Apple's M1 Max bests AMD Radeon Pro W6900X in Affinity GPU benchmark
Apple's top-of-the-line M1 Max chip, which powers the company's new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pros, outperforms a $6,000 AMD desktop GPU at certain tasks in Affinity Photo's benchmarking suite.
According to Andy Somerfield, lead Affinity Photo developer, the M1 Max is the fastest GPU he has evaluated using the benchmarking software. Apple's integrated graphics solution notched a "Raster (Single GPU)" score of 32891, edging a score of 32580 put in by AMD's W6900X, a 300-watt card that was tested as equipped in a 12-core Mac Pro.
In a multi-day Twitter thread, Somerfield chronicled Affinity developer Serif's integration of GPU compute support for apps like Affinity Photo, imaging editing software that started life as a desktop title and has since branched out to iOS and iPadOS. Specifically, Serif saw promise in early Apple Silicon designs on iPad, which for the first time allowed the app to tap system GPU assets for certain processes.
Somerfield says Apple's latest chip, M1 Max, ticks the three boxes that make a GPU "ideal" for Affinity Photo: high compute performance, fast on-chip bandwidth, fast transfer on and off the GPU. M1 Max's compute performance and data transfer rates are especially well suited for the task, making MacBook Pro a good choice for users of the app.
"The #M1Max is the fastest GPU we have ever measured in the @affinitybyserif Photo benchmark. It outperforms the W6900X - a $6000, 300W desktop part - because it has immense compute performance, immense on-chip bandwidth and immediate transfer of data on and off the GPU (UMA)," Somerfield said in a tweet Monday.
While not specified, the developer is believed to be referencing an M1 Max with 32-core GPU, Apple's most performant specification.
As noted by 9to5Mac, which spotted Somerfield's post, the W6900X comes equipped with 32GB of GDDR6 memory capable of 512GB/s data transfers.
In addition to outstanding GPU performance, M1 Max achieved chart-topping "Vector (Multi CPU)" and "Combined (Single GPU)" scores, metrics important for Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher, respectively.
The results offer a glimpse into the promise of M1 Max, potent potential that is coming into stark relief as more publications get their hands on the new hardware. Earlier today, AnandTech published an in-depth assessment of both chips, finding that the new designs build on M1's foundation to deliver impressive real-world improvements.
Last week, Geekbench 5 scores showed M1 Max is at least three times faster than the original M1 when it comes to Metal compute.
Read on AppleInsider
According to Andy Somerfield, lead Affinity Photo developer, the M1 Max is the fastest GPU he has evaluated using the benchmarking software. Apple's integrated graphics solution notched a "Raster (Single GPU)" score of 32891, edging a score of 32580 put in by AMD's W6900X, a 300-watt card that was tested as equipped in a 12-core Mac Pro.
In a multi-day Twitter thread, Somerfield chronicled Affinity developer Serif's integration of GPU compute support for apps like Affinity Photo, imaging editing software that started life as a desktop title and has since branched out to iOS and iPadOS. Specifically, Serif saw promise in early Apple Silicon designs on iPad, which for the first time allowed the app to tap system GPU assets for certain processes.
Somerfield says Apple's latest chip, M1 Max, ticks the three boxes that make a GPU "ideal" for Affinity Photo: high compute performance, fast on-chip bandwidth, fast transfer on and off the GPU. M1 Max's compute performance and data transfer rates are especially well suited for the task, making MacBook Pro a good choice for users of the app.
"The #M1Max is the fastest GPU we have ever measured in the @affinitybyserif Photo benchmark. It outperforms the W6900X - a $6000, 300W desktop part - because it has immense compute performance, immense on-chip bandwidth and immediate transfer of data on and off the GPU (UMA)," Somerfield said in a tweet Monday.
While not specified, the developer is believed to be referencing an M1 Max with 32-core GPU, Apple's most performant specification.
As noted by 9to5Mac, which spotted Somerfield's post, the W6900X comes equipped with 32GB of GDDR6 memory capable of 512GB/s data transfers.
In addition to outstanding GPU performance, M1 Max achieved chart-topping "Vector (Multi CPU)" and "Combined (Single GPU)" scores, metrics important for Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher, respectively.
The results offer a glimpse into the promise of M1 Max, potent potential that is coming into stark relief as more publications get their hands on the new hardware. Earlier today, AnandTech published an in-depth assessment of both chips, finding that the new designs build on M1's foundation to deliver impressive real-world improvements.
Last week, Geekbench 5 scores showed M1 Max is at least three times faster than the original M1 when it comes to Metal compute.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Can't wait till mine is delivered
Being able to pool hardware resources online may become a viable alternative at some point.
Meh. Who really cares? The choice of platform is largely driven by the software applications that you use and the availability of these apps on specific platforms that are available for purchase. If I need a computer that can run software that’s only available on the Windows platform I’ll buy a Windows PC spec’d out to meet my needs. Prior to Apple Silicon some, but not all, of the PC-only software could be run in a professional grade virtualization environment. Now, not so much. Likewise, if I need to run a Mac-only app, like XCode, I’ll buy a Mac.
Yeah, simply buying the right tool for the right job sounds rather boring, but boring can be a nice thing. Buying a Mac is so much easier and stress free than buying a Windows PC. Apple has far fewer models to choose from and they usually have one that is going to fit your needs quite nicely, or close enough with a couple of external assists. Buying a Windows PC is like a recursive puzzle game where you’re confronted with far too many choices, compromises, and pitfalls. Unless you have an intimate knowledge of every subassembly and component spec and build it yourself (at substantial extra cost I might add) you’re going to fall into a trap of not knowing where the vendor is screwing you by sneaking in a crap part, like a substandard power supply, low res dim screen, sketchy WiFi card, slow and/or tiny storage, etc., or junking up your machine with crapware and time bombed demoware.
As much as I get geeked up when I walk into a MicroCenter, it’s very clear to me that sifting through all that techno-chaff being hawked by used car salesmen types working on commission must be absolute hell on earth for less technically inclined people who just want to know which computer is the best fit for them, that is, out of the hundreds of possible configurations available. At least with Apple, unless you’re hipsterphobic, seeing the less-than-handful of choices laid out before you is like a Caribbean vacation compared to the horror show that is the typical PC Buying Experience.
These new MacBook Pros reaffirm that when you buy a Mac you’re not leaving much if anything on the table, starting with the buying experience, to reliability, customer support, TCO, and with the M1 - uncompromising performance for the software we run. Repeat Mac customers have always known that it’s the total package (hardware, software, ecosystem, experience) that matters and we haven’t needed spec sheets and benchmarks to reassure us that we’ve made the right choice of platform. M1 is just more icing on an already impressive cake. Engaging in cherry picking comparisons, from either side, isn’t going to change very many buyer’s minds, either way.
https://mondaynote.com/apple-m1-pro-max-surprises-7b097788160b
Linked within that, there's an extensive story on Apple's path to the M1X by Steve Sinofsky that is worth reading;
https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/apples-long-journey-to-the-m1-pro-chip-250309905358
Yet there doesn't seem to have diminished demand for continued evolution of more performant mobile, notebook, and desktop hardware, all of which benefits Apple's future.
1. From the 'fiduciary duty' perspective, Apple would need to charge more than $1k per M1 Max. By way of comparison, the A100 chip from Nvidia costs $18k to buy (as part of a card), and that's a 54 billion transistor chip (compared to 57 billion for M1 Max).
2. I suspect that the reason the M1 Max makes financial sense for Apple in a Mac (even though the Mac sells for much less than $18k) is that the customers who buy that Mac are very high value customers. Only Apple knows for sure, but I'll bet Apple's high-end Pro customers buy a *lot* of Apple gear AND are major influencers with more middle-of-the-road customers. I also suspect this is a big part of the reason Apple realized they have to keep offering the Mac Pro, even if sales are only in the 10s of thousands per year. So the value of the M1 Max to Apple is much higher than the extra $ they charge when somebody upgrades a MBP to the M1 Max option.
3. PC OEMs do not want an integrated SOC like this. They wouldn't know what to do with it. This thing is custom designed to be a part of Apple's whole hardware+software stack.
4. Most PC customers probably also don't want this, especially when you consider the fraction of PCs bought by large corporations (as opposed to individuals or small businesses).
So bottom line, the M1 Max only makes sense in the context of Apple's unique ecosystem and customer base.