Oh no.. Nvidia RTX 30 series performances

[Danny82]

I know this thread is all about Apple silicon.. and to be honest, I am still very hyped out with all the Apple silicon mystery.. and I am pretty much bias when it come to evaluating Mac vs Windows..

But..... the Nvidia RTX 30 series which was just announced is..... killing me.. I am so into wanting to buy an Apple silicon Macbook latest by mid next year.. but this RTX 30 series is making me think twice.. and pricing seems reasonable for the performance now compared to the RTX 20 series..

I know.. everyone will say, if u think that way just go for windows.. why even bother still thinking of Mac..

Well, I know final decision will be up to myself.. just want to bring this up as a discussion to know each person opinion on this..

Ideally, point of discussion will be even though Windows may have better graphics in the short term or near future.. what makes u still think Mac is a better choice if both os can work for u.. of course other discussion is welcome..

 

[rippiedoos]

I don't think NVIDIA and Apple will magically sort the fight out they're in over the introduction of the RTX 30 series.

NVIDIA won't be any use in Mac Hardware, Apple Silicon or Intel, because of the support of the drivers. And to run Windows on a Mac Pro if it's based on Intel or Apple Silicon because of the video card you want to put in sounds a bit overkill.

The discussion what video card is better doesn't apply to Apple Silicon, I think. You are delivered to some big software houses, Apple and Microsoft, for platform and driver support. If Microsoft isn't making Windows on ARM readily available then NVIDIA write drivers for Windows on ARM. And so does the rest of the software-business.

 

[Ritsuka]

That's one big GPU with a large TDP. 350 Watt is a lot.

 

[leman]

Wait for independent benchmarks. The ampere series does look very impressive, but I am a bit skeptical of NVidia’s test results. Also, we need an architecture analysis. Nvidia seems to have doubled their shader cores, but the frequency remained unchanged. So there must be some tradeoff... at any rate neither of these GPUs is very interesting for Macs because of their extreme power consumption.

 

[Woochoo]

I think you need to know what you really need. If you doubt about buying a Macbook because of these Nvidias, maybe you don't really need a laptop but a tower, so look for what will benefit you more. Or instead of getting an expensive top tier Macbook (16"), just get a cheap 13" to do light stuff or use specific macOS software, and then a $1500k tower (with that budget it will be a good one) for heavier stuff like rendering, etc.
Even if you plan an eGPU it will cost a lot and need to be used in a big enclosure, all the heat, etc. like a desktop (and you won't be able to use it on Apple Silicon Macs). It's pretty easy, need powerful GPUs? Get a custom tower with an Ampere or the upcomming RDNA2. Want a laptop? Go for a Mac if you want Apple Silicon as you say. Apple Silicon will carry good GPUs in the SoC (better than Intel's integrated ones) but nothing compared to a +300W monster. We would be comparing it with a 15W SoC (CPU + GPU).

Wait for independent benchmarks. The ampere series does look very impressive, but I am a bit skeptical of NVidia’s test results. Also, we need an architecture analysis. Nvidia seems to have doubled their shader cores, but the frequency remained unchanged. So there must be some tradeoff... at any rate neither of these GPUs is very interesting for Macs because of their extreme power consumption.

One of the tradeoff is the power consumption. They raised the XX80 TDP from 250W in the 2000 series to 320-350W in the 3000 series. The performance uplift is huge, but the power consumption is aswell (even for a better 8nm node compared to the last 12nm).

 

[cardfan]

Your biggest problem with Apple silicon will be lack of software you can actually use. It’ll be more like a chromebook running iPad type apps which could be fine for the masses. Will be locked down to App Store to load anything anyways.

 

[Ritsuka]

That's not true. macOS on Apple Silicon can run whatever you want from whenever you want.

 

[leman]

One of the tradeoff is the power consumption. They raised the XX80 TDP from 250W in the 2000 series to 320-350W in the 3000 series. The performance uplift is huge, but the power consumption is aswell (even for a better 8nm node compared to the last 12nm).

At the same time, the 3070 RTX has the same TDP as the 2070 RTX super, while doubling the amount of shader cores running at the same clock. It seems to me that Nvidia has doubled the width of their vector ALUs, going from 512bit (16-wide ALU) to 1024bit (32-wide ALU). If this is indeed the case, I am wondering what is the difference in ALU utilization between Turing and Ampere. Wider vector units are usually more difficult to keep occupied efficiently.

 

[leman]

Your biggest problem with Apple silicon will be lack of software you can actually use. It’ll be more like a chromebook running iPad type apps which could be fine for the masses. Will be locked down to App Store to load anything anyways.

Complete nonsense. It will run the same software as the current Intel Macs.

 

[cardfan]

Complete nonsense. It will run the same software as the current Intel Macs.

sorry. Nope. But will be funny to see later. Why won’t it runs my software? Lol. But iz it faster? iPad apps. Weeee.

