It is hardware they have to implement. Its a new generation of the GPU architecture, including support for hardware ray tracing and faster general graphics hardware.
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.
Mac Studio M1 Ultra GPU will be beaten by AMD and Nvidia in just 6-7 months.
- Thread starter exoticSpice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is hardware they have to implement. Its a new generation of the GPU architecture, including support for hardware ray tracing and faster general graphics hardware.
According to what I read in other forums, the Apple GPU doesn't seem to be able to keep up with full-fledged graphics cards outside of Apple-specific scenarios. The feature set is also not up to date and is perhaps more in line with DirectX 10.
Ray tracing hardware is also missing. This is why we get such results as here: https://osong.xyz/benchmarking-m1-pro-with-blender-3-1a-cycles-with-metal/.
In another forum someone wrote that he could render the Optix scene in only 17 seconds instead of 43 seconds with his 2.5 year old laptop with 2060 graphics, which cost 900€ at that time.
I myself am not an expert. However, it seems that Apple's graphics are of course very efficient, but one should not think that they can completely replace dedicated graphics cards in terms of performance and features (depending on the application scenario).
Ray tracing hardware is also missing. This is why we get such results as here: https://osong.xyz/benchmarking-m1-pro-with-blender-3-1a-cycles-with-metal/.
In another forum someone wrote that he could render the Optix scene in only 17 seconds instead of 43 seconds with his 2.5 year old laptop with 2060 graphics, which cost 900€ at that time.
I myself am not an expert. However, it seems that Apple's graphics are of course very efficient, but one should not think that they can completely replace dedicated graphics cards in terms of performance and features (depending on the application scenario).
Last edited:
Well, let's see. The TL;DR to everything I am going to say below is basically that Apple should probably get used to being its own toughest competitor.
Take for instance the iPhone. Apple reportedly has over a billion iPhones in active use right now. This may be a small number percentage-wise, but it's still a very big number in an absolute numerical sense, especially when you realise that this is all by one company.
In addition, because of Apple making the effort to add cohesiveness and commonality between their products, it's more likely for an iPhone user to use other Apple products. The end result is that a billion iPhone users also represent a billion people less likely to use non-Apple devices and services going forward.
This should be a highly concerning development for the competition, especially when you consider that approximately half of Apple users own just one device - the iPhone. This group serves as a prime market for additional Apple products like iPads, apple watches and AirPods, as well as various Apple services. I expect this percentage to decrease in the coming years, further strengthening Apple's competitive position, while simultaneously weakening that of the competition.
This is why I say that even for a company of Apple's size, they are still only just getting started. My bet is that Apple will go on to dominate the wearables space, due to their success with custom silicon, as well as possessing the right corporate culture, product development process and business model which few other companies possess.
That's just the problem - there simply isn't any meaningful competition for Apple. This isn't blind fanboyism; it's just calling it as it is.
Apple is sailing forward with a strengthening ecosystem made possible by a clear product vision and a functioning organisational structure that prioritises design and user experience above all. In comparison, I find the competition to be rudderless.
Samsung continues to aimlessly launch new products and features for no other reason than to say they are first, and they often aren't even ready for public usage.
Apple was supposed to be crushed by the local competition in China. In contrast, the iPhone seems more popular in China than ever.
Google's decision to prioritise technology over design tends to result in features that look compelling on paper, but fall apart once you get to the user experience.
Amazon clearly made the wrong bet on smart speakers.
Microsoft's foray into the consumer market with their surface products seem to be met with only limited success.
Facebook is in a whole world of hurt simply thanks to a single update pushed out by Apple.
Apple Music has made noticeably inroads despite Spotify, and the presence Netflix hasn't stopped people from subscribing to multiple video streaming services, of which TV+ is one.
Now, the narrative is about how we are somehow being forced to buy Apple products against our will, or how government regulators are the only entities capable of protecting Apple users from Apple itself.
For the past 10+ years (I got my first Apple product in 2011, and would go on to follow Apple-related news from then on), it seems to me that the tech news cycle has basically been dominated by a steady stream of how the rest of the entire tech industry was expected to put Apple in its place (eg: Android's vast market share), or how Apple was one iPhone update away from implosion, or that it was no longer innovating simply because it wasn't doing what other tech companies were doing. Instead, what we saw was a series of fails, flops and disappoints from basically everyone else but Apple.
And that to me is symptomatic of the main problem - that when things don't go as planned, competitors look for something else to blame when the problem is likely due to internal issues like a bad vision, inadequate corporate culture, or (more likely) a lack of understanding as to what makes Apple unique.
It's just hard to root for the competition who has so clearly lost their way.
Unless the reality has changed, Apple is not leading in any segment of the markets that they compete in. They have tons of competitions. Not sure why folks are saying they don’t. Apple is in-fact the underdog that happens to be extremely rich because they made products that sells by the boatloads.
They are not leading in market share, if that’s what you are referring to. But I don’t really see the competition come anywhere close to offering the ideal blend of performance and efficiency that the M1 chip does.
I guess what I should be saying is that I don’t see any meaningful competition for Apple in this regard.
And thus they are the champ for 15 years. Got it, thank you. Perfect sound reasoning.
Oh I completely agree with your point of view wrt Apple. Apple’s No. 1 competitor is in-fact Apple.
Ever since the Apple II days Apple has been the underdog in every market they are in, IIRC.
Mac Studio M1 Ultra GPU will be hard beaten by AMD and Nvidia in just 6-7 months.
This is right. Probably it will happen even faster very hard. But it is already beaten.It wouldn’t be such a big problem when the M1 Ultra or M2 Ultra would be inside the MacBook Pro 16- or 18-inch and also have 16 TB SSD.
Did you even read what you posted? The entire article was about testing the (then) latest version of Blender 3.1a against a previous release (3.0) - and even then on a M1 Pro MacBook - not even a Max and sure as **** not an Ultra desktop.
People write things on forums all the time. Doesn't mean what they post has to be truthful. At best it can be anecdotal, at worst a downright lie.
Yes sure. The results of 3.1 still don't seem to be good on M1 Pro (and will probably not be good on a Max or Ultra compared to corresponding graphics cards).
Sorry, I must have missed where you posted your apparently stunning credentials that would allow us to take an otherwise throwaway piece of random speculation at anything other than face value...
How is Apple supposed to catch up on the performance deficits with M1x without ray tracing in hardware?
(not the final version)
Please explain what you are doing that you run cpu+gpu+npu+ram+ssd+… at the same time and at the limit to reach your way to high 200W.
“So Apple staying somewhat relevant and desirable”
Yeah, You do realize that means keeping up with the competition? Good for Intel or Nvidia, or Google, or Microsoft or any other company if they’re able to push Apple and the industry forward, doesn’t mean I need to waste my time or energy “cheering” them on.
I never said competition was bad, I said I don’t like the alternatives so I PREFER using Apple’s products.
By the way, I don’t actually “cheer” Apple on - that’s why it was in quotes. I said I hope they continue to succeed, because, again, I PREFER their products.
Last edited:
The irony is that they need competition to remain relevant and desirable. So you are basically acting against what you want
I know they need competition, most industries do. You know, you’re the second person that came to the conclusion that I hate Apple’s competition? Where in my post did I say that? I said I don’t care for using the alternatives because I prefer Apple, because their products are more intuitive to ME.
Last edited:
They pick benchmarks and tasks that apply to their users’ workflows. They optimize their hardware and software for that type of workflow…. When I see those marketing charts, I see how much of a difference they make for those specific use cases. You can go to their Mac Studio product page and they have several comparisons.
Obviously, Apple’s GPUs are not going to be faster at something Nvidia’s cards are optimized for (everyone brings up ray tracing). Nor are they going to be more powerful when it comes to raw, theoretical performance metrics.
Apple’s goal is not to be the most powerful or the fastest, their goal is to push efficiency and to optimize their hardware, so they can create high performance SoCs to make the products they want to make. And it would be very hard to argue they have not succeeded in that goal.
Vadim did a video this morning expecting a quad-max chip at WWDC. The diagram has two stacked Ultra chips implying that the interposers between the two ultra chips are also connected. He refers to some of Apple's patents in this area.
