[HN Gopher] GFXBench: Apple M1
___________________________________________________________________
GFXBench: Apple M1
Author : admiralspoo
Score : 131 points
Date : 2020-11-13 19:34 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gfxbench.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gfxbench.com)
| quelsolaar wrote:
| Why are all performance measurements of the M1 done against stuff
| that is far below state of the art?
|
| So its faster then a 3 generations old budget card, that doesn't
| run nVidia optimized drivers, over I'm assuming Thunderbolt. So?
|
| So its faster then the last Mac book air, that was old, thermal
| constrained, and had a chip from Intel that has been overtaken by
| AMD.
|
| Every test is single core, but guess what, modern computers have
| multi cores and and hyper threading and that matters.
|
| Apples presentation was full of weasel words like "in its class"
| "compared to previous models". Fine thats marketing, but can we
| please get some real, fair benchmarks, against the best the
| competition has to offer before we conclude that apples new
| silicon is gift from god to computing?
|
| If you are going to convince me, show me how the CPU stacks up to
| a top of the line Ryzen/threadripper and run Cinebench. If you
| want to convince me about the graphics/ML capabilities, compare
| it to a 3090 RTX using running Vulkan/Cuda.
| fastball wrote:
| Do you see a lot of laptops with threadripper CPUs and 3090 RTX
| graphics cards?
|
| I sure don't.
|
| "Best-in-class" isn't a weasel word - it's recognition that no,
| this $1000 laptop is not going to be the fastest computer of
| all time. Just faster than other products similar to it.
| moogleii wrote:
| Hey, take a breather if it helps. No one here is responsible
| for convincing you of anything. But you sound a little upset.
|
| If it helps, take into consideration performance:power ratios.
| None of your scenarios are fair otherwise, and I personally
| haven't seen anyone here claim the M1 will outperform
| everything. Hence, "in its class."
|
| Maybe you saw some errant comments on PCMag.com claiming the M1
| was the be all end all of computing?
|
| Good luck.
| sschueller wrote:
| It's a gift from God alright. It's the start of a full lock
| down. You no longer own your device. God does.
| marta_morena_28 wrote:
| > If you want to convince me about the graphics/ML
| capabilities, compare it to a 3090 RTX using running
| Vulkan/Cuda.
|
| Woot? So you are buying a new Fiat Punto and compare it to the
| latest spec of a Koenigsegg? What are you even doing?
|
| What we need to know is how these perform against previous
| MacBooks and potentially Microsoft Surface and Dell XPS. those
| are competitors.
| runjake wrote:
| The M1 is a mobile chip. Why compare it against the high-end?
|
| It seems pretty ridiculous to put the 10 watt M1 CPU up against
| big time GPUs that require several hundred watts.
|
| Regardless, all the benches anyone desires will be out next
| week.
| Dahoon wrote:
| If it will only be available in phones then it should clearly
| be compared to phone SoCs. If it will be in laptops too it
| should be compared to laptops/PC too of course.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| I don't know why this particular comparison is noteworthy, but
| this is not a top-of-the-line CPU or GPU, is not intended to
| be, and those comparisons would be meaningless. It's a 10W part
| for lower-end devices.
| quelsolaar wrote:
| Apple decided to call it "PRO", so I think its fair to treat
| is as such.
| theodric wrote:
| Ah yes, the famous Apple MacBook Air Pro, available never
| in history
| quelsolaar wrote:
| https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro-13/
| pertymcpert wrote:
| AnandTech ran SPEC2006 on A14, and M1 should be faster.
| kushan2020 wrote:
| How is comparing an internal GPU with a dedicated external 3090
| RTX GPU fair ?
| threeseed wrote:
| Because M1 is their entry-level, laptop class offering.
|
| It makes zero sense to compare them to high-end desktop CPUs
| and GPUs.
| banachtarski wrote:
| 1050 Ti is below entry level at this point though.
| dr_zoidberg wrote:
| Comparisson could be against either an MX250/MX350 if they
| wanted to compare to nvidia (however that's not integrated
| in a SoC-like manner) or the AMD Vega on Renoir, or Intel
| Graphics on Ice/Tiger Lake (I honestly lost track of what
| intel calls their iGPUs these days, they went back and
| forth between confusing naming conventions, but it's the
| CPU gen/model that's important anyway).
| mikepurvis wrote:
| The 1050 Ti was the premium discrete GPU option in the XPS
| 15 in 2018. That only got upgraded to the 1650 _last year_.
| Maybe that 's as much a ding on Dell as anything else, but
| either way, lots of us are still rocking those laptops and
| they're hardly "below entry level".
| duncanawoods wrote:
| Nah. I have this laptop too and at the time, the 1050TI
| was considered underwhelming but "well this laptop isn't
| for gaming, it's a business laptop". The contemporary
| Surface Book 2 had a 1060 with almost double the
| performance and people were kind of pissed.
| fastball wrote:
| The Surface Book 2 with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD: $2499.
|
| The new MacBook Air with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD: $1399.
|
| Geekbench: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/4
| 679429?baselin...
| duncanawoods wrote:
| Well thanks for posting CPU benchmarks in a discussion
| about GPUs.
| fastball wrote:
| Wasn't the point.
| pankajdoharey wrote:
| Again Nvidia had how many yrs of evolution in GPU before
| they reached 1050 Ti? Everyone starts at some point.
| quelsolaar wrote:
| Fine, Compare it against a Asus zephyrus g14.
| threeseed wrote:
| It's marketed as a gaming laptop and has half the battery
| life.
|
| Not sure it's necessarily the best comparison.
| dr_zoidberg wrote:
| Half the battery on a higher powered CPU (the 4800H is
| 45W and the 4900HS is 35W if I recall correctly), plus a
| discrete graphics GPU (on top of the iGPU) and active
| cooling vs passive cooling, plus a 120Hz display on the
| G14 (and probably Apples is 60Hz).
|
| So a more power-hungry notebooks battery lasts half as
| long, but still in the double digits. Not quite a
| surprise there.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >Because M1 is their entry-level, laptop class offering. It
| makes zero sense to compare them to high-end desktop CPUs and
| GPUs.
|
| Sure It makes zero sense to compare them to high-end desktop
| or laptops, since it lack the main attribute of Personal
| computer - the ability to control it and install OS of your
| choice.
|
| Therefore it falls into another category like phones, ipads
| and other toys just with attached keyboard.
| Zetto wrote:
| Also Ryzen only got better on its 3rd gen release last year.
| Back in 2017, the R7 1700x can't compete with the 8700k on
| single thread performance.
| robertoandred wrote:
| This is how you know that Apple haters are running scared.
| Dahoon wrote:
| Please don't do that on HN.
| paulpan wrote:
| > So its faster then a 3 generations old budget card, that
| doesn't run nVidia optimized drivers
|
| This is a key point. Nvidia GPUs have not been supported in
| macOS since Mojave, so this seems like an apples-oranges
| comparison. Unless the benchmark for M1 was also run on Mojave
| (unlikely), then there's 3 years worth of software optimization
| potentially unaccounted for.
|
| Possibly a more realistic comparison is between the M1 and the
| AMD Radeon 5300M. Shows between a 10-40% deficit in
| performance:
| https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did1=798775...
|
| That said still an impressive showing given the TDP and the
| fact it's an integrated GPU vs. a dedicated GPU. It seems to
| hint that with enough GPU cores and a better cooling solution,
| it's not unreasonable to see these replacing the AMD Radeon
| 5500M/5600M next year in the MBP 16 and iMac lineups.
|
| EDIT: pasted wrong compare link
| dmlittle wrote:
| > If you want to convince me about the graphics/ML
| capabilities, compare it to a 3090 RTX using running
| Vulkan/Cuda.
|
| You can't really compare a laptop SoC with a dedicated graphics
| cards like the 3090 RTX. One is using a battery on a laptop and
| the other is plugged in to a power source with dedicated
| cooling.
|
| Yes, Apple is claiming this is a better solution but that's
| mostly for laptops. While they did release a Mac mini, they
| still haven't released an Apple SoC Mac Pro or iMac. Those
| would be fair game for such comparison.
| phoobahr wrote:
| Probably because the announced hardware is clearly entry level.
| The only model line that gets replaced is the MacBook Air which
| has been, frankly, cheap-is and underpowered for a long time.
|
| So you have a platform that is (currently) embodied by entry
| level systems that appear to be noticeably faster than their
| predecessors. Apple has said publicly that they plan to finish
| this transition in 2 years. So more models are coming - and
| they'll have to be more performant again.
|
| It seems pretty clear that the play here runs "Look here's our
| entry level, it's better than anyone else's entry level and
| could be comparable to midlevel from anyone else. But after
| taking crap for being underpowered while waiting for intel to
| deliver we cn now say that this is the new bar for performance
| at the entry level in these price brackets."
| ta76893547 wrote:
| It would be interesting to see the comparison to a Ryzen 7
| PRO 4750U, you can find that in a ThinkPad P14s for $60 less
| than the cheapest macbook air (same amount of ram and ssd
| size) so that seems like a fair comparison
| spockz wrote:
| It's just a shame that the screens in the Lenovo AMD
| devices doesn't hold a candle to the MacBooks.
| toolz wrote:
| in what way? I've got a levono ideapad with ryzen7 4800u
| that outperforms my 2019 16" by a long shot
| Veedrac wrote:
| Mostly a sweep in Apple's favour, though multicore is only
| 20-25% better.
|
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=4750U https:/
| /browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q...
| StillBored wrote:
| Assuming that geekbench is reflective of actual perf (I'm
| not yet convinced) there is also the GPU, and the fact
| that AMD is sitting on a 20% IPC uplift and is still on
| 7nm.
|
| So if they release a newer U part in the next few months
| it will likely best this device even on 7nm. An AMD part
| with a edram probably wouldn't hurt either.
|
| It seems to me that apple hasn't proven anything yet,
| only that they are in the game. Lets revisit this
| conversation in a few years to see if they made the right
| decision from a technical rather than business
| perspective.
|
| The business perspective seems clear, they have likely
| saved considerably on the processor vs paying a ransom to
| intel.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Sad to see downvotes on this: it's like there's a set of
| people hellbent on echoing marketing claims, in ignorance
| of (what I formerly perceived as basic) chip physics -
| first one to the next process gets to declare a 20-30%
| bump, and in the age of TSMC and contract fabs, that's no
| longer an _actual_ differentiation, the way it was in the
| 90s.
| toolz wrote:
| is a higher score worse? If not it's a sweep in favor of
| ryzen
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| Higher scores are better
| http://support.primatelabs.com/kb/geekbench/interpreting-
| gee...
| easde wrote:
| You're making completely the wrong comparison. On the
| left you have Geekbench 5 scores for the A12Z in the
| Apple DTK, and on the right you have Geekbench 4 scores
| for the Ryzen.
|
| The M1 has leaked scores of ~1700 single core and ~7500
| multicore on Geekbench 5, versus 1200 and 6000 for the
| Ryzen 4750U.
| nwallin wrote:
| > Probably because the announced hardware is clearly entry
| level.
|
| Yes, but why compare it to an entry card that was released _4
| years ago_ instead of an entry card that 's been released in
| the past 12 months? When the 1050 Ti was released, Donald
| Trump was trailing Hillary Clinton in the polls. Meanwhile,
| the 1650 (released April 2020, retails ~$150) is
| _significantly_ faster than the 1050 Ti. (released October
| 2016, retailed $140 but _can 't be purchased new anymore_)
| varenc wrote:
| The 1050 is still a desktop class card. The M1 is in tiny
| notebooks and the Mac Mini, none of which even have the
| space or thermals to house such a card.
| StillBored wrote:
| The main point was that its a 3 generation old desktop
| card which is obviously not as efficient as the modern
| mobile devices.
|
| Lets see what a 3000 series nvidia mobile design does on
| a more recent process before declaring victory.
| romanoderoma wrote:
| My Xiaomi laptop is entry level and costed 300 euros
| including shipping from China and taxes
|
| It still does 8 hours on battery after 3 years
|
| Being entry level performances don't matter much, but it's
| still a good backup
|
| Bonus point: Linux works great on it
|
| For 13 hundred dollars (30% more in Euros) I can buy a pro
| machine, one that at least will give me the option of using
| more than 16GB of RAM
|
| The new Apple Silicon looks good and I love that they are
| finally shipping some decent GPU, but price wise they're
| still not that cheap
|
| ------
|
| The downvotes are because I said Xiaomi or for something
| else?
|
| LG sells a 17 inches, 2.9 lb (same weight of the Air) 16GB of
| RAM (up to 40) and a discrete GPU (Nvidia GTX 1650) for 1,699
| stefan_ wrote:
| Apple doesn't make anything entry-level. The entry-level is a
| $150 ChromeBook, it's not "the cheapest that Apple sells".
| cosmotic wrote:
| The Air _IS_ entry level; it 's slow, low resolution, has
| meager io, etc. It just happens to be at a price point that
| is not entry level.
| theodric wrote:
| > low resolution > 2560 x 1600
|
| Damn, you've got some high standards.
