3 ms·

The Mobile lead and gaining ground for higher end gaming are aligned in many areas so you have to do both.

by djmips 2y ago

dagmx 2y ago
In some areas sure, but it’s really down to what you’re dedicating silicon to in terms of capabilities.
- jayd16 2y ago
  How so? I'm fairly confused about what you're implying. Is Apple sacrificing mobile capabilities for better desktop capability, for example?
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yes. Assuming that a GPU size and node is similar between different GPUs, then different features which require silicon do it at the expense of other features. It’s always a balancing act. That’s effectively the big rub between NVIDIA and AMD today with raytracing + tensor support vs pure raster+compute throughput. Apple just went through a major GPU architecture change [1]. They focused a ton on maximizing for AAA game usage and followed the NVIDIA route to bias towards where they think things are going. At least according to the simplified architecture diagrams for both Apple graphics and Adreno, Apple has more raytracing silicon than Adreno. It also supports stuff that doesn’t require silicon but does have effects on GPU design like mesh shading or their new dynamic caching that improves occupancy for high draw count games with large uber shaders. Compared to Adreno that focused more on raw triangle throughput instead, but doesn’t scale as well with complexity. It performs much better on mobile benchmarks that fit that usage pattern, but falls behind with desktop benchmarks that follow Apple’s priorities. [1] https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/111375 https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/111375
    - jayd16 2y ago
      I think the tail is wagging the dog here. Those mobile workloads are tuned towards what currently works. If Apple or Qualcomm pull off desktop features in a mobile power envelope then the industry would happily adjust.
      - dagmx 2y ago
        I think that assumes that most games are targeting higher end graphics and are held back. The majority of played mobile games would be the same as they are today imho even if you could achieve 4090 performance in that power envelope.
    - ksec 2y ago
      I always thought the road to Ray-Tracing is wrong on mobile. At least in its current form or iteration. But then Apple decided to go with it, I would have expected they have something new. But turns out not.
hajile 2y ago
HALF of X1's compute is F16 only which is absolutely wasted silicon for most desktop games. Their entire tiling setup is great for simple mobile games, but (as shown in the article) is also an inefficient approach for desktop games. 64-wide SIMD works well in simple games and offers a FAR better theoretical compute per area, but when things get more complex, it's hard to keep everything filled. This is why Intel is 8-wide, Nvidia is 32-wide, and AMD is 32/32x2/64-wide (and is one reason why the second SIMD didn't improve performance like the theoretical flops said it should). With the release of the M-series chips, Apple's GPUs stopped ramping up performance as quickly on the simple mobile benchmarks. This is very clear with A17 in Aztec not only falling behind the SD8gen3, but the SD8gen2 too. At the same time, GPU perf/watt has also lagged behind. However, when you switch to something like the somewhat more complex Solar Bay, the Apple GPU pulls ahead. This is similar to the AMD/Nvidia swap from gaming to hard compute then slowly back to gaming after they split into server and gaming designs.

The Mobile lead and gaining ground for higher end gaming are aligned in many areas so you have to do both.

by djmips 2y ago

The Mobile lead and gaining ground for higher end gaming are aligned in many areas so you have to do both.

dagmx 2y ago

In some areas sure, but it’s really down to what you’re dedicating silicon to in terms of capabilities.

jayd16 2y ago
How so? I'm fairly confused about what you're implying. Is Apple sacrificing mobile capabilities for better desktop capability, for example?
- dagmx 2y ago
  Yes. Assuming that a GPU size and node is similar between different GPUs, then different features which require silicon do it at the expense of other features. It’s always a balancing act. That’s effectively the big rub between NVIDIA and AMD today with raytracing + tensor support vs pure raster+compute throughput. Apple just went through a major GPU architecture change [1]. They focused a ton on maximizing for AAA game usage and followed the NVIDIA route to bias towards where they think things are going. At least according to the simplified architecture diagrams for both Apple graphics and Adreno, Apple has more raytracing silicon than Adreno. It also supports stuff that doesn’t require silicon but does have effects on GPU design like mesh shading or their new dynamic caching that improves occupancy for high draw count games with large uber shaders. Compared to Adreno that focused more on raw triangle throughput instead, but doesn’t scale as well with complexity. It performs much better on mobile benchmarks that fit that usage pattern, but falls behind with desktop benchmarks that follow Apple’s priorities. [1] https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/111375 https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/111375
  - jayd16 2y ago
    I think the tail is wagging the dog here. Those mobile workloads are tuned towards what currently works. If Apple or Qualcomm pull off desktop features in a mobile power envelope then the industry would happily adjust.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      I think that assumes that most games are targeting higher end graphics and are held back. The majority of played mobile games would be the same as they are today imho even if you could achieve 4090 performance in that power envelope.
  - ksec 2y ago
    I always thought the road to Ray-Tracing is wrong on mobile. At least in its current form or iteration. But then Apple decided to go with it, I would have expected they have something new. But turns out not.

hajile 2y ago

HALF of X1's compute is F16 only which is absolutely wasted silicon for most desktop games. Their entire tiling setup is great for simple mobile games, but (as shown in the article) is also an inefficient approach for desktop games. 64-wide SIMD works well in simple games and offers a FAR better theoretical compute per area, but when things get more complex, it's hard to keep everything filled. This is why Intel is 8-wide, Nvidia is 32-wide, and AMD is 32/32x2/64-wide (and is one reason why the second SIMD didn't improve performance like the theoretical flops said it should). With the release of the M-series chips, Apple's GPUs stopped ramping up performance as quickly on the simple mobile benchmarks. This is very clear with A17 in Aztec not only falling behind the SD8gen3, but the SD8gen2 too. At the same time, GPU perf/watt has also lagged behind. However, when you switch to something like the somewhat more complex Solar Bay, the Apple GPU pulls ahead. This is similar to the AMD/Nvidia swap from gaming to hard compute then slowly back to gaming after they split into server and gaming designs.