- Last Active
Go to Speetest on this and tell me your WiFi speed. Pick the best server. Also run LAN SSD disk read/write test for file that is about 1 GB in size. Then tell me what real speed you see. WiFi is advertised as peak speed. You will not get gigabit contiguous just like I do with fiber optics high speed Internet (yes 1Gbit both ways at any time and on any size of file and CAT6 wiring around the house). No WiFi is even close.
tht said:blastdoor said:DuhSesame said:Marvin said:blastdoor said:9secondkox2 said:A quad m1 Max based on current architecture would terminate the discussion.A Mac Pro with that or more would be legendary.
if the quad max takes until the end of 2022 then add “have.”
AMD is supposed to have 5nm zen 4 out later this year. For high end systems, at least 64 cores.Apple will have the advantage of unified memory, and maybe that will give them an edge for some workloads. But I really hope they pick up the pace of apple silicon rollout + update on the Mac.
That's $7-8k just for the CPU. The GPU performance would be about 30% higher than a $3k Nvidia 3090, e.g an Nvidia 3090ti:
In late 2022, AMD is saying they can double the performance with Zen 4 on 5nm and Nvidia will likely have a 1.5-2x 4090. But, it will still cost around $10k for those parts. Apple can sell a quad M1 Max for $3k. Even if Zen 4 and 4090 is 1.5-2x the performance due to higher power usage, an M1 Max Quad would be really competitive.
Apple currently sells Mac Pro hardware that is way behind Threadripper chips, they don't need to compete with them on raw performance but the special hardware they have can offer huge improvements. Someone here compared their PC with 3090 against M1 Max and the Max chip beat it for render/export times in some cases:
Multiply that by 4 and for people in those workflows, a 2x improvement on the PC side is still half.
But Intel doesn't represent the best of what x86 has to offer. AMD's Threadripper is the current x86 king of the workstation market. If Intel is ever able to get Sapphire Rapids out the door, then maybe Intel can recapture the x86 lead, but that's both a big 'if' and a big 'maybe.'
I'd love it if Apple kicked x86 to the curb completely, but only if they realize the full potential of Apple Silicon.
But if Apple decides it's not worth it to completely replace x86 and wants to retain an x86 Mac Pro for the tippy top of the lineup, then I hope they move to use the best x86 solution available, rather than relying exclusively on Intel.
The SFF Apple Mac Pro (G4 Cube sized) with M1 Mac Duo/Quad will be competitive to 64 core Threadrippers, imo. It will be the usual, it wins some, it loses some benchmarks. Intel and AMD have SMT, so any massively parallel apps that have low CPU loads per thread will be dominated by AMD. Cinebench really shows this behavior. For apps that high CPU loads per thread, I wouldn't be surprised if Apples 32 p-cores outperform a 64c TR, especially Apple feeds their cores with memory bandwidth. A M1 Max Quad could have over 1 TB/s of memory bandwidth.
Apple is going to rerun their playbook here though. The x86 workstations are going to be designed for 300 W CPUs and multiple 400 W GPUs. Apple's Mac Pro is going to be around 120 W for CPU and 240 W for GPU. They are going to say look at how small and efficient their workstation is compared to the big x86 workstations. Hard to believe that the 3rd time is going to be the charm here.
So what Apple is going to offer in those Mac Pro's? 8 core and 32 GB RAM maximum? "You do not need more"? Stop harassing those who use all that power and give them what they ask. I have used 64 core Linux based servers circa 2010 in business and 16 core was my personal for development in bank. Now some content creators may need more regardless how good M2 might be. I write it from Linux desktop with 8 cores and 64GB RAM that also run Windows 11 Pro in VirtualBox whenever needed (I wish Apple would allow VM's outside Apple hardware - I would pay for OS itself).
People understand concept of modern CPU and lower power consumption, but limiting hardware just because "you do not need it" is an arrogance when it comes to power workstations and servers and power users.
And since when do you people think Safari is even close to Firefox? Just do a research. Check also market share for browsers. Maybe you should start opening eyes. I dropped Safari after two first years on Mac OS X circa 2007. It was Firefox or other browsers (SeaMonkey or even Tor). These days you may consider Vivaldi or Brave as they are picking up and beating Chrome and Edge due to tracking removal from base that is Chromium. Yes even FLoC is removed from those two browsers and Google does not like where their Chromium project went with it. Firefox is second and also superior in security solutions, but it has glitches like this.
macxpress said:beowulfschmidt said: