Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 1:45 pm wrote:
> 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.
>

https://twitter.com/mnloona48_/status/1328427807987302400
1500 ST
7500 MT
MBP (so active cooling)

comparison page:
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_single_core-15
(I'm not sure how to interpret that. Does HT on each device mean HT was used? As far as I can tell it does, giving about a 25% boost.
In which case only fair would be to allow each large Apple core to get a small core to help it :-) )

More seriously the MT page is here
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_multi_core-16
and M1 slots in with the 6 core HT devices. Which is nice enough, but more remarkable is just how well M1 seems to scale.
MT is giving us essentially 5x ST, so each small core is giving us the full one quarter.
The x86 devices don't seem to scale as well, getting about 5x worth of performance for their 6 (core+SMT)'s.

As always, one result, preliminary, blah blah. We'll probably (slightly) better results and (somewhat) worse results, especially on passive cooled MBA over the next few days.
Also still waiting on a VirtualApple result.