[StreamBright]

Absolutely. I wasn't expecting Apple to beat any decent current GPU with the performance.

What I like about the M1 is that I get 60-70% of the performance with a chip that is much smaller and cooler than the GPUs it beats. I think for a long time we were thinking about computers as big bulky noise heat generators and Apple just shows the way that we can achieve roughly the same in a much smaller equipment that is much cooler (in terms of temperature).

This is why M1 is a breakthrough for me.

[neogodless]

> a chip that is much smaller and cooler

I assume you mean "enclosure" that's smaller?

M1 Ultra is 114 billion transistors, while the RTX 3090 is 28 billion. (Not sure of physical size of the chips, though - do you have a reference for that?)

Original point stands, of course, on efficiency/heat!

[ac29]

> Not sure of physical size of the chips, though - do you have a reference for that?

Anandtech has M1 Max at 432 mm2, Wikipedia has 3090 at 628 mm2.

So, since M1 Ultra is 2x M1 Max, it is physically larger than the 3090.

[rovr138]

If that's for the full chip M1 chip, not just GPU, we also need to consider the i9 transistors on the benchmark.

[Macha]

The last time Intel released transistor count was for the i9-7980XE. It's a physically larger 18 core chip on the same process node as the 10 core 10900K tested, and googling says it had 9 billion transistors. If we assume that their improvements on 14nm let them fit all the same chips as the larger CPU into the newer one, then.... the i9 transistor count doesn't make a meaningful difference to the comparison.