Nope, 1030 has 37 Gflops/W... G13 786/20W = 40... and that's 14nm vs 5nm... still I'm pretty sure there are things the 1030 can do that the A13 will struggle with.
G13 (in the 8-core/1024 ALU config as in M1) delivers 2.6TFLOPS with sustained power consumption of 10W. That's almost an order of magnitude better than 1030. Sure, node definitely matters, but going from 14nm to 5nm cannot explain the massive power efficiency difference alone.
What are the things that 1030 can do that G13 will struggle with?
There is not a single page on the whole internet that states Gflops and Watt on the same page, I did 2 googlings: "apple g13 gflops" and "apple g13 watt"... the results where completely disturbing seen this info should be clearly available. Like when you google 1030 gflops and watt you get all links on google linking to pages stating both figures and they are the same...
M1 comes is MANY flavours with different watt and gflops.
And for CPU Glops I had to get friends to measure it themself: 2.5Glops/W compared to Raspberry 4 2Gflops/W and this time it's 5nm vs 28nm.
Please give me official Gflops and Watt sources and we can discuss.
The page you link is NOT clearly stating watts in a clear way.
> What are the things that 1030 can do that G13 will struggle with?
I real life when you develop games for real hardware you notice their real limitations like fill rates and how they scale different behaviours because they have enough registers to do things in one blow or they have to remember things. It's complicated, but eventually you realize you can just benchmark things for your own needs and for me 1030 is for all purposes as good as 1050 so far: 2000 non-instanced animated characters on 1030 at 30W vs like 2500 for 80W 1050!
Without knowing, I'm pretty sure the M1 cannot do more than 1000 at whatever watt it uses... not that I would ever compile anything for a machine where I need to sign the executable.
“Official sources” in this case is testing done by me personally. I am the author of the post on RWT linked previously. I would be happy to share my benchmarking code for your scrutiny if you want. The M1 variant tested was base M1 in a 13” MacBook Pro.
I don’t know what your friends have tested but the results make zero sense. Firestorm reaches 1700 points in GB5 at 5W. Pi 4 is under 300 at similar wattage.
First answer on google: "maximal power consumption is around 50 watts"
Firestorm is GPU (again google has little info) I'm talking CPU for the Raspberry.
The Raspberry 4 GPU uses 1W. You are conflating because of sunk cost.
You need to compare the same things, apples to apples (no pun) one CPU core on Raspberry consumes 1W on the M1 they are 4W
GPU is 1W vs 5W (if you are correct which I HIGHLY doubt, I suspect 20W for the GPU alone, wikipedia states 39 watts at maximum load so yes 20W for the GPU)!
You need to start looking at the world objectively and understand how it really works, because peak energy is not going to be forgiving if you don't.
By using the provided system tools that report power usage of the GPU cluster? Also, I am telling you the system diagnostics output if an actual physical machine. What are you quoting Wikipedia for? You can literally go measure these things. Should I go edit Wikipedia so that you get correct information?
Anyway, power usage of M1 variants has been studied in detail. It’s 5 watts peak for a single performance core, 20W peak for a CPU cluster of four cores, 10W for a 8-core GPU (128 FP32 ALUs per core). Bigger M1 variants have respectively higher power consumption because of the larger interconnects/caches etc. DRAM is also a factor. Running at full bandwidth is can consume over 10W of power.
Well, it seems like you made up your mind without doing any testing or educating yourself, so I am not quite sure what I can do to help you. Already your entirely nonsensical comment of “needing to sign the executable” speaks volumes. Why did I never need to sign anything despite building software on M1 machines daily for the last year? I wonder…
All code that runs on Apple silicon must be signed. If you don't explicitly sign your executable, the linker will inject an ad-hoc signature into your binary for you.
Sure. But it does not affect you as developer in any form or fashion. It's just a thing the linker does. You can still distribute your binaries, disassemble them etc. as you ever would.
What are the things that 1030 can do that G13 will struggle with?