And n turn I am sorry if I sounded a bit rude. I am afraid it's a habit one picks up after spending too much time on MacRumors
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Beyond the M1 hype and why the fairy dust needs to settle.
- Thread starter Kung gu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And n turn I am sorry if I sounded a bit rude. I am afraid it's a habit one picks up after spending too much time on MacRumors
@jasoncarle has stated his is the Ryzen machine 16 core AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and top end Mac Pro has a 28 core Intel Xeon W-3275M. The 5950X is better than the 28 Core Xeon on Cinebench R23.
Goes to show how powerful the new AMD Zen 3 is.
So yes his Ryzen machine does come close and even exceeds in Single core and Multi core.
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X vs. Intel Xeon W-3275M - Benchmark, Test and Specs
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X vs. Intel Xeon W-3275M - Benchmark, Geekbench 5, Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, Cinebench R15 and FP32 iGPU (GFLOPS) benchmark resultswww.cpu-monkey.com
Thank you, but I think the 28 core Xeon is a bit of a stretch. The 16 core would be a better comparison IMO. However, I was referring to total system cost. My machine, fully water-cooled, with 64GB of RAM, etc... cost 6k. For that money it really destroys a Mac Pro until you start adding a lot of expensive upgrades. I almost bought one, but the price to performance is just insane. Personally, I would have loved to see Apple switch to AMD chips because a 64 core thread ripper Mac Pro would be a beast.
Oh none taken, i played ice hockey and worked in NYC AND i can use some rudeness and a few McFlys!And n turn I am sorry if I sounded a bit rude. I am afraid it's a habit one picks up after spending too much time on MacRumors
just buy what you feel is right.. everything is subjective. if you feel windows provide what you need, go for it. it is that simple. no point in trying to inform others. I used windows for over 25 years, I switched about 5 years ago. never looked back. my taste changed. it is that simple.
I keep wondering why people make these comparisons, which are flawed to begin with. The Mac Pro is a flexible machine, it has to provide a mix of CPU-, GPU- and RAM-performance among other things. How can 1TB or more RAM be used with a Threadripper? You'd have to go EPYC in that case. Apple is not in the business of building custom computers to ordered specs.
If one needs a gaming PC or a computer with 64-cores with little RAM, then custom build PC is the solution because Apple is not offering a comparable solution. The Mac Pro is much better compared to a Dell Precision workstation. I have a bunch of those within my research group with Xeon Platinum, more RAM than a Threadripper can handle and Nvidia RTX8000. And for what these cost, the Mac Pro price isn't that bad at all (hint, it's cheaper when buying enough machines), but of course lacks CUDA which is a deal breaker for me (and yes, I'm also using Nvidia GPU clusters, but sometimes things need to be run locally under the desk).
Last edited:
Threadripper Pro 3995WX supports 2TB memory.
https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Zen/AMD-Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX.html
But why spend upwards of $50K+ on a Mac Pro and limit yourself to only 1.5TB RAM when you can have 8TB with Epyc 7713p. Or, limit yourself to single CPU socket when you can have two with Epyc 7713 or 7763? Or, 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes when you can have 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes?
Single Epyc 7713p/7713 performance relative to Threadripper 3990x (Zen 3 > Zen 2) and M1
Last edited:
1) Don't feed the Trolls!
2) In my work, I use a laptop constantly and intensively, with power-on hours that often exceed twelve hours a day. Over the years, I've used every laptop imaginable, running Win-doze, Linux, and macOS. I've had an M1 since its release, AND I was amongst the greatest affected by some of the initial issues. However, the "fairy dust" hasn't settled yet, and based on what I've seen and experienced, won't "settle" for a long time to come. eof
2) In my work, I use a laptop constantly and intensively, with power-on hours that often exceed twelve hours a day. Over the years, I've used every laptop imaginable, running Win-doze, Linux, and macOS. I've had an M1 since its release, AND I was amongst the greatest affected by some of the initial issues. However, the "fairy dust" hasn't settled yet, and based on what I've seen and experienced, won't "settle" for a long time to come. eof
sigh... You know the thread collapsed when making a poor argument comparing a threadripper to the M1. One of the above posters is right, the M1 can trade blows with an i9 (such as my MBP 16.) Sorry but it's a fantastic SoC. I swear this feels like some kind of loss management or buyers remorse from some of the posts. I don't understand the argument.