| cosmotic wrote:
| Competition has 4k displays on their thin and lights.
| They also don't use macOS which has problems running at
| resolutions other than native or pixel-doubled. The
| suggested scalings are 1680 by 1050, 1440 by 900, and
| 1024 by 640. None of those are even fractions of the
| native resolution so the interface looks blurry and
| shimmers. Also, all the suggested scalings are very small
| so there isn't much screen real-estate.
| MR4D wrote:
| Depends on how you define "entry level". The Porsche
| Cayman is an entry level Porsche, but starts at $60,000.
|
| I don't know anyone who would call that an entry level
| car, but any Porsche-phile would.
|
| The new Air is fast and reasonably high resolution with a
| ~4K resolution screen. But it is _Apple's_ entry level
| laptop.
| cosmotic wrote:
| I concede the new air is likely faster than the ancient
| i3 they used to put in them.
| Klinky wrote:
| No it's not. It was designed to be extremely light with
| many compromises to make that happen. Yeah it got
| outdated, but that doesn't mean it was entry level.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Here are all the differences between the M1 Air and M1
| Pro, from [1]: Brighter screen (500
| nits vs. 400) Bigger battery (58 watt-hours vs.
| 50) Fan (increasing thermal headroom)
| Better speakers and microphones Touch Bar
| 0.2 pounds of weight (3.0 pounds vs. 2.8 -- not much)
|
| The SoC is the same (although the entry-level Air gets
| 7-core GPUs, that's probably chip binning). The screen is
| the same (Retina, P3 color gamut), both have 2 USB-C
| ports, both have a fingerprint reader.
|
| [1]: https://daringfireball.net/2020/11/one_more_thing_th
| e_m1_mac...
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| This comment doesn't seem serious
| klelatti wrote:
| I'm sure you understand the performance differences between a
| 10W part with integrated graphics designed for a fanless laptop
| and a desktop part with active cooling and discrete graphics.
|
| This article from Anandtech on the M1 is helpful in
| understanding why the M1 is so impressive.
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...
| devwastaken wrote:
| The point of a computer as a workstation is it goes vroom.
| Computer that does not go vroom will not be effective for use
| cases where computer has to go vroom. It doesn't matter if
| battery life is longer or case is thinner. That won't
| increase compile times or render performance.
| fractionalhare wrote:
| A laptop is not a workstation.
| romanoderoma wrote:
| I work with a Lenovo P70 with 64GB of RAM, a quadro M300
| GPU and a 4K monitor plus 2 external monitor ports (HDMI
| and display port)
|
| I did not choose it, they gave it to me at work, but it's
| definitely a workstation
|
| It's not a lightweight laptop, but it's a laptop
| nonetheless
| borski wrote:
| Some laptops are workstations. This is not one.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Docked laptop is. With a benefit that if you want to work
| on the road you can take it without having to think about
| replicating your setup and copying data over.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _The point of a computer as a workstation is it goes
| vroom._
|
| The M1 is not currently in any workstation class computer.
|
| It is in a budget desktop computer, a throw-it-in-your-bag
| travel computer, and a low-end laptop.
|
| When an M series chip can't perform in a workstation class
| computer, then your argument will be valid. But you're
| trying to compare a VW bug with a Porsche because they look
| similar.
| Ahwleung wrote:
| The "low-end laptop" starts at $1300, is labeled a
| Macbook Pro, and their marketing material states:
|
| "The 8-core CPU, when paired with the MacBook Pro's
| active cooling system, is up to 2.8x faster than the
| previous generation, delivering game-changing performance
| when compiling code, transcoding video, editing high-
| resolution photos, and more"
| klelatti wrote:
| Do not use MacBook Air when you need vroom!
| jl6 wrote:
| This is true, but I think a lot of folk are assuming that a
| future M2 or M3 will be able to scale up to higher wattage
| and match state-of-the-art enthusiast-class chips. That
| assumption is very much yet to be proven.
| klelatti wrote:
| Indeed, but given they are on TSMC 5nm and the apparent
| strength of the architecture and their team I think most
| will be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for
| the moment.
|
| Actually biggest worry might be the economics - given their
| low volumes at the highest end (Mac Pro etc) how do they
| have the volumes to justify inveesting in building these
| CPUs?
| pwthornton wrote:
| There seems to be no evidence that Intel will be able to
| keep up with Apple. The early geek bench results show the
| M1 laptops beating even the high end Intel Mac ones. And
| that's with their most thermally constrained chip.
|
| Apple will be releasing something like a M1X next, which
| will probably have way more cores and some other
| differences. But this M1 is incredibly impressive for this
| class of device. Intel has nothing near it to compete in
| this space.
|
| The bigger question is how well does Apple keep up with AMD
| and Nvidia for GPUs and will they allow discrete GPUs.
| jandrese wrote:
| I think Apple brought this on themselves when they announced
| it would be faster than 98%[1] of the existing laptops on the
| market. They didn't caveat it with "fanless laptops" or
| "laptops with 20hr of battery life", it's just supposedly
| faster than all but 2% of laptops you can buy today.
|
| You say something like that about a low power fanless design
| and every tech nerd's first reaction is "bullshit". And now
| they want to call you on your bullshit.
|
| [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/introducing-the-
| next-...
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| You're misinterpreting what they say. Quote:
|
| "And in MacBook Air, M1 is faster than the chips in 98
| percent of PC laptops sold in the past year.1"
|
| There is a subtle difference between "98 percent of laptops
| sold" and your rephrasing as "2% of laptops you can buy
| today".
| refulgentis wrote:
| You're both right, but he's more right because the subtle
| difference you mention _is the problem_: they went out of
| their way to be unclear.
|
| After the odd graphs/numbers from the event, I was
| worried it was going to be an awful ~2 year period of
| jumping to conclusions based on: - Geekbench scores -
| "It's slow because Rosetta" - HW comparisons that compare
| against ancient hardware because "[the more powerful PC
| equivalent] uses _too_ much power" implying that "[M1]
| against 4 year old HW is just the right amount of power",
| erasing the tradeoff between powerfulness and power
| consumption into only power consumption mattering
|
| The people claiming this blows Intel/AMD out of the water
| need to have stronger evidence than comparing against
| budget parts from years ago, then waving away any other
| alternative based on power consumption.
|
| Trading off power for power consumption is an inherent
| property of chip design, refusing to consider other
| chipsets because they have a different set of tradeoffs
| mean you're talking about power consumption alone, not
| the chip design.
