Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple M1 Ultra

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 855 posts

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#541

Post by arvinsim »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #365
whoisburbansky wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cursory look gives you a ~$3500 price tag for a gaming PC with a 3090 [1], vs. at least $4k for a Mac Studio with an M1 Ultra. Roughly the same ballpark, but I wouldn't call the M1 Ultra more affordable given those numbers. 1. https://techguided.com/best-rtx-3090-gaming-pc/#:~:text=With... .

Hahaha good luck getting your hands on a 30xx series card though. Here in Australia, 3090’s go for close to 3k on their own.

Don't know about Australia but in my area(Asia) the prices are now going back near MSRP.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#542

Post by fomine3 »

oneplane wrote: post #490
kllrnohj wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPU claims on the M1 Pro & Max were, let's say, cherry picked to put it nicely. The M1 Ultra claims already look suspicious since the GPU graph tops out at ~120W & the CPU graph tops out at ~60W yet the M1 Studio is rated for 370W continuous power draw. Since you mention ML specifically, looking at some benchmarks out there (like https://tlkh.dev/benchmarking-the-apple-m1-max#heading-gpu & https://wandb.ai/tcapel…

Yeah, there are a lot more parameters here than just 'there are two chips and one is the bestestst', like the availability you pointed out. There is raw performance, but there is also performance per watt, availability and scalability (which is both good and bad - M1 is available, but there is no M1 Ultra cloud available). If you want a multi-use setup, an RTX makes more sense than most other options, if you can get…

Note that Geforce RTX on cloud is prohibited by Nvidia.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#543

Post by arvinsim »

Geee wrote: post #307

This is insane. They claim that its GPU performance tops the RTX 3090, while using 200W less power. I happen to have this GPU on my PC and not only it costs over $3000, but its also very power-hungry and loud. Currently, you need this kind of GPU performance for high resolution VR gaming at 90 fps, but its just barely enough. This means that the GPU will run very loudly and heat up the room, and running games like HL…

After their comparison claims on the M1 Pro/Max and Nvidia GPUs, I would take these comparisons with a huge grain of salt.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#544

Post by fomine3 »

alasdair_ wrote: post #411
polyrand wrote: post #258

I think the GPU claims are interesting. According to the graph's footer, the M1 Ultra was compared to an RTX 3090. If the performance/wattage claims are correct, I'm wondering if the Mac Studio could become an "affordable" personal machine learning workstation (which also won't make the electricity bill skyrocket). If Pytorch becomes stable and easy to use on Apple Silicon [0][1], it could be an appealing choice. [0]…

Note the label on the y-axis. "relative performance" from "0-200" seems like marketing bullshit to me. "M1 Ultra has a 64-core GPU, delivering faster performance than the highest-end PC GPU available, while using 200 fewer watts of power." Note that they say "faster performance" not "more performance". What does "faster" mean? Who knows!

Anyway any benchmark from first party should be taken with a mountain of salt.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#545

Post by fomine3 »

altairprime wrote: post #391
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of Apple's historic MO has been to not invest in areas they don't see themselves having a competitive advantage in. Now that they can make gaming happen with a very low wattage budget they may well try to enter that space in earnest.

The difference between an Apple TV and a Mac Mini is essentially how powerful of Apple silicon it has, whether it runs tvOS or macOS, and whether it has HDMI out or not. The Studio is a more compact form factor than any modern 4K gaming console. If they chose to ship something in that form factor with tvOS, HDMI, and an M1 Max/Ultra, it would be a very competitive console on the market — if game developers could be p…

Pippin atmark again!

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#546

Post by Thaxll »

yurishimo wrote: post #300
Thaxll wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A CPU like the 5900x is better than the m1 and cost 400$.

That's one part of the equation though, not to mention it's a desktop chip. I can get a laptop with an M1 Max with hours of battery life running full tilt. Your $400 CPU needs at least another $1000 in parts just to boot (and those aren't even the parts you likely want to pair with it). Your cost comparison is silly. Nobody compares singular CPUs to entire machines.

People seem to think that the M1 is the ubber thing in term of performance which is not, it's great on many aspect, especially termal / perf per watt etc ... but for many it's a PC sitting bellow your desk it's less relevant. For laptop it's a different story.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#547

Post by michaelmrose »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #378
outworlder wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad that historically Apple has not given any attention to Mac gaming.

Part of Apple's historic MO has been to not invest in areas they don't see themselves having a competitive advantage in. Now that they can make gaming happen with a very low wattage budget they may well try to enter that space in earnest.

$4000-$6000 is a toy for a tiny number of rich people or a work machine for a well paid professional.

In the PC space the average spend is $800 and a PS5 is $500.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#548

Post by xattt »

asddubs wrote: post #460
snowwrestler wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus they are running out of M1 superlatives. They’ll have to go to M2 to avoid launching M1 Plaid.

m1 hyper turbo deluxe or they could take a page out of microsofts book and just call the next one "m one"

M1 One: The Second One!

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#549

Post by lmm »

itstomkent wrote: post #502
ricardobeat wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of developers today has a laptop as their main machine. Performance-per-watt is absolutely crucial there.

I'll just never understand this. Chances are you are at the same desk day in and day out. You probably have monitors and external keyboard/mouse hooked up because hunching over a laptop and using a touchpad is unnecessary torture for a fixed workspace. Given that why would you hamstring yourself with a thermally constrained and overpriced-because-miniaturization-isn't free setup? Until maybe these M1's (and I'm not e…

I was a desktop diehard until performance reached the point where laptops are good enough. Being able to take the same computer around with you and use it seamlessly in a different place is a big improvement.

I still have a proper desk-based working environment hooked up to a docking station though. I really wouldn't want to use a laptop that doesn't have a first-party dock as my primary machine.

Re: Apple M1 Ultra

#550

Post by schmuelio »

metalliqaz wrote: post #453
polyrand wrote: post #258

I think the GPU claims are interesting. According to the graph's footer, the M1 Ultra was compared to an RTX 3090. If the performance/wattage claims are correct, I'm wondering if the Mac Studio could become an "affordable" personal machine learning workstation (which also won't make the electricity bill skyrocket). If Pytorch becomes stable and easy to use on Apple Silicon [0][1], it could be an appealing choice. [0]…

I know Nvidia has never really care much about TDP, but this still seems unbelievable to me. How could a relatively new design beat a 3090 with 200W less power, while having to share a die with a CPU? It just doesn't seem possible.

Unless the M1 Ultra is actually magic I don't think it is possible.

My guess is they're putting a lot of weight on the phrase "relative power" and hoping you assume it means "relative to each other" and not "relative to their previous generation" (i.e. M1 Ultra -> M1 Max and RTX 3090 -> RTX 2080Ti) or "relative to the stock power profile".

Put bluntly, if the M1 Ultra was capable of achieving performance parity with an RTX 3090 for any GPU-style benchmark then Nvidia (who are experts in making GPUs) would have captured this additional performance. Bear in mind the claim seems to be (on the surface) that the M1 Ultra is achieving with 64 GPU cores and 800GB/s memory bandwidth what the RTX 3090 is achieving with 10,496 GPU cores and 936.2GB/s memory bandwidth.

Post reply on HN