
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  The strategy of creating a large die with lots of execution units, then running the chip at a lower clock speed for power efficiency has been Apple's way of doing things for a while now. >Apple has built a wide enough GPU that they can keep clockspeeds nice and low on the voltage/frequency curve, which keeps overall power consumption down. The RTX 3090, by contrast, is designed to chase performance with no regard to power consumption, allowing NVIDIA to get great performance out of it, but only by riding high on the voltage frequency curve. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17306/apple-announces-m1-ultra-combining-two-m1-maxes-for-even-more-performance https://www.anandtech.com/show/17306/apple-announces-m1-ultr... This strategy is something that Anandtech's been calling out since the iPhone 5s chip. >Brian and I have long been hinting at the sort of ridiculous frequency/voltage combinations mobile SoC vendors have been shipping at for nothing more than marketing purposes. I remember ARM telling me the ideal target for a Cortex A15 core in a smartphone was 1.2GHz. Samsung’s Exynos 5410 stuck four Cortex A15s in a phone with a max clock of 1.6GHz. The 5420 increases that to 1.7GHz. The problem with frequency scaling alone is that it typically comes at the price of higher voltage. There’s a quadratic relationship between voltage and power consumption, so it’s quite possibly one of the worst ways to get more performance. https://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/2
  - mikhailt 5y ago
    > The strategy of creating a large die with lots of execution units, then running the chip at a lower clock speed for power efficiency has been Apple's way of doing things for a while now. > This strategy is something that Anandtech's been calling out since the iPhone 5s chip. Not sure that applies to M1 Ultra that's clearly marketed as a desktop SoC, not a mobile device or laptop SoC. Optimizing for energy efficiency or battery life is not the same as optimizing for performance first, which is what M1 Ultra is designed for. Not to mention, there's a reason Windows and Linux have multiple power profiles that changes how schedulers and power loads work. macOS has "high power mode" for m1 on laptops and yet strangely, it is not even available on the Mac Studio. Keep in mind that Apple showed a graph that clearly shows the GPU was at 100-110w. Why do that if they won't run it at that wattage or even talk about 3090 in the first place? Why ruin their reputation over a silly little thing? Everyone on the planet will easily debunk that. Also, why even bother adding a high-quality cooling system that the Mac Studio clearly don't need since both CPU/GPU are going to be capped at lower power wattage? We'll find out eventually one way or another.
mrtksn 5y ago
You know what, Mercedes uses Renault engines in some of its cars that are intended for luxury daily use. Better != Faster or Better != More powerful Better means closer to fulfil the goals and often the goals are inversely proportional(i.e. cheaper, faster, cooler are the goals but faster meaning less cheaper and hotter). Apple might be guilty of misrepresentation of raw computational power but with M1 the experience of using computers has become significantly much better.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Actually better depends on the criteria. A Volkswagen Beetle can be better than any of the listed cars if you consider the type of road an easy of repair.
- homarp 5y ago
  for the curious https://luxurycarsa2z.com/which-mercedes-have-a-renault-engine/ https://luxurycarsa2z.com/which-mercedes-have-a-renault-engi...
- davewritescode 5y ago
  Mercedes only uses Renault engines in its absolute bottom of the barrel products. Mercedes, unlike BMW with Mini and Audi with the VW parts bin has to outsource the low end stuff.
oxplot 5y ago
> without mentioning the fact that a Lambo can still go twice as fast To be picky about this analogy, top speed in a car is an attribute that bears little on everyday utility. In fact, past the 110km/h here in Australia for instance, the only place you can enjoy the extra speed in on a track. %99.999+ of people won't be able to take advantage of anything for entire life of their vehicle. On the contrary, instant acceleration is something every driver takes advantage of numerous times per day, when changing lanes, correcting for others mistakes, etc. Fuel cost savings and low maintenance saves every driver money. These are the attributes to pay attention to in a car in general, not the top speed. Point is to pay attention to characteristics which are of utility towards the use case. Obviously, if you are getting a car to go as fast as you possible can on a track, you want a car with higher max speeds so there is that.

stavros 5y ago

Right, but if I can strap two electric cars together and go as fast as the Lamborghini for less fuel, isn't that still better?