| klelatti wrote:
| I really would suggest reading the Anandtech article
| linked above - I think it will help to clarify where the
| M1 stands against the competition.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| >I think Apple brought this on themselves when they
| announced it would be faster than 98%[1] of the existing
| laptops on the market. They didn't caveat it with "fanless
| laptops" or "laptops with 20hr of battery life", it's just
| supposedly faster than all but 2% of laptops you can buy
| today.
|
| Exactly. It's a meaningless number.
|
| They also conspicuously avoid posting any GHz information
| of any kind. My assumption is that it's a fine laptop, but
| a bullshit performance claim.
| bitL wrote:
| Old quad-core 2020 Macbook Air was probably faster than 98%
| of the existing laptops on the market given what specs have
| most volume sold (<$500).
| martin_bech wrote:
| I dont know if you've actually done the numbers.. but most
| laptops on the market, have low to mediocre specs. It would
| surprise me if more than 2% are pro/enthusiast.
| jandrese wrote:
| Apple didn't specify if they're counting by model or
| total sales, but virtually everything in the Gamer Laptop
| category is going to be faster in virtually every
| measure.
|
| https://www.newegg.com/Gaming-Laptops/SubCategory/ID-3365
|
| As a Joe Schmoe it's hard to get good figures, but it
| appears the total laptop market is about $161.952B[1]
| with the "gaming" laptop segment selling about
| $10.96B[2]. Since gaming laptops are more expensive this
| undercounts cheap laptops, but there are other classes of
| laptop that are going to outperform this mac, like
| business workstations.
|
| There might be one way to massage the numbers to pull out
| that statistic somehow, but it is at best misleading.
|
| [1]
| https://www.statista.com/outlook/15030100/100/laptops-
| tablet... [1]
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1027216/global-
| gaming-la...
| wmf wrote:
| I assume Apple means unit sales. It makes sense that 98%
| of all laptop units sold are not the fastest.
| klelatti wrote:
| '98% of laptops sold over the last year' not 'that you can
| buy' ie not 98% of all models on the market (whatever that
| means).
|
| And their statement will have been through all sorts of
| validation before they use it so it's almost certainly not
| 'bullshit'.
| qz2 wrote:
| Faster than 98% of the cheapest OEM laptop available!
| jandrese wrote:
| I just had the thought that the figures could be skewed
| by education departments all over the country making bulk
| orders for cheap laptops for students doing remote
| learning.
| qz2 wrote:
| Very good point.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| How is it relevant how it stacks upto a thread ripper and 3090
| rtx? You are comparing an ultra book with a large high
| performance workstation pc then. That makes absolutely no
| sense.
| grecy wrote:
| > _If you want to convince me about the graphics /ML
| capabilities, compare it to a 3090 RTX using running
| Vulkan/Cuda. _
|
| You're seriously suggesting we should compare the integrated
| graphics in a fanless bottom-of-their-line laptop that starts
| at $999 to a $1,500 graphics card ?
|
| (Let's be brutally clear - that graphics card can do precisely
| squat on it's own. No CPU, no RAM, no PSU, no display, no
| keyboard, etc. etc. etc.)
|
| Surely that makes no sense in any universe.
| banachtarski wrote:
| For reference, the 1050 Ti card is considered the minimum spec at
| many AAA game studios.
| olliej wrote:
| It's been a long time since I've actually followed graphics
| benchmarks at all - where is this on the scale from intel
| intergrated to modern discrete laptop gpu? E.g. a radeon 5500 or
| similar?
|
| [edit: to be clear I mean modern feature set type stuff, not just
| raw framerate]
| [deleted]
| bjoli wrote:
| So, it is slightly better than a 1050TI. What does that mean? I
| do nothing to stress my graphics card at all, so explain it like
| I am 5, I guess...
| shmerl wrote:
| Not really a serious gaming option, but OK for lower end
| (ignoring that Apple doesn't care about gaming in general).
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| It's certainly 'good enough for government work' as the saying
| goes, but it's pretty bad for gaming at retina screen
| resolutions.
| vmception wrote:
| hits 60fps steadily which is a nice feat, but just barely and
| definitely not future proof, but as low power and integrated
| that's amazing!
|
| my skeptic hat has gotten smaller, still there, just smaller
| mrbuttons454 wrote:
| A 1050ti has a TDP of 75w, and the Apple M1 has somewhere
| between 10-18w (not sure if actual numbers have been published,
| but I didn't see them.)
| davio wrote:
| 10W published for MBA
| mciancia wrote:
| And that is for the whole SoC, not just GPU
| jandrese wrote:
| A 1050Ti is a three generation old card and was bottom of the
| line when it came out, so not too bad for integrated graphics.
|
| It's plenty for everything but modern gaming, and since those
| games aren't likely to be ported to ARM on Mac anytime soon
| it's not a huge problem. Apple has always had something of a
| rocky relationship with game publishers, at least on the Mac.
| Lots of older games will probably work fine, assuming the
| driver situation isn't a nightmare. Apple is somewhat notorious
| for neglecting graphics card drivers unfortunately.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Saying that it's plenty for everything but modern gaming
| isn't saying much either. Every other integrated graphics
| solution has been fine for everything but modern gaming.
| Zetto wrote:
| GTX 1050 2GB was the bottom of the line when the 1050 Ti came
| out. Both were released in Oct 2016, there's also GT 1030
| which was released few months later.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| It looks like World of Warcraft at the very least is getting
| a day-one Apple ARM build, which suggests that porting isn't
| too bad. It should be a relatively easy transition for any
| game that already ran on macOS or iOS.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| The GTX 1050 Ti was a lower-mid-range gaming card a couple
| generations ago. AFAIK it can still run most new games,
| possibly with compromises for smooth performance (low graphical
| settings, 30 FPS, or sub-1080p resolution).
| kcb wrote:
| It's very unlikely that real world gaming performance will
| match a 1050TI. People are assigning mythical properties to
| this new SOC.
| mrkstu wrote:
| Considering that the devices that were replaced were integrated
| GPUs only, the fact that these devices now run close to current
| gen discrete GPUs is a big jump.
|
| The bigger question to be answered is whether this is a
| baseline that will be surpassed handily by the higher end
| released coming later, or that this is about as good as it gets
| now.
|
| I'm assuming that the reason these were released separately was
| because the later arriving devices have significantly differing
| SoC's with even better performance, and maybe even discrete
| GPUs with variable, scaling performance.
| olyjohn wrote:
| The 1050Ti is hardly a current gen GPU. It was a budget card
| when it came out years ago.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >run close to current gen discrete GPUs is a big jump
|
| 1050 Ti is not current gen. Geforce 10 series have been out
| for more than 4 years now. the current gen is RTX 30 series
| mrkstu wrote:
| I was trying to say 'close to a recent gen discrete CPU'
| not 'close (in performance) to a current gen CPU.'
