As it is, I'd guess that Apple needs at least 20 GPU cores as whatever is in the M1 now just to match current 16" performance. Either that or they need to bundle a lot more GPU cores together. Apple has a long history of nerfing its chips' sustained performance. I think number 3 is a real killer and would stop me on its own from trusting it to run on anything but a Mini without my own experience. It means Apple may still have to bundle an AMD GPU with the 16" if they want to claim faster graphics performance. Not a great experience, but if you really wanted to play Cities Skylines on an M1 Mini, I think you can. I'd guess that if anything, this doesn't bode well for Apple Silicon in a 16" MacBook.
Based on raw numbers, M1 should be faster than Tiger Lake GPU by at least 50 - 75%.īut then again, winning against Intel here is not really. That sounds just about right.Īlthough Intel really improved their GPU performance significantly, Tiger Lake is still likely behind M1 by a good margin. By raw number, Apple can easily claim that the M1 has 6x faster graphics performance. How much faster? That remains to be seen, but I'm not surprised if Apple's M1 is not up to par compared to the 16" MacBook.Īs a point of comparison, Tiger Lake's iGPU reaches about 2 teraflops, and the Intel HD 630 that was in previous generation MacBooks? 0.4 teraflops. whatever the 16" MacBook has is still faster as far as graphics goes.
The 5300M is quoted at around 4 teraflops, for instance. And Radeon's Navi is in general faster than that by a good margin.
0 kommentar(er)
