cgWerks

Marvin said:
Mac version doesn't support Nanite so it can only run those scenes with a patch. Unreal runs pretty well on M-series Macs though:

(Rosetta version)



The M1 Max GPUs run about 1/5th-1/6th the speed of a 4090 comparing the same resolution and settings. M3 Max will likely bring that down to 1/3rd and the M3 Ultra will sit between a 3090 and 4090 in a small form factor.

Thanks, I'm always looking for more in-app demos, rather than just rendering benchmarks and such. I can deal with 50% longer render times or such, as there are usually even render-farm solutions, and I'm not currently pushing deadlines or in a strict time=money situation. But, if the app isn't usable in the viewports when working on a large project, that is a problem.

This actually looks pretty usable (especially compared to older software I'm currently using). Hopefully the RT stuff will come with the M3. I've seen people demo'ing stuff on even the M1 Ultra Studio that isn't really all this usable, which is a problem for such a high-priced machine (when even a $1500 gaming PC is just fine). Hopefully some of that will end up being software optimization (and will actually get optimized!).

Ultimately, Apple needs to do something about this, unless they just intend to lose these markets. At least with Intel Macs, we did have an option to solve these situations.

darkvader said:
... Releasing something now and calling it a "Mac Pro" will just make Apple look silly ...

Any "Mac Pro" Apple releases now with an Apple chip is going to be WORSE than the trash can.  Their best bet if they have any intention of staying in the professional video market is to update the Intel Mac Pro, and that's going to be the case for the near and intermediate future.

Apparently, they didn't mind looking silly... and as far as I can see, the Intel Mac Pros aren't available any longer. My hunch is upper management just said, 'screw it, we're going to complete the transition, they'll have to deal with it.' It might be a few years until there is a real Mac Pro again.

BlueLightning said:
Remember that TSMC makes the majority of CPUs/GPUs for AMD, Apple and NVIDIA (and many others).  

Samsung makes most of the remaining leading edge chips.  
Intel is way behind, and any high performance chips they have are not good candidates for laptops that are GPU intensive.  
Intel laptops have to be plugged-in to achieve high GPU performance, with large amounts of heat and suck batteries dry rapidly.  

True, though this mainly means they'll just use more power while doing it... but at least they can do it.
Apple seems a bit ahead on the CPU front, but quite a way behind on the GPU end.

Bummer, I'll be waiting for the M3 minimally. But, my Intel mini w/eGPU is still doing well, so should make it just fine.

Unfortunately, my son needs to buy something in the next few months, so we're probably looking at M1 Max or M2 Pro and trying to figure out which has the edge for what he does (and will want to do).

It seems more like it is the M1, M1.25 (called M2), and M2 (called M3) in reality. Hopefully that M3 will put Apple a bit more back where many of his were thinking/hoping when this Apple Silicon stuff started. We're now solidly back to playing catch-up with the PC market, at least in terms of GPUs.

We all got bit by Apple's early planning/design, I think. I was amazed at what Apple accomplished when everyone was deep in the pandemic, but now 3 years later, we're feeling the reality of the pandemic on Apple. It was just delayed a lot more than other companies.

What I really hope we'll start hearing, is more of the tech differences of the M3, instead of just more cores and energy efficiency (again, mostly on the GPU-front). We're now years into the transition, and we still don't really know what Apple's plan is for the pro users in GPU-centric disciplines.

macxpress said:
I wanna say that the MacBook Air is Apple's top selling laptop?

That even makes it a bit more puzzling, as my understanding is a huge problem here is going to be supply/yields. It seems like they might just be trying to follow the release schedule they've initiated (ie. new chip starts in the low end models and then to more advanced systems). Otherwise, they'd maybe be better to introduce the M3 in the Pro and Studio.

AniMill said:

Either the Mac Pro is dead, or so delayed that it’s become superfluous in their product lineup. Perhaps it’s become such a niche that any further investment simply is not a viability for Apple anymore. Either way, if Apple does not at least preview a Mac Pro option at WWDC, I think it’s dead Jim. Though $3000 ski goggles are considered the “next” thing - but I believe AR/VR is already past the public interest inflection point. WWDC is going to be a very interesting show.

Yeah, I'll certainly check it out, but kind of sounds like another yawner on the way. I have near zero interest in the VR stuff at this point. Maybe a bit in AR, but more professionally (vertical markets) than any use for myself personally.

I'm a bit torn on the Mac Pro as well. Unless they give-in in terms of expandability, the Studio seems like the new Mac Pro. What would be the point of a huge case if it can't be expanded? (And, but give-in, I mean add AMD GPUs or something like that back to the platform.)

I'm hoping they are just way behind - the M3 will be impressive - and they would just be too embarrassed to release a Mac Pro right now with M1/M2 tech in it.

9secondkox2 said:
A delay means that Apple is ensuring I’m the Mac Peo is the butt-kicking, name-taking monster it’s supposed to be. 

That's the hard thing for me to grasp. It would seem (at least from what we know), unless they add AMD back in, it's going to be adequate at best. Hopefully we're pleasantly surprised. Currently, at least for GPU, a top of the line Mac kind of equals a mid-level gaming PC... and then only somewhat (better at one task, worse at others).

Note: this is on the pro side, though. On the consumer side, Apple is certainly kicking butt.

YasminG said:

I’m sick and tired waiting for a new iMac. They should have at least offered an M2 offering

I think they just didn't want to do an iMac M1.25.

tht said:

Humans are contributing 100% of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. ...

100% of the human produced CO2, I suppose. Sorry, I just don't agree with much of what you've stated. To me, this is a bit akin to the debate over just cutting calories to lose weight. The system is just way more highly complex than that. We're looking at a few historical graphs (with rather shaky data, even when it is being presented honestly, which is seldom the case) and making pronouncements based on that and some also highly shaky computer modeling.

But, to me, the biggest tells are the politics around on around this. If it were a real crisis, people would be desperate to join forces and make compromises to get things done. For example, even if nuclear power isn't perfect, it would be way better as a compromise than what the climate alarmists are projecting. It seem, the point isn't to actually solve the stated problems (purposefully?). Then there is all the dirty politics and canceling around anyone who disagrees, when the best way to handle such situations in an actual crisis would be to go the other direction, and go head-to-head in debate with the best minds on both sides. In other words, actually work to convince as many skeptics as possible, rather than alienate them.

re: CO2 - have you not seen the earth-greening stuff from NASA? Yes, you're correct that the primary drivers of food production (in very recent history) have been those techniques (many of which are harmful), but we were actually getting close to dangerously low levels of CO2 for plant-life. The point is that going up a bit might not be so bad. We're still way on the low end of the scale. Sure, we don't want it to be 2000ppm or something like that.

Keep in mind, that you're talking about weather changes, not climate. The temperatures we're talking about are a couple degrees. People will be fine with a couple degrees difference. If weather patterns dramatically change, yes, certain areas might get considerably hotter (or colder). But, much of this is based on models which may or may not be accurate or bear out. (I've heard one astrophysicist say that his primary fear is tipping us into the coming ice-age more quickly.)

Yes, there is a lot of technology which can be applied to such changes, and whether humans are causing it or not, the one certainty is that it will change, and we'll have to adapt. Fortunately, so far at least, the models and extreme predictions have been horribly wrong. But, either way, many of the technologies being developed are positive, if we don't cause too much human suffering via the politics.