![]() If you do not use ProRes, you will get a fraction of the performance. Sure, Apple runs at half the wattage of the 3080, with less than half of the performance.Īll of the video workloads are specifically using ProRes, which is the Apple accelerated codec. ![]() Apple under-reports power usage for some reason. 120W is the difference between wall consumption in the test and at idle, which is around 1.1x more than the actual consumption. ![]() Are we now going to dismiss a Quadro RTX because it does not do too well running Tomb Raider? Three times the price of what? The Intel system used in the Anandtech article is $3,149.00, is the MacBook Pro $9,000?īy the way, Nvidia also has pro versions of their GPUs, they don't perform as well in gaming as they do in other tasks, and they really are way more expensive than their consumer counterparts. The M1 Max does great when it comes to video, and I would say the same for other workloads that have been, at least historically, where Apple has mostly focused on.Ĭitation needed. Notice that all the games tested are not native, but running on top of Rosetta 2. Īnd again, you seem to focus on gaming, which is fine, but not the target market of a MacBook Pro. Usual configurations are 80W and 115W, and the differences in performance between those two are quite noticeable. > The M1 Max GPU does use 60W and so do many 3060 Mobiles with worse overall performanceĪ 3060 runs on 60W at the very low end. You have also glossed over the fact that the article asserts that the MacBook runs at half of the wattage of an Intel system with a RTX 3080, 120W v. Nowhere it says that the GPU itself uses 60W. The article clearly states that it is 120W on the wall. ![]() The M1 Max uses 120W when stressing GPU and CPU.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |