Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 16, 2020 2:58 pm wrote:
> 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.

MBA result (passive cooling)
Same 1500 ST
6300 MT

The reporter (amateur doing it as a friend for "the internet", not an expert) says the MBA bottom got "a tiny bit warm", as expected.