Thursday, October 21st 2021

Apple M1 Max Beats GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU in GFXBench 5.0, but Doesn't Shine in Geekbench

This should be taken with a fair helping of salt, considering GFXBench 5.0 is mobile device focused benchmark, even though the company behind claims it's a platform independent benchmark. Regardless of that, it looks like the new 32 core GPU in Apple's M1 Max SoC offers some pretty competitive performance, as it manages GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU in said test.

However, this is a median score for the GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU and many of the tests that make up GFXBench 5.0 aren't using DirectX, which is one likely reason for Apple's M1 Max GPU beating the Nvidia card. On the other hand, all tests seem to support Metal, which is Apple's 3D API, whereas the Nvidia card has to fall back to using OpenGL which tends to offer lower performance than DirectX in games. In most of the tests we're looking at an average performance advantage of less than 10 percent in favour of Apple, but it's nonetheless impressive considering that Apple hasn't been in the GPU business for very long.
On the other hand, in a Geekbench OpenCL test, the M1 Max is losing out against a GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU by quite some margin depending on the test. Neither is of course a real world scenario and we're going to wait a little while longer to see how well Apple's new SoCs really performs and more importantly, what the limitations are in terms of software compatibility.
Sources: 3DCenter, Geekbench
Add your own comment

60 Comments on Apple M1 Max Beats GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU in GFXBench 5.0, but Doesn't Shine in Geekbench

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
M1 Max will start a new trend. Finally AMD will build PC processors with larger iGPUs (think 32 CU or higher). Intel probably anticipates this, and has Xe HPG on the ready for integration.

CPUs with iGPUs fast enough for mainstream gaming will kill the xx50 or even xx60-class dGPUs. Crypto is driving this change.
Posted on Reply
#2
phanbuey
Definitely the power is there if the software is able to use it... and since apple writes their own software well...

Wonder if the game console skunkworks is still in flight over there.

They have:
1. A high performance API (Metal)
2. A high performance Chip and ecosystem across many devices/device types
3. 24-120Hz VRR capability on new devices -- iphone, ipad and macbook with built in displays
4. A decent market share of loyal apple fans who also have a gaming PC/Xbox on the side.

What they need:
2. Market share and gaming content either by:
a. Ability to port content/games
b. Enticing developers to make popular content for their platforms.

Apple could very well be a name in gaming here before too long. They have the capability to roll out AAA game titles across the entire platform.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
btarunrM1 Max will start a new trend. Finally AMD will build PC processors with larger iGPUs (think 32 CU or higher). Intel probably anticipates this, and has Xe HPG on the ready for integration.

CPUs with iGPUs fast enough for mainstream gaming will kill the xx50 or even xx60-class dGPUs. Crypto is driving this change.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions quite yet, but it does indeed look a lot better than any current or expected next generation iGPU from AMD or Intel. However, I'm not sure sure it will beat a mid-range discrete mobile GPU in actual games.
Posted on Reply
#4
Bomby569
phanbueyApple could very well be a name in gaming here before too long.
what stoped them was never lack of a good cpu or gpu, you could have that in a apple.
Posted on Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
phanbueyDefinitely the power is there if the software is able to use it... and since apple writes their own software well...

Wonder if the game console skunkworks is still in flight over there.

They have:
1. A high performance API (Metal)
2. A high performance Chip and ecosystem across many devices/device types
3. 24-120Hz VRR capability on new devices -- iphone, ipad and macbook with built in displays
4. A decent market share of loyal apple fans who also have a gaming PC/Xbox on the side.

What they need:
2. Market share and gaming content either by:
a. Ability to port content/games
b. Enticing developers to make popular content for their platforms.

Apple could very well be a name in gaming here before too long. They have the capability to roll out AAA game titles across the entire platform.
Next Apple TV, maybe?
Posted on Reply
#6
phanbuey
Bomby569what stoped them was never lack of a good cpu or gpu, you could have that in a apple.
You could have that in SOME apples, depending on the gen... But it was too split up, way too expensive and the market share of apple users with dGPUs was teeny. When they had nvidia they didn't have Metal (no API), when they had AMD, they weren't competitive with Nvidia.... and overpriced. Puny gaming market share compared to their cheaper devices (unless you count candy crush and phone games, which blew up and made tons of money). At that time the chips in the phones and ipads were just barely starting to get powerful enough.

It's now trickled through the entire stack -- (ipad, iphone, computer etc. Apple TV?? Mac Mini??) -- and it's now using the same API... with chips that have some serious power. Now you have the ability to write a game for the ipad that will run native on the mac and vice versa, and it's pushing 3080 laptop numbers through the API.

There is really some great potential here. It's just missing games/ports. Really interesting -- great article.
TheLostSwedeNext Apple TV, maybe?
That's what I'm thinking/hoping...
Posted on Reply
#7
Darmok N Jalad
Apple TV hardware continues to be a missed opportunity for Apple. If they actually dropped a version with pro or Max in it, maybe they’d get more than a passing interest. That said, gaming on AppleTV really isn’t a bad experience right now. It reminds me a lot of Nintendo gaming, where graphics are decent, but not realism focused like Sony and MS. My kids love playing Frogger, cat quest, and oceanhorn on our old 4K, and if it weren’t for the gaming aspect, we would never use our AppleTV. An annual subscription to Arcade is pretty cheap, and the whole family shares it and uses it. It could certainly have more games, but it has slowly improved. There’s definitely some amateur games in there, but also some surprisingly good ones too.

I would expect the Pro and Max to offer some solid performance. The base M1 is a known commodity, and pro and max just expand on that, and memory bandwidth is certainly there. There’s potential for a console-like experience, but will we actually see that kind of adoption from developers? Apple’s fees might be a bit of a challenge, but aren’t they in line with what MS and Sony charge?
Posted on Reply
#8
usiname
phanbueyDefinitely the power is there if the software is able to use it... and since apple writes their own software well...
What power did you saw? GFXBench is not optimized and force nvidia to use OpenGL. Geekbench is also useless, but at least both run on OpenGL and M1 Max which has more transisotrs for the GPU than 3090 is losing to 80W GA106. What a shame
Posted on Reply
#9
john_
btarunrM1 Max will start a new trend. Finally AMD will build PC processors with larger iGPUs (think 32 CU or higher). Intel probably anticipates this, and has Xe HPG on the ready for integration.

CPUs with iGPUs fast enough for mainstream gaming will kill the xx50 or even xx60-class dGPUs. Crypto is driving this change.
I would love to see an AMD APU with 32 CUs, but probably it will not happen. You need a huge amount of memory bandwidth and also AMD is not going to start competing it's own products. If an iGPU of this kind was coming out, it would need a special motherboard with onboard GDDR6 memory (think SidePort memory from 10+ years ago or dedicated memory) plus Infinity cache and probably that APU would cost as much as $300+ discrete GPU if not more.
I wouldn't expect more than 14-16 CUs in the near future.
Hope to end up wrong. The fastest I am proved wrong, the better.

PS Also SONY and Microsoft wouldn't be happy with such a product, except if it is ridiculously expensive.
Posted on Reply
#10
phanbuey
usinameWhat power did you saw? GFXBench is not optimized and force nvidia to use OpenGL. Geekbench is also useless, but at least both run on OpenGL and M1 Max which has more transisotrs for the GPU than 3090 is losing to 80W GA106. What a shame
Sure... here:

10.4 Tflops M1 max vs 35.6 Tflops RTX 3090... now let's see the PS5... 10.2 tflops.

This shows that the Metal API is at least somewhat capable of translating those theoretical numbers into FPS - and those are more than enough for high-end gaming / top tier console device.
Posted on Reply
#11
seth1911
LOL yeah Apple makes a such good IGP on M1 because u cant play even any Game before :toast:

U still have fun with a Stupid Benchmark like Geekbench or GFXBench :)
Thats awesome if i change my registry R7 IGP would be same as fast like a 6800 in GFX Bench:laugh:

We have now since a decade Years, 3DMark, Unigine Benchmark, in Game Benches etc. et all,
but because its Apple we need a totaly Bullshit Bingo Benchmark.:eek:


Then can the holly M1 run Crysis ?, nah it cant on 30 FPs even on lowest in 720p:D
Posted on Reply
#12
Daven
john_I would love to see an AMD APU with 32 CUs, but probably it will not happen. You need a huge amount of memory bandwidth and also AMD is not going to start competing it's own products. If an iGPU of this kind was coming out, it would need a special motherboard with onboard GDDR6 memory (think SidePort memory from 10+ years ago or dedicated memory) plus Infinity cache and probably that APU would cost as much as $300+ discrete GPU if not more.
I wouldn't expect more than 14-16 CUs in the near future.
Hope to end up wrong. The fastest I am proved wrong, the better.

PS Also SONY and Microsoft wouldn't be happy with such a product, except if it is ridiculously expensive.
You are forgetting that there is very little difference between DDR and GDDR memory. The later just has more ‘channels’ if you will and higher speeds. Apple is getting 200 GB/s and 400 GB/s using DDR5 memory on the Pro and Max respectively. This is not GDDR memory. How are they doing it? The chips have 4 and 8 channels running at 6400 MHz.

An AMD iGPU just needs quad channel DDR5 6400 to achieve similar bandwidth as a 3050 to 3060.
Posted on Reply
#13
IceShroom
One thing people need to remember, Those cross platform benchmark dont run same workload across different platform. It is comparing two system running different CPU, different Kernel and OS and different graphics API's. And let not forget "Optimization" for benchmark.
It is like comparing one gpu running OpenGL on linux to another gpu running DX12 on Windows. It is not same-to-same comparison.
Posted on Reply
#14
john_
Mark LittleYou are forgetting that there is very little difference between DDR and GDDR memory. The later just has more ‘channels’ if you will and higher speeds. Apple is getting 200 GB/s and 400 GB/s using DDR5 memory on the Pro and Max respectively. This is not GDDR memory. How are they doing it? The chips have 4 and 8 channels running at 6400 MHz.

An AMD iGPU just needs quad channel DDR5 6400 to achieve similar bandwidth as a 3050 to 3060.
We are going back to what I posted. A special, much more expensive, motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheLostSwede
Mark LittleApple is getting 200 GB/s and 400 GB/s using DDR5 memory on the Pro and Max respectively. This is not GDDR memory. How are they doing it? The chips have 4 and 8 channels running at 6400 MHz.
It's LPDDR5 for one and they're using a 512-bit bus, which is much wider than most graphics cards, so it's not just about channels. AMD can never get that wide bus in a PC. DDR5 will offer a quad-channel 32-bit bus, well, technically 40-bit, but the extra eight are for ECC.
Apple also has lower latency due to the memory placement, something we're also unlikely to ever see in a PC.
IceShroomOne thing people need to remember, Those cross platform benchmark dont run same workload across different platform. It is comparing two system running different CPU, different Kernel and OS and different graphics API's. And let not forget "Optimization" for benchmark.
It is like comparing one gpu running OpenGL on linux to another gpu running DX12 on Windows. It is not same-to-same comparison.
Hence to take this with a helping of salt and all the other disclaimers I put in.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheoneandonlyMrK
Meh.

Give me a shout when it beats it at crysis or something.
Posted on Reply
#17
Bomby569
phanbueyYou could have that in SOME apples, depending on the gen... But it was too split up, way too expensive and the market share of apple users with dGPUs was teeny. When they had nvidia they didn't have Metal (no API), when they had AMD, they weren't competitive with Nvidia.... and overpriced. Puny gaming market share compared to their cheaper devices (unless you count candy crush and phone games, which blew up and made tons of money). At that time the chips in the phones and ipads were just barely starting to get powerful enough.

It's now trickled through the entire stack -- (ipad, iphone, computer etc. Apple TV?? Mac Mini??) -- and it's now using the same API... with chips that have some serious power. Now you have the ability to write a game for the ipad that will run native on the mac and vice versa, and it's pushing 3080 laptop numbers through the API.

There is really some great potential here. It's just missing games/ports. Really interesting -- great article.
Macs were never cheap, and neither are these, people don't buy Apple for their cheap prices. It was nothing and never has been nothing related to price.
Posted on Reply
#18
R0H1T
john_I would love to see an AMD APU with 32 CUs, but probably it will not happen. You need a huge amount of memory bandwidth and also AMD is not going to start competing it's own products. If an iGPU of this kind was coming out, it would need a special motherboard with onboard GDDR6 memory (think SidePort memory from 10+ years ago or dedicated memory) plus Infinity cache and probably that APU would cost as much as $300+ discrete GPU if not more.
I wouldn't expect more than 14-16 CUs in the near future.
Hope to end up wrong. The fastest I am proved wrong, the better.

PS Also SONY and Microsoft wouldn't be happy with such a product, except if it is ridiculously expensive.
They will eventually get there, even if it takes some more time. CPUs make a lot more money for AMD & will continue to do so despite the inflated GPU prices, then with MCM & unified memory this is just a natural evolution. The only real question is whether these will be monolithic dies, with such insane IGP, or something like desktop Ryzen 5xxx series.