 

[leman]

sorry. Nope. But will be funny to see later. Why won’t it runs my software? Lol. But iz it faster? iPad apps. Weeee.

So are you suggesting that Apple has been openly lying during the WWDC and that the Apple Silicon DTK they have been sending to developers has more functionality than the final Apple Silicon hardware will offer?

 

[Ritsuka]

Thank you for derailing this thread with your unfounded ramblings.

 

[ipponrg]

Thank you for derailing this thread with your unfounded ramblings.

We already know that there will be some virtualization challenges.

Will Apple Silicon be able to run all Windows games? For sure Nvidia doesn’t care about Apple

 

[leman]

We already know that there will be some virtualization challenges.

Will Apple Silicon be able to run all Windows games? For sure Nvidia doesn’t care about Apple

It won't run Windows at all (at least not the currently existing Windows), but this is pretty much known. If you care about running Windows software on your laptop, it might be a good idea to move away from Mac within the next 2-3 years.

 

[Joe Dohn]

So are you suggesting that Apple has been openly lying during the WWDC and that the Apple Silicon DTK they have been sending to developers has more functionality than the final Apple Silicon hardware will offer?

Come on. Let's get a serious discussion here.

Yes, you can still virtualize systems and run Rosetta to run Intel apps. However, as far as we know, virtualization will only be available for ARM, and Rosetta will not run 32-bit software. And we have PLENTY of it to run, especially old games.

So, it's not that Apple is lying: the problem is that they are overly optimistic, thinking users won't miss x86 / Windows software. But they are really underestimating how some software might be wanted and/or necessary.

Another issue is: do you really think Nvidia,AMD and Intel will really sit down and wait for Apple to steal their share? Of course not. As we speak, they are probably moving towards faster processors and graphics cards. So, Apple's advantage (if any) might as well diminish on the long run.

 

[jerryk]

I don't see this being an issue more than not have an RTX 2080 is currently. If that is an issue for what you do now, then it will continue to be an issue for you in the future. If it is not a problem now, it won't be in the future.

I do Machine Learning and the lack of Nvidia support prevents me from doing much training on Macs. Fortunately, I have a Windows/Linux desktop with an RTX 2070. I will probably either replace this with a 3070 or add a 3070 and use both.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I don't see this being an issue more than not have an RTX 2080 is currently. If that is an issue for what you do now, then it will continue to be an issue for you in the future.

If Apple dropped the pride just a little bit, they could at least have usable Thunderbolt drivers. When Nvidia drivers were a bit more functional, they could deliver 85-90% performance when compared to being installed on the PCI-E port. It might not be enough all users, but at least a few possibilities were open.

 

[jerryk]

If Apple dropped the pride just a little bit, they could at least have usable Thunderbolt drivers. When Nvidia drivers were a bit more functional, they could deliver 85-90% performance when compared to being installed on the PCI-E port. It might not be enough all users, but at least a few possibilities were open.

It is not pride. It is being hamstrung by issues of another company.

Apple wants to bring out new configurations that it cannot because of Intel's failures and slowness. Apple wants to bring as much as possible that effects their schedules and designs in-house.

Other companies are going this way also. Tesla now uses its own custom silicon in their car's self-drive systems. They previously used Nvidia processors but needed a new design specific to their ML models and not a generic platform. The result is a system with over 21 times increase in performance at low power consumption.

Good things can happen when you take control of the entire process. Especially if you have the money to hire talent and free them from the demands of multiple customers. You can create a design solely focused on your requirements.

 

[jerwin]

at any rate neither of these GPUs is very interesting for Macs because of their extreme power consumption.

The Mac Pro has a 1000 watt power supply, though it might not have the 12 pin connector.

 

[ChromeCloud]

It seems to me that you are suffering from "shiny object syndrome".

I think the sane question you want to ask yourself is: "how am I going to use my next computer?".

If you love the macOS user experience and enjoy the tight integration between Apple devices, the only rational choice is to buy a Mac, whatever next GPU becomes available for Windows PCs.

If are tempted by raw GPU power and plan to use it either for specific work purposes or for running the latest games at very high graphic settings, then a Windows PC is probably your best bet.

Especially if you're looking into games, Macs are really poor gaming machines unless you spend a lot on them to upgrade the GPU to the best possible option (and even then they are usually way behind the top PC specs).

If you are a gamer, you're always gonna be better served by buying a PC with the latest and strongest GPU from Nvidia or AMD for about 1500$ and then buying a midrange Mac laptop for about 2000$, instead of just buying a 3500$ MacBook Pro.

The 1500$ PC will outperform a 3500$ MacBook Pro in gaming anyway...

Also remember that if you buy an Apple Silicon Mac, bootcamp is not an option.

 

[leman]

Come on. Let's get a serious discussion here.

Yes, you can still virtualize systems and run Rosetta to run Intel apps. However, as far as we know, virtualization will only be available for ARM, and Rosetta will not run 32-bit software. And we have PLENTY of it to run, especially old games.

This is all very true, but we are not talking about Windows compatibility or 32-bit apps. I was replying to a poster who suggested (full quote) "it’ll be more like a chromebook running iPad type apps which could be fine for the masses. Will be locked down to App Store to load anything anyways". Which is blatantly false. Whatever macOS software Catalina runs, Apple Silicon will run too.

Another issue is: do you really think Nvidia,AMD and Intel will really sit down and wait for Apple to steal their share? Of course not. As we speak, they are probably moving towards faster processors and graphics cards. So, Apple's advantage (if any) might as well diminish on the long run.

I don't see Apple competing in high-end GPU space any time soon (but miracles do happen). Intel's Tiger Lake is around the corner, we will see what IPC improvements it can bring.

 

[jerryk]

...

If you are a gamer, you're always gonna be better served by buying a PC with the latest and strongest GPU from Nvidia or AMD for about 1500$ and then buying a midrange Mac laptop for about 2000$, instead of just buying a 3500$ MacBook Pro.

...

Great post but, I take exception with always being better served by a PC. Part of what Apple is trying to do is expand the experience across multiple platforms. So you can play the same game on your phone in the office on lunch break, and at home with a big monitor on your AS Mac with a 37 inch monitor and dedicated controllers.

 

[Joe Dohn]

It seems to me that you are suffering from "shiny object syndrome".

I think the sane question you want to ask yourself is: "how am I going to use my next computer?".

If you love the macOS user experience and enjoy the tight integration between Apple devices, the only rational choice is to buy a Mac, whatever next GPU becomes available for Windows PCs.

If are tempted by raw GPU power and plan to use it either for specific work purposes or for running the latest games at very high graphic settings, then a Windows PC is probably your best bet.

Especially if you're looking into games, Macs are really poor gaming machines unless you spend a lot on them to upgrade the GPU to the best possible option (and even then they are usually way behind the top PC specs).

If you are a gamer, you're always gonna be better served by buying a PC with the latest and strongest GPU from Nvidia or AMD for about 1500$ and then buying a midrange Mac laptop for about 2000$, instead of just buying a 3500$ MacBook Pro.

The 1500$ PC will outperform a 3500$ MacBook Pro in gaming anyway...

Also remember that if you buy an Apple Silicon Mac, bootcamp is not an option.

Here's the thing: there is not a Universe Law that states Apple has to suck at gaming forevermore.

Apple can change. They are trying to change (hello, Apple Arcade?). But they will not obtain the gaming market playing the same game they have been playing for years. If you want different results, you need a different strategy. Releasing Apple Arcade and then telling developers "my way or the highway" is not the optimal strategy to win space in the gaming market. You need to play along and make everyone's lives easier.

 

[Joe Dohn]

This is all very true, but we are not talking about Windows compatibility or 32-bit apps. I was replying to a poster who suggested (full quote) "it’ll be more like a chromebook running iPad type apps which could be fine for the masses. Will be locked down to App Store to load anything anyways". Which is blatantly false. Whatever macOS software Catalina runs, Apple Silicon will run too.

I think the real point of this comparison is that the Chromebook is near to useless because it doesn't have much available software. At this rate, this might be the same destination Apple will have with desktops.

The truth is, the change from ARM to x86 really enriched Apple's system. It allowed them to take advantage of x86 more easily (which they did).The system got slightly more popular, and this popularization brought more developers and more software.

With Apple isolating itself, you are going to see a decline in software and usefulness, just like in Chromebooks. Does Apple really only want to be a creative / video editing platform (because besides integration, that's the only real edge that remains?) I don't think so!

 

[ChromeCloud]

Part of what Apple is trying to do is expand the experience across multiple platforms. So you can play the same game on your phone in the office on lunch break, and at home with a big monitor on your AS Mac with a 37 inch monitor and dedicated controllers.

That's a really interesting perk, if you are a casual gamer... But then if you are a casual gamer, I assume you don't care much about raw GPU power and bleeding edge graphics.

This is the current situation regarding games on Apple platforms (reviewed by a guy that owns a gaming PC, but also a Mac, an iPad, an iPhone and an Apple TV):

• Most PC games never get a Mac port and when they do it's usually late and technically inferior to the PC version.
• iOS games are mostly simplified minigames with pay-to-win or loot-box based gameplay.
• Apple Arcade, while great on paper, has a selection of games that is very skewed toward kids and family minigames.

There are exceptions to these rules, but we're talking about a handful of rare gems.

Of course the situation might evolve beyond our wildest dreams in the future (and I certainly hope so as I'm gonna be one early adopter of Apple Silicon Macs), but, as of now, Apple platforms are really lacking when it comes to deep/immersive/realistic games.

If you love games, you need a PC in my opinion. If you are like me, and you love both games and the Mac user experience, you buy a midrange Mac for the computing experience + a "cheap" gaming PC to play the "real" games.