|
| 1050 is just one generation removed from most current
| discrete GPUs, I don't believe the 3000 series is out yet
| on laptops, the 2080 just came out last year.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > the fact that these devices now run close to current gen
| discrete GPUs is a big jump.
|
| The 1050 Ti (4 years old) has about the same performance as a
| GTX 680. A card from 2012.
|
| This comparison makes absolutely no sense. You'd want to
| compare the M1 against either the current generation
| integrated, such as the Vega 8 or 11 in the Ryzen 4xxx mobile
| CPUs or the Intel Xe-LP in the current tiger lake CPUs, or
| you'd want to compare it against last gen integrated.
|
| Comparing it against a discreet card from 4 years ago with
| the performance of a card from 8 years ago is just... weird?
| _venkatasg wrote:
| I'm beginning to think I can replace my Macbook Pro 2015 with the
| new Macbook Air...the numbers are so tempting.
|
| Let's see how the reviews turn out, where people will use at
| real-world tasks.
| banachtarski wrote:
| What is tempting about this? This benchmark shows that the M1
| performs marginally worse than the low-end sku from 3
| generations ago.
| DeRock wrote:
| No, it shows it performs better? Go look again at the numbers
| in the linked comparison. Also calling it low-end is
| misleading, the 1050Ti was solidly mid-tier, and also a
| dedicated graphics card used in desktop machines. This is
| comparing it to integrated graphics in a lightweight laptop
| (the M1 in the recently announced MacBook Air).
| qw3rty01 wrote:
| 1060 is budget mid-tier, I don't really see how you could
| say the 1050ti is anything but low-end when looking at
| either performance or price
| _venkatasg wrote:
| For mac users these numbers are amazing lol
| banachtarski wrote:
| lol what's hilarious is the numbers probably go up just by
| installing windows and using the actual first-party nvidia
| driver.
| felipesoc wrote:
| I would wait some time until more software and os projects gets
| native support and kinks are ironed out.
|
| I don't know your workflow but maybe some dependency in your
| pipeline has issues and then you are in a world of pain trying
| to figure out why.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| I'm especially interested to see how it deals with heavy loads
| heat-wise. With no fan it could end up getting up to leg-
| roasting temps
| jandrese wrote:
| It seems like Apple may err on the side of just letting it
| get painfully slow instead of crisping your legs. The primary
| differentiator between the Air and Pro is that the Pro comes
| with a fan and a $300 premium.
| mbesto wrote:
| This is exactly the camp I'm in. I won't touch the new MBPro
| because of the touchbar (and keyboard woes), but I'm willing to
| concede the peripheral inputs if it means the thing is much
| lighter/slimmer and has better performance.
| dawnerd wrote:
| FYI the keyboard has since been fixed and is, apart from some
| slight differences to key layout, the same as the air.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| I was tempted as well until I realized it's only 8GB of memory.
| There's no way i could survive on less then 16 currently.
|
| edit - ignore that I'm an idiot :)
| mbirth wrote:
| For $200 you can upgrade to 16GB during the order process.
| unclemase wrote:
| You have 2 weeks to return it ;)
| leecb wrote:
| In the US, you have even longer during the holiday period:
|
| > Items purchased at the Apple Online Store that are received
| between 10 November and 25 December 2020 may be returned up
| to 8 January 2021.
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/help/returns_refund
| Zealotux wrote:
| The idea of changing my 2015 MBP for something else is a tough
| one to accept, my biggest beef with the recent Air being the
| heat issues: the fan on the previous Air is so useless it's
| laughable[1] and they completely removed it on the new one, I
| remain skeptical.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiCBYAP_Sgg
| somehnguy wrote:
| I just upgraded my 2015 MBP to a 16" 2019 MBP. I specifically
| bought it now so that I have an Intel chip because I don't
| want to deal with the headache while things slowly switch
| over.
|
| I hadn't realized how much faster computers had gotten since
| 2015, this new machine runs circles around the old one. The
| keyboard is great and I actually like the touch bar. 0
| regrets, it's an upgrade in every single way.
| jeswin wrote:
| If you switch the OS to Windows DirectX:
|
| OnScreen Aztec High Tier gives you 54fps on the M1, vs 106fps on
| the 1050Ti. Normal tier is capped at 60fps for OSX while Windows
| goes up to 156fps.
|
| That's a better comparison since it represents the best optimised
| platforms for this hardware. NVidia on OSX isn't a very
| meaningful comparison.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, the base GPU in the 16"
| MacBook Pro:
| https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did1=907542...
|
| Compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, the +$700 upgrade in the
| top of the line MacBook Pro 16":
| https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did1=907542...
|
| Note that the Onscreen numbers are capped at 60fps on OS X, so
| ignore any Onscreen results at 59-60fps.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Considering that there's no difference between the 1050ti in
| the OP and the 5500M that PragmaticPulp posted I'm inclined to
| say this test sucks. Userbenchmark.com shows there should be a
| substantial (38%) improvement between those two. Take these
| early results with a HUGE grain of salt because they smell
| fishy.
|
| https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti-vs-...
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Well, two things there.
|
| 1: Userbenchmark.com is terrible and nobody should use it for
| anything. At least their CPU side of things is hopelessly
| bought & paid for by Intel (and even within the Intel lineup
| they give terrible & wrong advice), maybe the GPU side is
| better but I wouldn't count on it.
|
| 2: The real question there isn't "why is the 1050 Ti not
| faster?" it's "how did you run a 1050 Ti on MacOS in the
| first place, since Nvidia doesn't make MacOS drivers anymore
| and hasn't for a long time?"
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Userbenchmark.com is terrible and nobody should use it
| for anything. At least their CPU side of things is
| hopelessly bought & paid for by Intel (and even within the
| Intel lineup they give terrible & wrong advice), maybe the
| GPU side is better but I wouldn't count on it.
|
| To provide some elaboration on this: Their overall CPU
| score used to be 30% single, 60% quad, 10% multicore. Last
| year around the launch of zen 2 they gave it an update.
| Which makes sense; the increasing ability of programs to
| actually scale beyond four cores means that multicore
| should get more importance. And so they changed the
| influence of multicore numbers from 10% to... 2%. Not only
| was it a blatant and ridiculous move to hurt the scores of
| AMD chips, you got results like this, an i3 beating an i9 h
| ttps://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jDJP8prZywSyLPesLtrak4-970
| ...
|
| And there was some suspicious dropping of zen 3 scores a
| week ago, too, it looks like.
| brokencode wrote:
| I don't see that as evidence of blatant bias for Intel.
