3 ms·
He said "per watt", that's still true. You just talked about max throughput, which no one is discussing.
by boxed 1y ago
He said "per watt", that's still true. You just talked about max throughput, which no one is discussing.
- ohdeargodno 1y agoIt's not, because Apple purposefully lied on their marketing material. Letting a 3090 go on full blast brings it pretty much in line in perf/watt. Your 3090 will not massively thermal throttle after 30 minutes either, but the M1 Ultra will. So, yes, if you want to look good on pointless benchmarks, a M1 ultra ran for 1 minute is more efficient than a downclocked 3090.
- boxed 1y agohttps://techjourneyman.com/blog/m1-ultra-vs-nvidia-rtx-3090/ https://techjourneyman.com/blog/m1-ultra-vs-nvidia-rtx-3090/ Look at that updated graph which has less BS. It's never close in perf/watt. The BS part about apples graph was that they cut the graph short for the nvidia card (and bending the graph a bit at the end). The full graph still shows apple being way better per watt.
- ohdeargodno 1y ago[dead]
- brookst 1y agoHow do you think Nvidia got Samsung’s 8nm process to be just as power efficient as TSMC’s 5nm node?
- ohdeargodno 1y ago[dead]
- dwattttt 1y ago> The latest AMD under full load uses the same power as M1 and is faster, thus it has better performance per watt. He also said per watt. An AMD CPU running at full power and then stopping will use less battery than an M1 with the same task; that's comparing power efficiency.
- boxed 1y agohttps://techjourneyman.com/blog/m1-ultra-vs-nvidia-rtx-3090/ https://techjourneyman.com/blog/m1-ultra-vs-nvidia-rtx-3090/ Look at their updated graph which has less BS. It's never close in perf/watt. The BS part about apples graph was that they cut the graph short for the nvidia card (and bending the graph a bit at the end). The full graph still shows apple being way better per watt.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]