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.
The old Intel model is almost 300% of Max for gaming FPS
- Thread starter babyexercise
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure. And Dacias are waaaay better than Duesenbergs. The sales numbers prove itThe "copy" seems to be a lot better.
meh, I have already accepted that in two to three years I probably will be toting two things when I travel. A gaming pc and a macbook air or iPad Pro. I am just holding out for the macbook air m2 to evaluate. iPad Pro duplicates pretty much any productivity app that we use in macOS. In any case I doubt I pay $3k for crippled M1 Max..
Last edited:
You are absolutely right, no Mac has ever been good for gaming. Even in bootcamp they are lacklustre. PC's and consoles are way better. I built an £80 PC from an old office Dell and a cheapo Quadro and that has far better compatibility than any M1 mac and without the stuttering seen in Crossover and Parallels.
These M1 Pro/Max laptops are pro machines for professional workloads such as DTP, design, photo manipulation, video production, music production, data analysis, programming, 3D workflows, animation and other intensive workflows. There are better desktop computers for these workflows including the Mac Pro or even iMac Pro. I'll not go down the PC route some commentators here are forgetting that this is a Macintosh forum for discussing all things Mac. Not a "I have a desktop PC that is a bit faster than this new computer".
Apple will put M1 Max in desktop Mac for sure with almost same performance as MBP, so it is fair fight.
I would say they will put M1 Max in new Mac Pro.
Everyone knows they just put new M1 chip in Mac too, what's wrong with you? Don't cry. M1 Max is just slow and almost no native M1 app.
An old 14 nm Intel which is used for this rubbish macbooks .Problem with strict Apple users is, their horizon ends with Apple hardware. Apple uses before the M1 old, slow tech to decrease costs and increase profit. 14 nm Intel used in 2019 . Only because they want use this Thunderbolt crap instead of installing proper ports.
Alderlake or Zen 3 is far byoned M1 Max in terms of cpu performance. And their use case is not restricted. No buggy Rosetta needed for x86.
For graphics Apple is using for Macbook and Mac Pros low end to mid range gpus for up to 5K resolution. Instead of high end Nvidia gpu. They loot Apple users so much and they dont notice it, because it's better than the previous generation .
.Problem with strict Apple users is, their horizon ends with Apple hardware. Apple uses before the M1 old, slow tech to decrease costs and increase profit. 14 nm Intel used in 2019 . Only because they want use this Thunderbolt crap instead of installing proper ports.Alderlake or Zen 3 is far byoned M1 Max in terms of cpu performance. And their use case is not restricted. No buggy Rosetta needed for x86.
For graphics Apple is using for Macbook and Mac Pros low end to mid range gpus for up to 5K resolution
. Instead of high end Nvidia gpu. They loot Apple users so much and they dont notice it, because it's better than the previous generation .
Last edited:
Why are you even trying? Everyone is aware you are plain wrong in every single claim you make. Just give it up manAn old 14 nm Intel which is used for this rubbish macbooks
Alderlake or Zen 3 is far byoned M1 Max in terms of cpu performance. And their use case is not restricted. No buggy Rosetta needed for x86.
For graphics Apple is using for Macbook and Mac Pros low end to mid range gpus for up to 5K resolution
I’m ok with eventually getting an Air. Unlike the horribly screwed over Intel version, M1 looks that dang good on it.
If you think the M1 Max is all apple are going to stick in a Mac Pro you're going to be very, very surprised next year.
Can virtually guarantee they will have the equivalent up to 4 (or more) of them or more available in a desktop Pro enclosure.
It would not entirely surprise me to see 2 of them in a high end iMac. Or at least clock them significantly higher.
The power/thermal headroom is there and they can price the Mac Pro at whatever level they like and the target audience will buy it for the performance.
Apple don't just want to compete with these machines now, they want to crush the competition in this space, thus much is clear.
Gaming is not their target market and never has been.
They may have M2 with like 10% improvement in some cherry pick benchmarks and put it in new Mac Pro and iMac Pro.
An old 14 nm Intel which is used for this rubbish macbooks
Alderlake or Zen 3 is far byoned M1 Max in terms of cpu performance. And their use case is not restricted. No buggy Rosetta needed for x86.
For graphics Apple is using for Macbook and Mac Pros low end to mid range gpus for up to 5K resolution
M1 Max is just onboard display and they charge so much for it. Apple earns so much more comparing to making Radeon gpu MBP.
Not really, the total BOM of the machine includes the 14" display which outclasses everything else on the market.
Not really, the SOC includes dedicated ProRes acceleration
Not really, the CPU-GPU bandwidth is on par with dedicated discrete GPU onboard memory, and the CPU has access to that as well.
For comparison, the memory bandwidth available to a (desktop) i9-9900K (for example) is ~ 37 GB/Sec (and no, recent intel processors aren't drastically faster - +/- 10-20%). Even the baby M1 Pro has 200 GB/sec. Never mind the max, at 400GB/sec. And the i9 has to use some of that to copy to and from GPU memory over PCIe bus. M1 family have direct access to the shared pool from both CPU and GPU - no copies. So not only does the M1 have way more bandwidth - it doesn't need to consume as much of it doing CPU-GPU transfers.
No, it isn't a game machine
No, games aren't optimised for it
No, not all software is M1 native yet.