| The site is just aimed at helping the average consumer
| pick out a part, and I think the weighting makes sense.
|
| Most applications can only make use of a few CPU-heavy
| threads at a time, and these systems with with 18 cores
| will not make any difference for the average user. In
| fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for
| regular desktop usage since it's clocked lower.
|
| If you are a pro with a CPU-heavy workflow that scales
| well with more threads, then you probably don't need some
| consumer benchmark website to tell you that you need a
| CPU with more cores.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| But lots of things do use more than 4 cores. To suddenly
| set that to _almost zero_ weight, when it was already a
| pretty low fraction, _right when zen 2 came out_ , is
| clear bias.
|
| > In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel
| slower for regular desktop usage since it's clocked
| lower.
|
| It has a similar turbo, it won't.
| mastazi wrote:
| Regarding 2. I think that none of those benchmarks were run
| on MacOS. Their benchmark tool seems to be Windows-only
| https://www.userbenchmark.com/ (click on "free download"
| and the MacOS save dialogue will inform you that the file
| you are about to download is a Windows executable).
| aardvarkr wrote:
| 1. Today I learned something new. Still, can't let great be
| the enemy of good. It may be imperfect but it's the source
| I used. Do you have a better source I can replace it with?
|
| 2. That's a good question and I don't have an answer for
| that.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Re #2, the Nvidia web drivers work great if you're on High
| Sierra
| xfalcox wrote:
| Please don't use userbenchmark for anything. Site is so
| misleading that it's banned from both r/amd and r/intel.
| deergomoo wrote:
| Damn, I would happily take the 10-20% performance hit to avoid
| having the laptop turn into a jet engine as soon as I connect
| it to a monitor.
| sod wrote:
| You can have that trade off already by disabling turbo boost.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| I thought the 5300M was the base GPU. That's what I have
| anyway.
|
| https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did1=907542...
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| Looks like there's interesting "offscreen" optimizations that
| might need to be re-implemented for M1, IIUC.
| zaksoup wrote:
| I think those are the same link
| p0nce wrote:
| Also the M1 is built on TSMC 5nm.
|
| The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is built on TSMC 7nm.
| bredren wrote:
| We need this compared with the RX 580 running in the blackmagic
| egpu.
|
| That's the most relevant CPI compare, given it is the entry
| level apple endorsed way to boost Mac gpu.
|
| It also helps understand the value of the 580 and Vega on
| pre-m1 macs.
| kushan2020 wrote:
| I would be interested in knowing if I can play Civ VI on a Retina
| display with this thing.
| lalaithion wrote:
| I use a GTX 970 to play Civ VI at 1440.
|
| So, probably!
| pier25 wrote:
| I've never been so excited and so turned off at the same time.
|
| The ARM Mac hardware is looking fantastic, but OTOH macOS is
| getting worse every year...
| thijsvandien wrote:
| Exactly this. The idea of seriously powerful machines with
| great battery life is awesome. An even more proprietary, locked
| down system with software that keeps getting worse? Not at all.
| ajharrison wrote:
| Yawn. So tired of the "macOS is going to shit" meme.
|
| It is by far the most advanced operating system which serves
| newbies and professionals alike. I know people who use it to
| browse Facebook and use Messages/Music/Safari etc and those who
| use it to manage servers, build apps, and more.
|
| The progression of software of this scale is often slow and at
| times annoying, but to write it off and say it's getting worse
| is absolutely insane.
|
| What a lot of people don't understand about the approach Apple
| has to software, especially their own, is that they inch
| towards the ultimate and ideal version, and yes, during some of
| those transitions things may feel more broken than usual, until
| they don't.
| hocuspocus wrote:
| > It is by far the most advanced operating system which
| serves newbies and professionals alike. I know people who use
| it to browse Facebook and use Messages/Music/Safari etc and
| those who use it to manage servers, build apps, and more.
|
| Advanced according to what metric exactly? And your second
| sentence can be said about Windows or any modern OS really.
| pier25 wrote:
| It's true many problems end up being solved, but you don't
| see a problem shipping broken software on which millions
| depend to work?
|
| I started using macOS back on Panther and I don't trust Apple
| to ship a reliable update anymore. I'm still on Mojave
| because even today Catalina is broken for a lot of people.
| po1nter wrote:
| > most advanced operating system
|
| Sounds like someone is regurgitating Apple's marketing
| speech.
|
| How do you define "Most advanced"? because, for me, an OS
| that you can't use to run apps because Apple's servers were
| down is anything but advanced to me.
| ktpsns wrote:
| Absolutely! For me it feels as if Mac OS repeats the errors of
| MS Windows Vista and 10. For instance, the horrible telemetry
| as well as the suboptimal "one interface for touch and mouse
| pointer" paradigm.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Can you expand on "horrible telemetry" please? And since no
| Macs have a touch screen, I'm not sure what you mean by the
| "one interface" thing. Big Sur may resemble iOS but it is not
| the same interface at all.
| cosmotic wrote:
| Big Sur incorporates apps from iOS using Catalyst. iOS
| devices all have touch screens.
| tannedNerd wrote:
| I think the thought is since the tap targets all got so
| much bigger for Big Sur it no longer feels like an OS
| designed for a pointer, more one designed for a finger.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > Can you expand on "horrible telemetry" please?
|
| Phoning home on every executable launch. Both because it's
| bad for privacy, and because the implementation of it is
| absolutely horrific such that when Apple's servers went
| down it basically locked up everyones computers at the same
| time.
|
| It's on the front page still, even:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959
| my123 wrote:
| Is it even really telemetry as we'd consider it? It's
| OCSP digital signature verification... to check if an app
| signature wasn't revoked. (or a website cert, or anything
| really)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| It sends a hash of every executable you launch to Apple,
| how would that not be considered telemetry?
| my123 wrote:
| Not the hash of the executable, but the certificate that
| it's signed with.
| dsr_ wrote:
| What's the ratio between certs and applications on your
| Mac? Is it pretty close to 1:1, excluding Apple's own
| products?
| jjoonathan wrote:
| When installing Windows, I had to unplug the ethernet
| during a particular setup screen to avoid having every
| login checked against my cloud account. It put Candy Crush
| and Farmville ads in my start menu without consent. I
| remember having to spend effort to get Cortana to go away
| and (maybe) not send my searches to the cloud.
|
| In MacOS, we've recently seen: pushy siri, sending search
| results to the cloud, and yesterday the OCSP failure made
| it obvious they were sending logs of every app launch to
| the cloud :/ . It's the same direction, even if they aren't
| yet quite as lost as Microsoft.
| threeseed wrote:
| You opted in to enabling Siri and they are simply
| validating the signatures on the apps.
