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.
M1 graphics is as we feared. Mediocre at best.
- Thread starter TheFluffyDuck
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IF the M1 is actually competitive with a GTX 1050TI, how TF is that mediocre? It is a dedicated GPU with access to much faster memory than the M1 has access too. I would be thrilled if its that fast.
You're moving the goalposts around, and your accountant example was particularly bad. I'll show why.
It was Apple itself that marketed this device as 3x to 5x faster than average computers, and marketed one of them as a "PRO" device – obviously, the "PRO" here means "pro user", i.e, users with high demands.
The people you mentioned here would be perfectly suited with whatever the x86 world has to offer, and even with lower computational solutions.
Now, why was your accountant example so bad?
An accountant could probably make do with a computer from 10 – 15 ago with Excel (which would be better on Windows anyway). You could try to argue: "yeah, but this accountant needs processing this extra power for very demanding computational processing.
Well, guess what... chances are they'd still need Excel, and even if they didn't, the type of computer they need is very different. Chances are they would be much better off focusing on storage speed.
Only if he is not into complicated money laundering schemes
I'm not quite sure how this is disappointing? So the M1 is in the ball park of a dedicated GPU? If the battery life holds up then we're looking at a generational leap for this class of CPU with integrated GPU.
You tend to get the most flak when you are over the target. The fact that for a "pro" machine only having an integrated graphics card as the only option and and no dedicated card is half the problem, not a feature! An issue Apple has been skimping on for years now. The Air, if you remember, was marketed at executives and other pros who don't need grunt. The MBP is meant to have grunt. Sure it will have that with the CPU, but not the GPU. So you will be buying a MBP 13", a machine who's graphics are four years out of date.
Now, I am sure its a great thermal feat for an Air, but not for a 13" MBP. Going "Oooh Ahhh" because its better than Intels integrated offerings is hardly a feat, try an Nvidia and AMD have dedicated mobile graphics card. Yes, Dedicated, which the 13" should be running in conjunction to the integrated. There are plenty of laptops with similar form factor that packs a dGPU, and iGPU. The fact that apples doesn't, despite its price is a travesty.
Now, I am sure its a great thermal feat for an Air, but not for a 13" MBP. Going "Oooh Ahhh" because its better than Intels integrated offerings is hardly a feat, try an Nvidia and AMD have dedicated mobile graphics card. Yes, Dedicated, which the 13" should be running in conjunction to the integrated. There are plenty of laptops with similar form factor that packs a dGPU, and iGPU. The fact that apples doesn't, despite its price is a travesty.
Better in terms of performance, but its a 150-200 watt GPU vs. a .... 15 watt CPU+GPU package
Sorry but what a crock.
This is a 13" machine with 20 hours of battery life that runs in a sub 30 watt power envelope.
Pro doesn't just mean "I work in Maya/Final Cut/etc. all day". It often means "I need a machine to actually last all day TO DO MY JOB".
Wait for the benchmarks on actual apps relevant to the device in question to come out.
The M1 doesn't just have a CPU and GPU. It has ML processing, along with a variety of other task specific processing units in it that an intel processor just doesn't have. So plain existing GPU benchmarks are.... not really representative anyway.
There isn't a replacement 16" machine yet, which is what you had to get in intel land to get a discrete GPU.
Wait for that before you start crying about GPU performance.
I laughed when I saw the content of the first post...
1550Ti and says it's not enough?
With that battery life and thermals?
Clearly has no idea of the notebook market in that price range.
1550Ti and says it's not enough?
With that battery life and thermals?
Clearly has no idea of the notebook market in that price range.
It's only obvious if you assume from the start that the moniker "PRO" has some sort of well-established, commonly accepted meaning. But it does not. This interpretation is a pure invention on your part.
If you want so hard to give the "Pro" label a meaning, you could say that it aims to fulfill certain loosely defined "increased demands". In the bracket that encompasses the 13" MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pro, the use of the moniker "Pro" is completely justified. Now, if the Pro were actually slower than the Air...
Exactly!
So many always assume a pro user is on film/photo editing or graphical design. Yes Apple has a lot of history in those markets, but that's a fraction of the reason why people buy and/or need pro models.
20h battery life is "pro". "Pro" means for professional use and not the highest performance. "Pro" like in Xeon, ECC etc provides reliability, not necessarily the highest raw power. I wish people and Apple stop using "Pro" as it is meaningless.
In Apple "Pro" = "pay more" and only as a marketing term.
I just had a look at the latest steam hardware survey. If M1 is comparable with a 1050 Ti, then the MacBook Air has faster graphics than approximately 75% of all computers on Steam.
OP it's been said already but expecting a laptop with an iGPU to be faster than the latest and greatest dedicated desktop GPUs is simply ridiculous.
If you make a fair comparison to Intel integrated graphics, which is exactly what you'd get on the previous gen 13" MBP/MBA/Mac Mini, the M1's graphics blow them all out of the water.
Saying the integrated graphics in a laptop are "mediocre" because they do not measure up to the latest dedicated desktop GPU is like saying a BMW is mediocre for not being faster than a Lamborghini.
If you make a fair comparison to Intel integrated graphics, which is exactly what you'd get on the previous gen 13" MBP/MBA/Mac Mini, the M1's graphics blow them all out of the water.
Saying the integrated graphics in a laptop are "mediocre" because they do not measure up to the latest dedicated desktop GPU is like saying a BMW is mediocre for not being faster than a Lamborghini.
If you look at the vast majority of games on Steam, that isn't really surprising. Shoot most of the Apple systems on steam are base Macbook Pros, so there is that.
While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the premise. Dedicated GPUs are dead. They are fundamentally incompatible with the architecture of Apple Silicon Macs. All GPUs going forward are going to be "integrated". And yes, they can and should be compared to dedicated GPUs, since Apple aims to replace those with their in-house integrated ones.
I am just saying that people really overestimate the prevalence of high-end GPUs in the market. GPUs with performance of 2060 GTX and above account somewhere under 10-15% of all machines used for gaming, and probably way under 1% if you consider the PC market worldwide.
Why would you expect Apple to replace three computers that have always used iGPUs from day one with dedicated GPUs?
Wait for the machines that currently have dedicated GPUs to get upgraded before you make judgements. The more powerful M1 chip for the "big boys" could easily support dedicated GPUs, just because the current M1 doesn't does not mean none ever will. Or maybe in the more powerful machines Apple will design their own GPU that matches or beats the power of existing dedicated GPUs.
No one knows yet, those products have yet to be released... wait until they are. Clearly you are not the target audience for the current M1 lineup and that's fine.
Looking at the numbers it is close to a GTX1650. For comparison the Blade Stealth has a GTX 1650 Ti. It is not amazing but far from mediocre...
It is a cyclical thing, most people play games on consoles (well I guess on their phones). Clearly few folk play console games on PC, but there is a market otherwise who is AMD and Nvidia selling these high end cards to? Furthermore why are developers bothering to make PC games (and not mobile games) if the majority of the PC market (based on the Steam survey) doesn't (can't ?) actually play them?
I suppose you didn’t read my post attentively. To make it more clear: I am not expecting them to replace entry levels iGPUs by dGPUs. I expect them to replace all dGPUs they use currently by faster Apple iGPUs down the line. Also, I consider M1 performance to be absolutely incredible given the target market of the chip.
As to “judging”... I have spent decent amount of time and effort researching Apple CPU and GPU technology and I can claim to having a certain level of technical understanding for how these things work. Apple currently has the fastest shipping GPU IP on the market and I expect them to do extremely well against Nvidia and AND offerings in the mid/long run.
Because entry-level and mid-range cards are absolutely sufficient to run modern games. A mainstream gamer does not play at 4K with ultra settings. They play at 1080p with med/high settings and 40-50 fps. I mean, I played the entire Stalker franchise on a 9400M and it was enjoyable, even though I had to crank the settings to the minimum.
High-end GPUs is what sells games. Entry-level GPUs is what brings in the revenue.