RType (Bigly.delete.delete@this.this.orangeface.com) on November 16, 2020 1:06 pm wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 12:46 pm wrote:
> > Against GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560.
> > Not exactly state of the art, but not exactly ridiculous.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, these cards are around let's say 75W.
> > The state of the art is now about twice their performance at about 85W.
> > So bottom line is Apple's iGPU at, what, 10W? is half the current state of the
> > art for "mid-range, not insane power". Would that be a reasonable summary?
> >
> > My guess is that next year (beginning of Q2?) we get an
> > 8-large core M1X, for the iMac and MBP/mini pro, with
> > double the GPU resources, and so a credible match for the (reasonable power level) state of the art at ~20W.
> >
> > https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/16/m1-beats-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-and-radeon-rx-560/
> >
> >
>
> Polaris (rx 560) is very old now though.
>

Old. Not very old!
Like I said, you can at least eyeball the newer cards here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_RX_5000_series#Desktop
I looked at the 85W desktop model as a reasonable successor.

You can see the Apple capabilities here:
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16233/2020-11-10%2019_12_29.jpg

Single TFlops and pixel rate are comparable, texture slightly behind. But, just like CPU, these numbers conceal as much as they tell us because so much depends on the HW algorithms that utilize them. ATI and nV have the advantage of longer experience in those algorithms, Apple has the advantage of starting from a cleaner slate and (apparently) very little NIH and a willingness to change large parts of the design substantially every year.

I guess over the next week many more comparisons of this sort across a range of functionality will appear.