| s_tec wrote:
| I know, right? What's with all these people, expecting
| their personal computers to respect their privacy? If you
| want cool features, just be quiet and let Apple send
| whatever data they want to their servers. It's fine!
| filoleg wrote:
| Did you miss the part where the parent reply said "opted
| in enabling Siri"?
|
| I mean, if you enable a completely optional feature that
| requires giving up a bit of privacy for its literal
| intended functionality, how is it Apple's fault? And
| unlike Cortana on Windows 10, you can disable Siri
| feature just with a click of a button, or you can just
| click a button to not enable it in the first place. When
| you start your new Mac for the first time, it asks you
| very explicitly if you want it enabled or not.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Ever tried to opt out of Siri? I have. It nags you
| constantly. You search, looking for a gist to nuke it,
| but what you find doesn't work. Finally, you give in,
| just to get the damn thing to shut up.
| ink404 wrote:
| I'm currently opted out and haven't been getting nagged
| at all on MacOS 10.15
| jjoonathan wrote:
| How'd you do it? Any chance you remember the command that
| worked?
| internet2000 wrote:
| Just uncheck the box on System Preferences:
| https://i.imgur.com/FCuNZMO.png
|
| I don't even remember Siri also exists on Mac OS most
| times.
| retromario wrote:
| How does one disable the signature validation?
| Reason077 wrote:
| In /etc/hosts: 0.0.0.0 oscp.apple.com
|
| then: sudo dscacheutil -flushcache; sudo
| killall -HUP mDNSResponder # refresh hosts
|
| Or alternatively: defaults write
| /Library/Preferences/com.apple.security.revocation.plist
| CRLStyle None defaults write
| /Library/Preferences/com.apple.security.revocation.plist
| OCSPStyle None defaults write
| com.apple.security.revocation.plist CRLStyle None
| defaults write com.apple.security.revocation.plist
| OCSPStyle None
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I don't think I ever opted in to Siri. How can I turn it
| off? I've disabled it from the menu bar but it's still on
| the touchbar, just waiting for me to slightly miss the
| delete key
| threeseed wrote:
| It's one of the installer screens you get every time you
| install or upgrade OSX.
|
| You would've seen it at least a dozen times by now.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| To remove Siri from the touchbar:
|
| System Preferences -> Keyboard
|
| Click on "Customize Control strip"
|
| You then drag and drop items on and off the touchbar. It
| is a totally inane, unintuitive interface and it took me
| forever to find it. Also, I couldn't figure out how to
| change it because the option DISAPPEARS if you're trying
| to customize in clamshell mode. The touch bar has to be
| open
|
| I can't tell if it's deliberately bad UX, but I spent
| months being asked if I wanted to turn on Siri typing on
| this keyboard...
| jooize wrote:
| I feel like macOS asks me about Siri and privacy at login
| after every major update, with an unskippable setup
| window, but at least after account creation. Open System
| Preferences > Siri and disable Ask Siri. You can edit the
| Touch Bar via a menu in Finder.
| my123 wrote:
| System Preferences -> Siri and then disable the Ask Siri
| checkbox in the left.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Alas, that didnt remove it from the touchbar
| my123 wrote:
| System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Personalize Control
| Strip
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| It is hard with sys Perf. and keyboard ... and not good
| in interpreting one's voice as well.
| john_alan wrote:
| They (Craig F) stated that's not what they are doing. They
| aren't merging paradigms.
|
| They are bringing the best bits of iOS to macOS
| systemvoltage wrote:
| UI changes in MacOS Big Sur are totally uncalled for.
| They're designed for touch displays.
| sooheon wrote:
| Agreed. Giant titlebars taking up vertical screen space
| is a clear concession for fingerability.
| tpush wrote:
| No, it's a "concession" for legibility. And I think they
| look very nice (much nicer than the old grey ones), too.
| threeseed wrote:
| It's designed to unify the Mac and iOS experiences.
|
| Why ? Because once everyone starts using iOS apps on
| their Mac eg. Netflix, Outlook Mac-only apps will slowly
| disappear. Hence you will need a look and feel that works
| on touch.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Do people really see this happening? It's been one of
| those big promises for nearly a decade and we're really
| nowhere near closer to it.
|
| You can run android apps on chrome(/chromium) and other
| than for novelty I don't know anyone who does so.
| canofbars wrote:
| The Android tablet scene is almost non existent. With the
| ipad pro and magic keyboard you could realistically use
| an ipad as a laptop if the software you needed was on it.
|
| I imagine that eventually devs will target pro software
| for the ipad and have it come to macos for free.
| threeseed wrote:
| How are we nowhere close when you can run iOS apps today
| on M1 ?
| threeseed wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by telemetry.
|
| Apple asks you every time you upgrade OSX whether you want to
| send anonymous data to Apple and third parties. You just need
| to click no.
| gumby wrote:
| They also check app signatures for revocation at first
| launch (and maybe other times).
|
| By the standards of modern disk and network, couldn't they
| download revocation caches the way they do with malware?
| acoard wrote:
| >By the standards of modern disk and network, couldn't
| they download revocation caches the way they do with
| malware?
|
| The whole point is to check if a cert has been revoked.
| If you have an out of date cache, you'll falsely approve
| a cert that should be revoked. I'm not defending the
| system as a whole, but if you care about revoking
| authentication - which they clearly do - then a cache
| directly undermines that goal.
|
| A malware hash doesn't get revoked, new ones just get
| added.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| So update it every hour.
|
| Or every time it feels the need to check a program,
| instead of asking about that program, it could ask for
| all revocations from the last day.
| spullara wrote:
| They are checking the certificate. Not app signatures.
| cosmotic wrote:
| The certificate can be (and is) hashed.
| [deleted]
| k2enemy wrote:
| Don't forget the incessant nagging and notifications. That
| was what drove me to MacOS back in the days of 10.3.
| cosmotic wrote:
| You cannot reasonably turn off all the security warnings
| and permission requests.
| dionian wrote:
| turn them off
| docsaintly wrote:
| Why is everyone surprised by this? Fudging numbers, stealing
| credit, and blatantly lying is what Apple has always done. Of
| course they put a beautiful marketing layer on top of it all so
| its slightly less obvious.
| bt3 wrote:
| Without directly commenting on the performance of the M1 chip, I
| still believe the biggest hurdle is software compatibility.
| Apple's "universal binary" seems dubious, and I don't believe
| Rosetta 2 is anything more than emulation software which will
| have performance ramifications.
|
| Microsoft has faced this same problem themselves. Releasing the
| Surface Pro X is a great example of a machine that is limited by
| software.
|
| As others have noted in other threads, Apple's ability to run iOS
| apps natively on the M1 chip seems like a great mechanism to
| lower the switching costs, though I maintain the chasm left to
| cross is software.
|
| This is all of course, notwithstanding the "locked down OS"
| concerns from the front page for the past day or so. Does an M1
| Macbook Air with BigSur make a competent development machine?
| xsmasher wrote:
| "universal binary" is just a binary with multiple executables
| for multiple CPUs inside. Hardly unusual, it's been used for
| 32+64 bit before, and to package multiple flavors of arm.
|
| Rosetta 2 is emulation in once sense, but it precompiles
| applications in to M1 code for speed.
|
| Running all x86-64 mac apps plus iOS apps plus any updated /
| universal apps is pretty far from a software shortage.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _Apple 's "universal binary" seems dubious_
|
| There is absolutely nothing even remotely dubious about
| universal binaries. They were used during the PPC->Intel
| transition and again for x86->amd64. You can create them right
| now.
| myrandomcomment wrote:
| NeXT shipped a single binary that supported 68000, Sparc, HP
| and Intel CPUs. This is nothing new.
| kzrdude wrote:
| They also used a version of that in the 68k -> PPC
| transition.
| john_alan wrote:
| Wat.
|
| They've done universal bins before. They work. What's dubious?
|
| Rosetta is translation not emulation.
| joakleaf wrote:
| OpenCL Geekbench results for MacBook Pro :
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/search?utf8=&q=Macb...
|
| About 60% of Radeon Pro 5500M (in the 16" 2019 Pro)
| KabirKwatra wrote:
| The 1050ti is not supported on modern macos running metal. See
| the difference when the card is on windows or Linux running real
| nvidia drivers as the card was built to.
| trimbo wrote:
| How do they have one? How do we know these are real numbers?
| unclemase wrote:
| User submitted benchmarks from Geekbench
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Perhaps it was run on the developer transition kit.
| exacube wrote:
| trust
| oneplane wrote:
| How do we know anything? Is this real life?
|
| I believe we simply assume that the reputation and trust built
| over time allows us to take the numbers as 'real enough' from
| that program & website.
| trimbo wrote:
| But isn't this just another thing people download to run
| benchmarks and then the result is uploaded?
|
| Anyway, answering my own question: multiple results have been
| uploaded in the past two days and uploaded by anonymous
| users. Maybe tech reviewers running it with devices they
| received early?
|
| https://gfxbench.com/allresults.jsp?order=date&page=1&D=Appl.
| ..
| threeseed wrote:
| Reviewers receive units at least a couple of weeks before
| launch with strict embargoes not to talk about it or
| publish anything.
|
| Also large developers like Adobe, Microsoft would have had
| retail units months ago to help with final testing.
| kushan2020 wrote:
| Thats how flat earth became a thing.
| oneplane wrote:
| No, that's because some of the people don't have first
| principles and trust at all and instead of validating they
| just make stuff up ;-)
|
| I was trying to point out that disputing things is fine,
| but the whole basis of a website where benchmarks are
| uploaded is trust-and-reputation-over-time to the point
| where enough other people can re-run the same tests on
| their machines (one they get them) to validate the results.
| Heck, you might almost call that science!
|
| Right now, there aren't additional results and you can't
| easily reproduce them because the machines aren't wide
| spread or available. But we can take the track record and
| reputation of the site and application and use that to
| value the integrity of the published benchmarks to be
| 'likely correct'.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| We don't know if this is the 7 or 8 core M1 GPU, nor whether this
| is the actively cooled MacBook Pro/Mac Mini or the passively
| cooled Air.
|
| So this seems pretty useless.
| dawnerd wrote:
| It's still mind boggling why the 13" MBP w/ M1 can't run dual 4k.
| txdv wrote:
| dual 4k or dual monitor?
| akhilcacharya wrote:
| Can't the RPi 4 support dual 4K?
| DeRock wrote:
| Technically the M1 can support 2 displays too, 1 @ 6k/60Hz
| and 1 @ 4k/60Hz. This is done eg. for the Mac mini. However,
| for the laptops, one of those is consumed by the built in
| screen.
| monocasa wrote:
| Which is weird because every laptop I've had for 15 years
| has had a mux on the RAMDAC outputs so you could connect as
| many external screens as you can have max outputs and just
| turn off the builtin screen.
|
| Including Macs.
| lambdasquirrel wrote:
| It's the first release of a new product? Features take time.
| rovr138 wrote:
| I mean, all they're asking (and me too) is feature parity
| with what existed on the line before.
|
| If they can't deliver that, it probably should have been held
| back.
| mywittyname wrote:
| That's a pretty damn important feature, especially for
| professional users.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| Agreed. If you think about what's common between all the
| types of "professionals" that Apple targets, from coding to
| music production to whatever... one of them is wanting
| multiple screens to have everything laid out in front of
| them.
| oneplane wrote:
| I suspect (and this is just speculation) the M1 is very closely
| related to their iPad architecture which was never designed for
| more than one external display, as such the architecture wasn't
| really suitable and between building a 'computer' based on that
| chip and re-architecting the design it just wasn't feasible or
| required to support it on the first release.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Thats exactly my thought too. Makes me wonder if it will
| support two monitors in clamshell mode since the mac mini
| supports two. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Maybe it's
| something they can patch in.
| oneplane wrote:
| I'm also curious as to how the graphics connections /
| routing works; would they have an internal bus and then
| split and mux it or something? Or perhaps an eDP or LVDS
| bus that can't be switched out to some HDMI or DP
| transceiver in clamshell?
|
| Let's see if iFixit can get us some nice high-res pictures.
| Heck, someone might leak schematics and any normal users
| can probably show a IOTree for the system. Always nice to
| explore those on new machines.
| tripham wrote:
| These numbers are quite good if you realize that the M1 iGPU is
| comparable to a discrete GPU. Also the power consumption is for
| the entire package not just the discrete GPU alone.
| j3i4j43JJJ wrote:
| 1050 TI was released in 2016 (5 years ago) and even then it was
| much slower than 1060-1080 cards.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Recent, related, and massive:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25065026 ("Apple Silicon M1
| chip in MacBook Air outperforms high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro")
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25049079 ("Apple unveils M1,
| its first system-on-a-chip for portable Mac computers")
| [deleted]
| j3i4j43JJJ wrote:
| The old 1050 TI only has 2.1 TFLOPS. Compare M1 against the real
| beast RTX 3090 with 35 TFLOPS - that's 17 times more than in 1050
| TI. 2.1 TFLOPS doesn't impress me at all.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-13 23:00 UTC)