4 ms·

Don't Believe the Hype: Apple's M2 GPU Is No Game Changer

Comevius 4y ago
The game has already been changed. The M1 is still a leader in performance per watt, Apple can take it's time with incremental improvements to it. It is weird to snicker at the M2 GPU for only being rated at 3.6 TFLOPS, half as much as the RTX 3050, and concluding that you can't use it for gaming. There is a limited selection of macOS titles, but the M2 GPU is as fast as a GTX 1060 and GTX 1650, two of the most popular cards according to Steam.
- giuliomagnifico 4y ago
  Yes, I agree, the M1 was the game changer, but the M1 GPU isn’t at the level of this great CPU, from my point of view, this GPU (M2), is the right hardware for the CPU, or at least I hope. I’m using the M1 and the only complaint is the gpu.
torginus 4y ago
>Yes, the M2 will have fast graphics for an integrated solution, What a throwaway article. It tries to make the point that the M2 isn't as fast as a dedicated GPU so therefore it's no good. While the M1 was a huge step forward in the integrated GPU game, it was still too weak for playing most popular titles, so that might just be the most meaningful improvement of the M2.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  That's not the point it's trying to make, it's the point it made in the point you read up to. It then goes on to say: >Apple is doing integrated graphics, and 3.6 teraflops is pretty decent as far as integrated solutions go. The closest comparison would be AMD's Ryzen 7 6800U with RDNA 2 graphics. That processor has 12 compute units (CUs) and clocks at up to 2.2 GHz, giving it 3.4 teraflops. So not only is it not getting close to discrete graphics, it's basically in the same ballpark as AMD integrated graphics. It basically comes to the conclusion that it's a fine integrated solution that's about on par with other integrated graphics, but looks good compared to the last Intel Macbooks, but that's because at this point you're comparing a 2022 TSMC 5nm chip to a 2018 14nm Intel chip.

The game has already been changed. The M1 is still a leader in performance per watt, Apple can take it's time with incremental improvements to it. It is weird to snicker at the M2 GPU for only being rated at 3.6 TFLOPS, half as much as the RTX 3050, and concluding that you can't use it for gaming. There is a limited selection of macOS titles, but the M2 GPU is as fast as a GTX 1060 and GTX 1650, two of the most popular cards according to Steam.

giuliomagnifico 4y ago
Yes, I agree, the M1 was the game changer, but the M1 GPU isn’t at the level of this great CPU, from my point of view, this GPU (M2), is the right hardware for the CPU, or at least I hope. I’m using the M1 and the only complaint is the gpu.

torginus 4y ago

>Yes, the M2 will have fast graphics for an integrated solution, What a throwaway article. It tries to make the point that the M2 isn't as fast as a dedicated GPU so therefore it's no good. While the M1 was a huge step forward in the integrated GPU game, it was still too weak for playing most popular titles, so that might just be the most meaningful improvement of the M2.

SilverBirch 4y ago
That's not the point it's trying to make, it's the point it made in the point you read up to. It then goes on to say: >Apple is doing integrated graphics, and 3.6 teraflops is pretty decent as far as integrated solutions go. The closest comparison would be AMD's Ryzen 7 6800U with RDNA 2 graphics. That processor has 12 compute units (CUs) and clocks at up to 2.2 GHz, giving it 3.4 teraflops. So not only is it not getting close to discrete graphics, it's basically in the same ballpark as AMD integrated graphics. It basically comes to the conclusion that it's a fine integrated solution that's about on par with other integrated graphics, but looks good compared to the last Intel Macbooks, but that's because at this point you're comparing a 2022 TSMC 5nm chip to a 2018 14nm Intel chip.