But if you can't acknowledge the hardware accomplishment you're just being an intel fanboy. Intel is certainly scrambling to try to compete with it.
Last edited:
Is on par with discrete gpu . For this price, it's a joke. My RTX 3090 for ony around 1500 Euros has nearly 3 times the performance of m1 max and 24 gb gddrx with 1000 gbyte/s instead of only 32 gb shared memory and 400 gbyte/s shared memory bandwith.
Even RTX 3070 mobile is with 16 vs. 10 tflops (m1 max) much faster. This is of course not the case for your apple apps, which inbuilt accelerating of m1 pro/max. The raw render performance of this m1 chips pretty bad.
I would not tell its a competition, when this notebooks are not so damn expensive. For reasonable price all this huge disadvantages of a arm chip could be justified. But not for around 4000 Euros for the M1 Max 16" base model.
The i9 is old gen crap with skylake based architecture of 2014. Alderlake and Zen 3 are the stars. Not this oldtimers you know from your overpriced macbooks and macs.
. For this price, it's a joke. My RTX 3090 for ony around 1500 Euros has nearly 3 times the performance of m1 max and 24 gb gddrx with 1000 gbyte/s instead of only 32 gb shared memory and 400 gbyte/s shared memory bandwith.Even RTX 3070 mobile is with 16 vs. 10 tflops (m1 max) much faster. This is of course not the case for your apple apps, which inbuilt accelerating of m1 pro/max. The raw render performance of this m1 chips pretty bad.
I would not tell its a competition, when this notebooks are not so damn expensive. For reasonable price all this huge disadvantages of a arm chip could be justified. But not for around 4000 Euros for the M1 Max 16" base model.
The i9 is old gen crap with skylake based architecture of 2014
. Alderlake and Zen 3 are the stars. Not this oldtimers you know from your overpriced macbooks and macs.
Last edited:
A troll is anybody who is criticising Apple hardware?
Who is not believing my information, please test hardware which i mentioned as superior by yourself.
Zen 4 (5 nm tsmc and 3d v-cache) is increasing the performace by 25 %. It will be even faster than Alderlake at much lower power consumption. Intel's limit for Alderlake is the 10nm+ manufacturing with high power consumption under full load. They are only able to use 8 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores (atom).
Of course M1 is power efficient, but the performance and the use cases are very restricted.
Apple want only build cheap arm cpus because they are much simpler and have much lower costs => much higher profit for Apple.
How many Apple customers are really fine with using only a few dedicated Apple M1 apps when paying so much money?
Who is not believing my information, please test hardware which i mentioned as superior by yourself
.Zen 4 (5 nm tsmc and 3d v-cache) is increasing the performace by 25 %. It will be even faster than Alderlake at much lower power consumption. Intel's limit for Alderlake is the 10nm+ manufacturing with high power consumption under full load. They are only able to use 8 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores (atom).
Of course M1 is power efficient, but the performance and the use cases are very restricted.
Apple want only build cheap arm cpus because they are much simpler and have much lower costs => much higher profit for Apple.
How many Apple customers are really fine with using only a few dedicated Apple M1 apps when paying so much money?
Last edited:
correct. Doing so is going to confirm that you are wrong as always. But you know that already, which is why the advice not to feed is justified.Who is not believing my information, please test hardware which i mentioned as superior by yourself
But I just did. Silly me; sorry for that
You haven't even appolgised for not notching the charts in the original video are wrong.
Also 100fps to 300fps is not "300%"
Yeah and my 6900XT beats your 3090 in rasterisation titles in 2/3 the power and like half the priceIs on par with discrete gpu
So what? it's not a LAPTOP running in under 100 watts.
The top end of DESKTOP parts are not the only discrete GPUs on the market.
You're comparing a 300-400 watt GPU (GPU power alone) against a MacBook Pro which runs entirely within 90 watts. The fact that you're even bringing it up as a comparison shows how clueless you are.
Your 900 GB/sec requires copies in and out of system DRAM which on your desktop PC is around 40-50GB/sec. The M1 CPU can also access that 400 GB/sec Ram at over 200 GB/sec - limited only by the CPU's ability to consume from the abundance of bandwidth (source: anandtech testing).
Your 3090's 24 GB of VRAM is less than half what you can get in an M1 Max laptop. Hit above 24 GB and you're hitting the PCIe bus and then system DRAM which is at best 40-50GB/sec. buh-bow.
I get it, its not useful for your use case. Go buy something that is.
For the things these machines are aimed at... your 3090 with a 5950x gets trounced:
Last edited:
The chart shows you the practical result instead of salesman youtube material. The chart matches my real testing result.
Yep, i dont care about davinci resolve. And of course M1 Pro/Max is better for this programs. It's using hardware accelerators. But the chip isnt overall fast.
DDR5 dram has 70-80 gbyte/s only fast system memory will not increase the gpu by it's own. If the gpu is slow, there will no benefit.
DDR5 dram has 70-80 gbyte/s only fast system memory will not increase the gpu by it's own. If the gpu is slow, there will no benefit.
Last edited:
Depends how many channels of it you have.
Yeah and those accelerators are a lot of the cost. as is the display.
We don't care about games. that's what game machines are for. You do realise that complaining about game performance on a Mac Pro is like going over to say, gamers nexus and e-peen swinging your m1-Max MacBook's final cut performance around?