jayd16 5y ago
That link was about GPU power and according to the benchmarks it can't go as fast with two.
- stavros 5y ago
  I did read the link, this indicated to me that it sort-of can: > Apple's M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips connected together, and as The Verge highlighted in its full Mac Studio review, Apple has managed to successfully get double the M1 Max performance out of the M1 Ultra, which is a notable feat that other chip makers cannot match. Unless you're talking about power per watt? GPU workloads are generally inherently parallelizable so performance per watt is actually what generally matters, rather than raw FLOPS.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    In the analogy the Lamborghini would be an RTX 3090, and the macrumors article makes it abundantly clear the Ultra isn't even half of the RTX 3090 performance.
    - stavros 5y ago
      Right, but rather than getting bogged down with the analogy, do we agree that performance per watt is what matters? It doesn't matter whether you need 2 or 2.43 of them to match an RTX 3090, if it has better performance per watt, it's better.
      - pengaru 5y ago
        > Right, but rather than getting bogged down with the analogy, do we agree that performance per watt is what matters? No, I am not in agreement with you, the RTX 3090 is clearly better at being a GPU.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        > clearly better better is subjective, it depends on your needs. sometimes performance per watt is more important especially when you're mobile or trying to be conservative w/ electricity.
        pengaru 5y ago
        > sometimes performance per watt is more important especially when you're mobile or trying to be conservative w/ electricity. There is an obvious implicit context when you're comparing performance to an RTX 3090, and it is not mobility or your electric bill.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        There may be only one implicit context for you, which is why I said "better" is subjective. Personally the M1 Ultra would be better imo as a desktop GPU than RTX 3090 in certain contexts. Putting it in a van, traveling with it, etc. I'll probably wait until the next go around of them, but I'm loving nearing desktop performance w/ reduced loads.
        pengaru 5y ago
  - readams 5y ago
    It doesn't go as fast as a 3090 even with two. It does go about twice as fast as an M1 Max.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    First graph with geekbench scores. RTX3090: 215,034 M1 Ultra: 102,156
    - arecurrence 5y ago
      The GB Compute test is widely viewed as worthless for the m1 Ultra chip because it’s too fast for the chip to ramp up. It’s even too short for the m1 Max.
    - mikhailt 5y ago
      Geekbrench has already been debunked a long time ago by Anandtech as not sustaining the full load enough to show the real pref. The CPU and GPU tests finishes too fast for the system to ramp up to the full power load. That's not to say that M1 Ultra is equal or better than 3090, just that Geekbench isn't the right test for this. You can see more detailed analysis here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        Is that an indication that the M1 has latency issues vis-a-vis power delivery, then?
    - g42gregory 5y ago
      That’s nice to know, but for me the M1 Ultra performance is not very relevant. Apple has a history of introducing proprietary architectures, not-quite-compatibles interfaces and non-standard software. MacOS has nice UI? Great, I will use it. Anything computationally intensive? - Why bother? I would use only Linux on the back end. It’s very easy to couple mid-range Apple product with high-end Linux workstation at your desk. I don’t need to run compute-intensive Deep Learning load while I am at the coffee shop.
      - jayd16 5y ago
        >I don’t need to run compute-intensive Deep Learning load while I am at the coffee shop. Well they're putting it in a desktop and claiming desktop performance... If Apple is going to put up graphs saying they beat i9 and 3090RTX machines, it's worth investigating even if I plan to put Linux on it. In this instance it seems like the reality doesn't match the hype as well as in the laptop space, but if it had I would surly consider the option.
ohgodplsno 5y ago
No. You have two electric cars both going at 80 mph, with twice the weight. Strap them together aaaaaand.... They're still two electric cars going together at 80mph. But if you're counting wheel rotations, well now you have 8 spinning wheels. Top speed will still not match the Lamborghini.
- stavros 5y ago
  What's it called when you make an analogy for convenience and someone stretches it way past its breaking point as if it still applies to the original point?
  - ask_b123 5y ago
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/305332/is-there-a-word-or-expression-for-extrapolating-an-analogy-way-beyond-the-point https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/305332/is-there-... > overstretched or overblown analogy / reductio ad absurdum
- rocqua 5y ago
  Weight barely matters for top speed. Air drag is the real factor.

phyalow 5y ago

I am quite happy with my Macbook Pro M1 Max, which remains virtually ice cold even running heavy compute (I am still yet to hear the fans spin up) and having a battery life that can accomodate easily 12+ hours of real work. Any Windows laptop with a 3090 inside it, will be a hot and loud brick in comparison. Granted I dont play video games, and my ML compute is run in the cloud it fits my needs nicely. I would argue in terms of sheer generalised productivity nothing else comes close.

aenis 5y ago
Same here. Great computer. The only thing I am missing is a bit more reliable support for waking up external monitors. Between my now two m1/m1 max macs and 6 screens I use, one (an Asus 2k display which is slow to wake up from sleep) often requires unplugging to wake up. That is not a m1 issue - its been like that with macos since... forever, but it's irritating.
- Osiris 5y ago
  I use a 4 monitor setup for my workstation. I switched to a desktop computer in part to not have to deal with this exact issue with a MacBook.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  What is your monitor layout?
  - aenis 5y ago
    I have those 6 screens plugged to two different macs, so just 3 on each. Big screen in the center, and two in portrait mode on the sides. One uses 43" 4k for the center screen, the other uses a 34" ultrawide. The m1 max drives its displays directly, the m1 via a starlink tripple 4k displaylink hub. The problems, in my case, are specific to monitors that take a good few seconds to come back from standby. Macos seems to be impatient and considers them dead. I am down to just 1 screen with this problem, and will replace it at some point.
- 5y ago

mikhailt 5y ago

According to Max Tech analysis here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ7WN3yome4, the GPU seems to max out at 60-70w at the moment for full load, even if the heat is well-managed. If Apple let it go up to 100-120w, we could see much more performance out of the GPU but for now, something is not set up correctly on macOS. So, we may have to wait to see what Apple says or if they'll unlock the full performance in future software updates. They did do this in the past with M1 hardware a few times. Same result here from another channel where it appears GPU isn't at full power atm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CUoHwMtRsE&t=1172s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CUoHwMtRsE&t=1172s

GeekyBear 5y ago
The strategy of creating a large die with lots of execution units, then running the chip at a lower clock speed for power efficiency has been Apple's way of doing things for a while now. >Apple has built a wide enough GPU that they can keep clockspeeds nice and low on the voltage/frequency curve, which keeps overall power consumption down. The RTX 3090, by contrast, is designed to chase performance with no regard to power consumption, allowing NVIDIA to get great performance out of it, but only by riding high on the voltage frequency curve. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17306/apple-announces-m1-ultra-combining-two-m1-maxes-for-even-more-performance https://www.anandtech.com/show/17306/apple-announces-m1-ultr... This strategy is something that Anandtech's been calling out since the iPhone 5s chip. >Brian and I have long been hinting at the sort of ridiculous frequency/voltage combinations mobile SoC vendors have been shipping at for nothing more than marketing purposes. I remember ARM telling me the ideal target for a Cortex A15 core in a smartphone was 1.2GHz. Samsung’s Exynos 5410 stuck four Cortex A15s in a phone with a max clock of 1.6GHz. The 5420 increases that to 1.7GHz. The problem with frequency scaling alone is that it typically comes at the price of higher voltage. There’s a quadratic relationship between voltage and power consumption, so it’s quite possibly one of the worst ways to get more performance. https://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/2
- mikhailt 5y ago
  > The strategy of creating a large die with lots of execution units, then running the chip at a lower clock speed for power efficiency has been Apple's way of doing things for a while now. > This strategy is something that Anandtech's been calling out since the iPhone 5s chip. Not sure that applies to M1 Ultra that's clearly marketed as a desktop SoC, not a mobile device or laptop SoC. Optimizing for energy efficiency or battery life is not the same as optimizing for performance first, which is what M1 Ultra is designed for. Not to mention, there's a reason Windows and Linux have multiple power profiles that changes how schedulers and power loads work. macOS has "high power mode" for m1 on laptops and yet strangely, it is not even available on the Mac Studio. Keep in mind that Apple showed a graph that clearly shows the GPU was at 100-110w. Why do that if they won't run it at that wattage or even talk about 3090 in the first place? Why ruin their reputation over a silly little thing? Everyone on the planet will easily debunk that. Also, why even bother adding a high-quality cooling system that the Mac Studio clearly don't need since both CPU/GPU are going to be capped at lower power wattage? We'll find out eventually one way or another.

mrtksn 5y ago

You know what, Mercedes uses Renault engines in some of its cars that are intended for luxury daily use. Better != Faster or Better != More powerful Better means closer to fulfil the goals and often the goals are inversely proportional(i.e. cheaper, faster, cooler are the goals but faster meaning less cheaper and hotter). Apple might be guilty of misrepresentation of raw computational power but with M1 the experience of using computers has become significantly much better.

marcodiego 5y ago
Actually better depends on the criteria. A Volkswagen Beetle can be better than any of the listed cars if you consider the type of road an easy of repair.
homarp 5y ago
for the curious https://luxurycarsa2z.com/which-mercedes-have-a-renault-engine/ https://luxurycarsa2z.com/which-mercedes-have-a-renault-engi...
davewritescode 5y ago
Mercedes only uses Renault engines in its absolute bottom of the barrel products. Mercedes, unlike BMW with Mini and Audi with the VW parts bin has to outsource the low end stuff.

oxplot 5y ago

> without mentioning the fact that a Lambo can still go twice as fast To be picky about this analogy, top speed in a car is an attribute that bears little on everyday utility. In fact, past the 110km/h here in Australia for instance, the only place you can enjoy the extra speed in on a track. %99.999+ of people won't be able to take advantage of anything for entire life of their vehicle. On the contrary, instant acceleration is something every driver takes advantage of numerous times per day, when changing lanes, correcting for others mistakes, etc. Fuel cost savings and low maintenance saves every driver money. These are the attributes to pay attention to in a car in general, not the top speed. Point is to pay attention to characteristics which are of utility towards the use case. Obviously, if you are getting a car to go as fast as you possible can on a track, you want a car with higher max speeds so there is that.