There's HBM, infinity cache & even quad channel DDR5 memory can solve a large part of this issue.
Posted on Reply
#19
goodeedidid
phanbueyDefinitely the power is there if the software is able to use it... and since apple writes their own software well...

Wonder if the game console skunkworks is still in flight over there.

They have:
1. A high performance API (Metal)
2. A high performance Chip and ecosystem across many devices/device types
3. 24-120Hz VRR capability on new devices -- iphone, ipad and macbook with built in displays
4. A decent market share of loyal apple fans who also have a gaming PC/Xbox on the side.

What they need:
2. Market share and gaming content either by:
a. Ability to port content/games
b. Enticing developers to make popular content for their platforms.

Apple could very well be a name in gaming here before too long. They have the capability to roll out AAA game titles across the entire platform.
The power and efficiency is exactly their because Apple makes their own SoC and writes their own lines.. duhh nobody else is doing this.

Making Macs gaming machines isn't their top priority and also I don't think it should be.
Posted on Reply
#20
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
btarunrFinally AMD will build PC processors with larger iGPUs (think 32 CU or higher).
I would be thrilled if that turned out to be the case. It's almost like Apple stole AMD's old "The future is fusion" slogan. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#21
phanbuey
Bomby569Macs were never cheap, and neither are these, people don't buy Apple for their cheap prices. It was nothing and never has been nothing related to price.
Macs were not 'cheap' but they had good value for money for what they offered. They were also not crazy expensive when taking everything into account. Now - The base M1 is a $1400 device that in some workloads smashes desktop machines that are almost 2x the price. It's not cheap but it's phenomenal value for the money.

If you compare to:


Then these are very competitive for the performance. A $1,400 iPad with an M1X won't be cheap but it will be good value if you can hook it up to your tv and run PS5-quality games on it....
goodeedididThe power and efficiency is exactly their because Apple makes their own SoC and writes their own lines.. duhh nobody else is doing this.

Making Macs gaming machines isn't their top priority and also I don't think it should be.
You mean like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo?... they're 100% doing it.

Expanding macs into the GIANT gaming market is a great way to expand macs in general. There's a ton of demand and opportunity there. Many gamers are aging into being professionals that still love to game, and don't want a UFO looking laptop designed for 15 year olds.
Posted on Reply
#22
MIRTAZAPINE
phanbueyDefinitely the power is there if the software is able to use it... and since apple writes their own software well...

Wonder if the game console skunkworks is still in flight over there.

They have:
1. A high performance API (Metal)
2. A high performance Chip and ecosystem across many devices/device types
3. 24-120Hz VRR capability on new devices -- iphone, ipad and macbook with built in displays
4. A decent market share of loyal apple fans who also have a gaming PC/Xbox on the side.

What they need:
2. Market share and gaming content either by:
a. Ability to port content/games
b. Enticing developers to make popular content for their platforms.

Apple could very well be a name in gaming here before too long. They have the capability to roll out AAA game titles across the entire platform.
You can run Windows games on M1 mac with "Crossover app" though compatibility is still a work in progress. It uses a linux like WIne layer to enable that ability like Linux gaming. I am curious how these new m1 pro chip would do. It amazing how this done on the fly with M1 being a non x86 cpu running x86 apps.

Posted on Reply
#23
TheoneandonlyMrK
phanbueyDefinitely the power is there if the software is able to use it... and since apple writes their own software well...

Wonder if the game console skunkworks is still in flight over there.

They have:
1. A high performance API (Metal)
2. A high performance Chip and ecosystem across many devices/device types
3. 24-120Hz VRR capability on new devices -- iphone, ipad and macbook with built in displays
4. A decent market share of loyal apple fans who also have a gaming PC/Xbox on the side.

What they need:
2. Market share and gaming content either by:
a. Ability to port content/games
b. Enticing developers to make popular content for their platforms.

Apple could very well be a name in gaming here before too long. They have the capability to roll out AAA game titles across the entire platform.
Erm few things, I don't see people being That into paying more for something to game on ,that has a serious lack of storage upgrades , games and peripherals but yeah it Could play games.

I mean if you have it already fine, but I can't see it swinging console or pc gamers on mass though.
Posted on Reply
#24
yotano211
I wondering what 3080 mobile are they talking about. The lowest rated 3080 is 80w, the highest is 150w. With boost it can go from 90w to 165w.
Posted on Reply
#25
Metroid
Is this a joke? Please explain....
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment