|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tade0
2040 days ago
|
|
|
The 2080 Max-Q in my laptop is fairly underpowered (even for a mobile GPU) and yet it achieves ~3x the performance of the GTX 1050 Ti. Also its TDP is 90W - not exactly power sipping, but also not 300W. The M1's GPU may be efficient (thanks mostly to TSMC's 5nm process it's built in), but in terms of raw power it's just not there. |
|
|
The 2080 Max-Q only exists in ~$3000 gaming laptops. Poor battery life, 4lb+ laptops. There is no universe where that is "fairly underpowered" unless we've moved the goal posts to pretend that everyone is rolling with a GTX 3080 and anything less is unbearable. In the real world you have to go to the seriously compromised "gaming" tier to get better graphics performance.
"but in terms of raw power it's just not there"
That depends upon what we define as the destination. It in no way competes with dedicated gaming rigs, as I made clear. Not by a huge margin. It isn't going to be something a guy reviewing 300W, $1000 GPUs will care about. That isn't the target market.
But the vast majority of people don't having those gaming rigs. Laptops that have better GPUs are a _tiny_, minuscule component of the market. And if you actually use those dedicated GPUs, you'd better be plugged in.
So when we talk about "gaming" we get into a No True Scotsman thing (to repeat myself) where it isn't gaming unless it's someone playing Warzone at 120Hz at 4K. But a pretty heady number of users are doing things like Civilization, The Sims, Roblox, Minecraft, and similar gaming. The M1 can host that style of gaming with ease.
"thanks mostly to TSMC's 5nm process"
It's kind of interesting that we're at this point. Apple has made a pretty capable GPU, stellar CPU cores, stellar inference cores, among other remarkable hardware. It was pretty stellar at 7nm too. It's all being dismissed as the 5nm advantage. I don't think it's remotely so simple.