I have to fly from Anchorage to Jacksonville, FL on business next month. Knowing that I will be able to use the M1 MBP on a cross-country flight without having to charge it along the way is reason enough to justify my purchase. If I really need to use Windows or a Windows-only app for some reason, I have a Windows machine at the house I can use for that. But outside of that narrow use scenario. But for the vast majority of the work I do (website development/coding/mobile app development), the M1 is all I need to get the job done.
You missed the part where some were suggesting to theoretically scale up M1 TDP. M1 in Mac Mini is ~25W so it has a budget of up to 105W compared to AMD 5950x but TDP doesn't scale linearly with clock frequency increase vs core count increase but there's still interconnect consumption.
Your comparison is simply incorrect and irrelevant. I’m not aware of your computer knowledge but those are Windows games unable to run on Mac OS. You can’t judge a computer’s performance by testing applications that can’t even run on it. It’s like if I said your pc can’t do video and sound editing because it can’t run Apple’s Final Cut Pro or Logic Pro.
If you want to play Windows games not available on Mac then buy a pc but it doesn’t change the fact that M1 GPU is still superior to Vega 8 and I showed that with Borderlands 3 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider as examples. None of those games are ”decades old”. SOTTR is just 2.5 years old and BL3 1.5, both demanding games.
Here are other comparisons. Remember that the games aren’t native for M1. Windows games like Witcher 3 and Metro Exodus are running through Crossover emulation that itself is not native and is running through Rosetta 2, i.e. two layers of emulation/translation:
Deus ex Mankind Divided 1080p low on Ryzen 7 5800H: 23-24 fps
Deus ex Mankind Divided 1080p High M1 Rosetta 2: 22 fps
Deus ex Mankind Divided 1080p Ultra M1 Rosetta 2: 24 fps
Witcher 3 768p low-medium on Ryzen 7 5800H: 45 fps
Witcher 3 1080p medium on M1 Crossover/Rosetta 2: locked to 30
Witcher 3 1080p medium on M1 Crossover/Rosetta 2: around 30
Metro Exodus 768p medium (Hairworks/Advanced Physics/Tessellation Off) on Ryzen 7 5800H: 33 fps
Metro Exodus 1080p low (Hairworks/Advanced Physics/Tessellation Off) on on M1 Crossover/Rosetta 2: 30 fps avg
Metro Exodus is coming to Mac/Linux on April 14 so it will be interesting to see the performance boost.
Regarding ”For modern games 5800U has very playable frame rates”, sure if you are happy playing Cyberpunk on 720p low 32 fps avg or Metro Exodus 768p medium 33 avg.
Uh no... sorry, not true. I maxed my MBP. It does not hold up by any means. Sorry but the M1 beats it's in every case I have. I even went through stupidity with an eGPU and all sorts of nonsense to keep it cool and it STILL will not perform as well as the M1.
Those are not even in the same weight class here. I've switch 100% to the MBP 13 M1 for all my use cases. I don't use the other laptop, my PC laptop, or my linux Intel desktop. Done with all the others. I'll likely trade the 16 if something else comes out I wish to purchase. I certainly don't want a big laptop again, not a fan.
Yeah I play just fine with my M1 with Mankind Divided. In fact, most of my games are pretty good (even if I have to run in Parallels with Windows ARM.)
The funniest part is that they don’t seem to realize how badly it reflects on the threadripper itself... 16x number of cores, 20-25x higher power consumption, and yet only 10x higher scores... in the fastest run, before the inevitable throttling. And that’s a test where Zen does extremely well! It’s even worse in standard benchmarks like SPEC
..."lacks enough cooling."
What the heck do you need? Liquid nitrogen? It's a laptop. Intel has massive cooling issues and does not hold up. The M1 is first gen and low watt right now. It will only get better from here.
It collapsed from the first post BUT I think there were a few folks that had some extra troll chow lying about. It was gonna expire and go bad eventually, sooooooo…
I think that you mean most ‘people on this website’ saying otherwise.
I don’t need or want a laptop with a touchscreen, that feature alone would prevent me from buying that brand/model of computer. I think that Apple ignoring games and gaming technology has been a company mistake, image wise. Game machines showcase the high end of what your computer can do, sonically, graphically, and computationally. Not everyone will need, want, or can afford that performance, but if they do want it then they know it’s there. They are the high performance sports cars of computers. Too expensive for most but they draw people to your shop or website. A few times over the past 15 years Apple has made a half-hearted attempt to implement a half-hearted development for gaming machines, although I may be giving them too much credit. It’s advertising, it won’t hurt you or your business to make a serious effort.
Actually if you really read this whole thread you’d see I’ve made quite a few comments throughout. I know you’re not the only one talking about PCIe here but I don’t understand why people started discussing the Mac Pro PCIe when the whole thread is about M1.
Yes the throughout of PCIe is faster but the actual SSD’s being used may have a limit. Maybe Apple used slower SSD’s because these are baseline machines. Who knows. Apple has stated that the M1 does use PCIe 4 but with these M1 macs it may not be fully used.
Why are people still comparing the M1 to threadrippers? Why are we discussing the Mac Pro? This thread is about M1 which is a 10-15W Chip.
We all know Intel chips are inferior to AMD. Let’s compare the Mac Pro to AMD once apple actually updates it with their own silicon. Until then, who cares about Intel.
It’s been said in this thread already, but the M1 is apples very first Mac chip. It is quite literally at the bottom of the totem pole. While the M1 is great in many ways mentioned in this thread, it’s still Apples version of an i3 or a ryzen 3 and even comparing it to a ryzen 7 is unfair because they are made for different markets.
The M1 chip is being used in apples worst macs. And I think even the fact that people here are comparing some of Windows best laptop offerings to apples worst laptop offerings is telling and proves why people are excited.
We all know Intel chips are inferior to AMD. Let’s compare the Mac Pro to AMD once apple actually updates it with their own silicon. Until then, who cares about Intel.
It’s been said in this thread already, but the M1 is apples very first Mac chip. It is quite literally at the bottom of the totem pole. While the M1 is great in many ways mentioned in this thread, it’s still Apples version of an i3 or a ryzen 3 and even comparing it to a ryzen 7 is unfair because they are made for different markets.
The M1 chip is being used in apples worst macs. And I think even the fact that people here are comparing some of Windows best laptop offerings to apples worst laptop offerings is telling and proves why people are excited.
Just because you don't understand something you shouldn't discount it. PCIe is relevant to both desktop and laptop since it interconnects chipset, SoC/CPU, graphics, storage, USB/Thunderbolt ports, network interface, etc. If, for example, storage, USB-C/Thunderbolt and network interface are slower than normal then PCIe bus bottleneck is more likely to be suspect than Apple using cheap SSD.
Last edited:
That's a Threadripper PRO and in order to to have a nice benefit you need 8 memory channels on a WRX80 mainboard. All of a sudden that "My Threadripper is so much cheaper than a Mac Pro" makes little sense when throwing in a $6k CPU. It also means you need different hardware for different CPUs, this is exactly what Apple won't do. Btw, where exactly can I place an order for 1000 of those (CPU and Board)? Or maybe 500? 200? ...?
Wonder how many AMD could have shipped to Apple back in 2019... oh wait. Nevermind.
What's next, people asking why Apple used AS/M1 and not that new CPU platform that will launch in 2083?
Apple made absolutely the right choice for what they want to accomplish, x86 is ancient and people need to let go. What needs to follow is the transition for the software ecosystem, particularly 3rd party software. If that still doesn't work out for everyone, go somewhere else. I do the same, macOS for "daily" tasks and when I need CUDA I switch to a Linux box or even Windows if necessary.
It really doesn't. On Apple Silicon PCIe is only used for Thunderbolt and maybe (just maybe) the SSD and the WiFi. Not to mention that PCIe 3.0 would be absolutely sufficient for all needs of an entry-level chip like M1. But as already clarified, M1 uses PCIe 4.0.
P.S. I did some benchmarks on the M1 SSD and it's not very good — at all. The SSD in my 16" model is much more capable overall. I have a suspicion that Apple uses same (or very similar) SSD as they did in the previous MBA, but their custom controller manages to squeeze some extra performance out of it. Higher end chips will be the ultimate test.