Apple is an existential threat to the PC
- Thread starter MfA
- Start date
It looks very good with Premiere which isn't Apple software : https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-m1-max-benchmarked-in-adobe-premier-pro
If you are doing photography I can recommend these reviews from ArtIsRight.
Base model 14" upgraded to 32GB and base model 16" with no upgrades. In these tasks there really isn't much difference between M1 Pro with 6 Performance cores and 8 Performance cores. The biggest differentiator is the amount of RAM which enables the system to forego swapping on the 32GB model, greatly improving performance.
Here is the newest version with the M1 Max with 64GB.
In that video you can see near linear performance increases between the 16GB, 32GB and 64GB version.Have in mind that Lightroom Classic isn't updated to take advantage of M1.
Base model 14" upgraded to 32GB and base model 16" with no upgrades. In these tasks there really isn't much difference between M1 Pro with 6 Performance cores and 8 Performance cores. The biggest differentiator is the amount of RAM which enables the system to forego swapping on the 32GB model, greatly improving performance.
Here is the newest version with the M1 Max with 64GB.
In that video you can see near linear performance increases between the 16GB, 32GB and 64GB version.
Last edited:
Are you sure? https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/8/2...ic-indesign-illustrator-m1-mac-native-version
M1 is fast but I don't think an application running with Rosetta2 would be twice faster than a Mac Pro 2019
EDIT: The official Adobe M1 list is here
Are you sure? https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/8/2...ic-indesign-illustrator-m1-mac-native-version
M1 is fast but I don't think an application running with Rosetta2 would be twice faster than a Mac Pro 2019
EDIT: The official Adobe M1 list is here
I stand corrected, I can see they released an updated version in June this year.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I am regularly surprised by how many people are seemingly not fussed about the quality of the display the use; resolution, brightness and evenness, viewing-angles, colour reproduction etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Notch maybe?
Have in mind that Windows doesn't support any form of system wide colour management on the OS level, unlike macOS. It's weird to me that people don't care about that. You need to calibrate for both SDR (up to 500 nit) and HDR content. The same goes for TVs.
People only seem to care about hertz, brightness and viewing angles.
It's awesome that the new MacBook Pro displays have built-in industry standard colour profiles for content creation.
Last edited:
Yeah, especially since Tim for HUB considered himself a display enthusiast. :/
Pretty bad omission.
Its clearly a performance oriented analysis/comparison, and as noted finally one which isnt based on benchmarks like geekbench who favor huge bandwith etc.
M1 is faster in some CPU apps, slower in others, be it content creation tasks or else.
Usually dont watch HUB, but this one's a honest and fair performance comparison. Also quite impressive figures for the wattage for 5800H class performance, was under the impression x86 was much, much further behind. And that to think their on a 7nm or larger node, as the reviewer states.
The absolutely broken colour management in windows drives me crazy. I shouldn’t need reshade luts to make my games look good.
Last edited:
Certain workloads just favours memory bandwidth. Why disregard that? It's an advantage of the M1.
Just look at the workloads Andrei presents at AnandTech.
HUB clearly stated as to why geekbench wasnt used in the video.
My issue was with the value judgment. They're comparing the costs of M1 Pro relative to Intel/AMD + Nvidia, but they're using the entire platform cost.
The mini-LED display in the MacBook Pro doesn't make your CPU or GPU run faster, but it does cost a lot. You can't then turn around and say "oh, the M1 Pro performance-per-dollar isn't so good relative to Intel/AMD + Nvidia".
It's useful data because it illustrates how the M1 Pro performs in software that is not really optimised for macOS (ARM), and software that is, perhaps, more platform agnostic.
Oh, maybe you should tell Andrei Frumusanu that his M1 Pro/Max review is just geekbench charts.
Totally true, and the quality of the screen is at the top end (probably the best). Though if they made that comparison it would come down to what you'd need, the very accurate mini-led would suit content creators etc very well, but a 144hz or higher IPS/oled might be more intresting to gamers or other users. For a content creator the M1's screen would likely be 'better' than any windows laptop, but for a gamer the razor 15 would offer more value.
The build quality of most of these laptops in his review chart are in the higher-end range (i cant account for all of them, neither the mac), but theres plenty of reviews out there that do compare build quality.
But the latter goes both ways, software thats optimized/platform agnostic will almost always perform the best on said hardware, be it windows/x86 or apple/macos.
I dont have to tell him anything. My personal opinion is that his review falls into the category 'apple bias' as HUB pointed out most reviews of the m1 are in this early stage (and totally understandable). As time goes on though, we'd be seeing less benchmarks and more real world tests.
Just because the M1 does well on Geekbench, doesn't mean it only does well on Geekbench.
It does excellent on SpecInt. In particular the gcc result is a standout achievement since it is considered a good indicator of general purpose computing proficiency, and is impossible to game.
It absolutely demolishes the competition in browser/JS benchmarks. I used to think the leading edge performance of Apple products were in part because of a highly optimized Nitro JS engine, but the way the M1 Mac mini destroys the Intel based counterpart in JS benchmarks makes it clear that the CPU advantage is real.
M1 is a complete rethink of how you build a high performance CPU core, it is much wider than the competition and clocks lower. The performance is on par or exceeds the competition, at much lower power consumption. Per core, its performance is roughly on par with an Alder Lake performance core, but at 10-12% the power consumption.
I hope Apple is working on higher core count SKUs. In the same power envelope as a 5950X/12900K they could have 32/64 cores. That would be quite a Mac Pro.
Cheers
Last edited:
If people are primarily invested in Windows and gaming there is no reason to look at these computers. People can get pretty much what they want on the PC side and they will live their lives not knowing any different. I always find it mildly humorous that PC people continuously keep engaging the Mac community and brigading why their PC is better suited for their task of choice, be it gaming or something else.
As I've said before the potential is certainly there and the M1 Pro / Max can battle it out with the best from AMD and Intel as well as graphic cards like the AMD Radeon 6800M or nVDIA 3060 / 3080 mobile. It's a great SoC that delivers amazing performance per watt. The problem right now is the lack of optimisation for Apple Silicon. Benchmarks that started out as smartphone software on iOS is very well optimised for Apple Silicon thanks to iPhone and iPad. I feel like GFXBench 5 proves that much.
Baldur's Gate 3 from Larian Studios also shows great performance. Hopefully other developers will follow suit seeing as the absolute base line GPU performance on macOS going forward is the 7-core GPU found in the fanless MacBook Air.
The screen with ProMotion gives you variable refresh rates from 24 to 120Hz. Apple colour calibrate every screen from the factory and the LUT is stored on a chip in the computer for that specific screen. You will not find a better laptop screen, it is simply the best for displaying content the way it was meant to look. The Δe colour difference out of the box is unmatched. It has a sustained brightness of 1,000 nits and 1,600 nits peak when displaying HDR content.
You look at the screen every time you turn the device on, so it should get a bit more credit than saying you can get screen with bad colour science that outputs 24Hz more.
With regards to AnandTech and Andrei I believe they are doing the right thing compiling for the architecture they are testing. It gives the best bare metal results. Software will follow, just like when Apple transitioned from PPC to x86.
At least it's better than testing functionality through a third party application that is built-in, natively, in the OS like PDF export and file compression or applications that clearly are half-baked for macOS.
Every serious Mac developer who have updated their applications for Apple Silicon have shown great performance increases compared to the equivalent Intel based Macs, be it Apple's own Final Cut Pro, compiling with Xcode, Blackmagic Design with DaVinci Resolve, Serif with their Affinity Studio (a replacement for Adobe InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop / RAW photo editing), Pixelmator Pro (Photoshop), Capture One (RAW photo editing), WebStorm/PHPStorm (PHP IDE) and more than I care to mention.
As I've said before the potential is certainly there and the M1 Pro / Max can battle it out with the best from AMD and Intel as well as graphic cards like the AMD Radeon 6800M or nVDIA 3060 / 3080 mobile. It's a great SoC that delivers amazing performance per watt. The problem right now is the lack of optimisation for Apple Silicon. Benchmarks that started out as smartphone software on iOS is very well optimised for Apple Silicon thanks to iPhone and iPad. I feel like GFXBench 5 proves that much.
Baldur's Gate 3 from Larian Studios also shows great performance. Hopefully other developers will follow suit seeing as the absolute base line GPU performance on macOS going forward is the 7-core GPU found in the fanless MacBook Air.
The screen with ProMotion gives you variable refresh rates from 24 to 120Hz. Apple colour calibrate every screen from the factory and the LUT is stored on a chip in the computer for that specific screen. You will not find a better laptop screen, it is simply the best for displaying content the way it was meant to look. The Δe colour difference out of the box is unmatched. It has a sustained brightness of 1,000 nits and 1,600 nits peak when displaying HDR content.
You look at the screen every time you turn the device on, so it should get a bit more credit than saying you can get screen with bad colour science that outputs 24Hz more.
With regards to AnandTech and Andrei I believe they are doing the right thing compiling for the architecture they are testing. It gives the best bare metal results. Software will follow, just like when Apple transitioned from PPC to x86.
At least it's better than testing functionality through a third party application that is built-in, natively, in the OS like PDF export and file compression or applications that clearly are half-baked for macOS.
Every serious Mac developer who have updated their applications for Apple Silicon have shown great performance increases compared to the equivalent Intel based Macs, be it Apple's own Final Cut Pro, compiling with Xcode, Blackmagic Design with DaVinci Resolve, Serif with their Affinity Studio (a replacement for Adobe InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop / RAW photo editing), Pixelmator Pro (Photoshop), Capture One (RAW photo editing), WebStorm/PHPStorm (PHP IDE) and more than I care to mention.
Jawed
Legend
To me it's truly exciting, because it shows where x86 can go. Now, we have to wait to find out will it go there any time soon.
Similar threads
