RDNA 3 7900XT is gaming card though, a CDNA card would be a better comparison from AMD for productivity workloads. Same with the A770, these cards are primarily focused on maximizing gaming performance per dollar. Any additional productivity capabilities are secondary. The M3 was built around productivity primarily with gaming as an after thought. Nvidia is way ahead in the GPU departnment vs AMD and Intel and hence they can afford to combine gaming with productivity. Comparing some more lower-end Nvidia GPUs like a 4060 or a prev gen 3070 and perhaps even a top-of-the-line 4090-laptop variant would have been pretty good of a comparison against the M3, as those who really care about productivity are not going to look for AMD or Intel gaming cards. And yeah Nvidia also offers tensor cores.
Not true. It depends on what you do. In davinci resolve the 7900xtx is faster than any nvidia card in the overall score. Nvida is much better in 3 d rendering but who does that? I am a photo and video editor.
doesn't matter !!!! NVIDIA has special cores for its proctivity tasks .Only a fool would buy amd for productivity . Some sofwares are not suppoted some crash . GIST OF THE MATTERS IS! AMD IS FOR GAMING@@castielvargastv7931
Can't wait for ULTRA M3. Could see some parity with the 4070. PPW will be not as good, but getting that close in such a small SoC. Crazy! Great video. Your doing gods work here! Thank you.
The M3 Ultra will be somewhere between the desktop 4080 and 4090 in terms of GPU 3D rendering. In terms of GPU compute, it will be about 4090 level. This is based on several predictions (including my own calculations, doubling M3 Max scores minus a very slight efficiency loss)
For me the reasons to not use a Mac atm vs my PC is - I use Redshift for GPU render and have 4090 RTX cards. Apple cannot compare in performance. - The Apple laptops have so little and so expensive nvme disk. I would sometimes put in 3x8TB on my PC and it is still cheaper than 1x8 for Apple. This is frustrating. Sometimes I have a lot of videos on the laptop and 8TB is not enough. - I found that at least before some programs like Resolve etc just worked less good on Apple firmware. I cannot imagine that Redshift is as stable either even though I have tried. - Several of the programs I use are not supported on apple. This is the biggest problem for me. Programs like 3ds Max and the version of Unreal that I work with. Probably several other programs that I do not know of. I do think Apple has a chance to surpass the PCs in performance at a point. They just seem to move at a more aggressive trajectory Plenty of things I like with the Apples, such as very small, does not get as warm, not loud (I hate the loud laptops) etc. I did consider getting a highend M3 laptop for doing some of the more lightweight editing and maybe some audio work. It is hard though to compete with a desktop with 2 or 3 32" monitors.
Is it possible for you to test some of the Quadro cards and compare to the consumer lineup as well as the AMD and Intel options including game performances?
2:09 Apple has set a hardcoded limit od 75% for VRAM to all their Max chipsets so you can't get a 128 GB MacBook and use all 128 GB of its unified memory for VRAM.
Your tech channel rocks! Clear explanations, great visuals, and your passion make it my favorite. Can't wait for more! Slight Request: Please also review the Threadripper Pro 7995WX...Would be wonderful to see that!
Apple M processors were not built (designed) for 3D gpu rendering. I'm waiting from Apple an "X" processor/gpu architecture for serious PRO 3d tasks, 24/7 rendering, upgradable and stackable. Considering the M3 Max performance, if we port it to the M3 Ultra for the next Mac Studio/Pro, I think your "old" dual RTX4090 workstation will perform better with Cycles and Redshift.
Actually no, the M3 graphics engine change was designed by Blender at Apple's behest. Right now, Apple is in a wait for TSMC to get their 2nm chip working.
Wanted to get m3 max, but ended up with rtx 4080 and i9 14900kf because its half the price and much bigger performence, editing videos and 4k gaming, i know that mac is more optimized for video editing but still with these specs i am sure i will get all the results i need :) plus i can game on it
Again, Nvidia beats Apple in speed and efficiency on CUDA and especially tensor cores several times. Not to mention 4090, which is another 2.1 ~ 2.3x faster than 4070. Apple only roughly compares to 4070 by limiting the latter to OpenCL instead of using CUDA, CuDNN and TensorRT libraries to benefit the most from CUDA, tensor and RT cores. --robert jasiek
What did you misunderstand in this video? I mean the video clearl show you that Apple beats all of them in efficiency.. just check the result at about 10:00 the bottom line is the original benchmark result from blender, but the top row (pts/W, so points/Watt..) is the efficiency.. and guess what even Nvidia have negative value there (the red numbers mean that it's less efficient..)
@@TamasKiss-yk4st There are many more applications than you imagine, the video has tested and the scope of Tech Notice is. Some very demanding applications (such as machine learning) use dGPUs, their cores and libraries very well. When comparing speeds and wattages for them on a) Apple silicon and b) x64 CPU and dGPU, one finds efficiency (application object speed per watt): efficiency of such on (b) can be several times as large as on (a). (Due to much larger TDPs, speeds can be even dozens of times faster. It is not only the speeds though but also the efficiencies that are at least several times better for advanced applications.) Tech Notice tests prosumer mainstream: graphics, audio, video, 3D rendering. The channel does not, however, test the most demanding kinds of applications, for which dGPUs excel in comparison to Apple silicon. --robert jasiek
@Michael-px6wm You do know that with desktops, you have to plug them in for them to work, right? Comparing a GPU that goes into a desktop vs a mobile GPU does not work.
Wow Apple matches AMD in Blender performance, the software is not optimized for AMD and Intel graphics. The only thing one should take away from this comparison, is that the 4060 is still better, than the M3 Max.
At least in rendering desktop Nvidia is still king, they’ve had years to optimize for ray tracing. This is literally Apple’s first attempt, and to be this dang close? On a laptop? That earns my respect and I’m definitely keeping my eye on Apple as the likely new ultimate GPU rendering king sometime over the next three years or so.
Per-watt scalability isn't perfect, therefore, I am happy you shared the results. If they scaled to 200W they may lose some 50% of performance per watt and probably end up slightly behind nvidia cutting-edge. That's still absolutely impressive.
Awesome report ! Your channel provides great perspectives! I would add that for creators, like quicksync on Intel , the built in encoding/ decoding offers an attractive option to optimize workflows. The Mini Studio offers an alternative, although the M3 version probably won’t ship until 2HCY24, pending the reveal ( guessing ) in 03/2024. It would be an interesting comparison with 7900XTX / 4090 / ARC top end with 76 GPU core mini studio.
Apple really is ahead of the game here. But idk if I can justify myself spending $4000 to $5000 for a laptop. At that point I could get a RTX 4090 for $1800-$2000 to upgrade my own workstation PC. But on the other hand... having a Laptop that powerful on the go is super impressive.
It's worth pointing out that the GB6 compute workloads are the same irrespective of API so they can be compared in terms of pure outcome - not a bad comparison. But you're not just comparing the hardware, you're comparing the software + API optimisation. This says more about the level of commitment to the API than HW performance i.e. Apple deprecated OpenCL many years ago. Best to stick with the 'best' API for the hardware so Apple:Metal, AMD:Vulkan, Nvidia:CUDA.
Keep in mind that you can’t run a 70b parameters LLM on a 4090. The dedicated graphics are great for gaming but not quite there for large language models. M3 won’t be as fast as 4090 but is fast enough to run some of the very large LLM due to its unified RAM. You can run 70b on the A6000 Nvidia in which case will cost the same as an M3 Max.
Excellent review! Your tech channel has awesome creators' content benchmarks. a request can you compare with current RTX 4080 or 4090 laptops with Apple M3 Max.
I think the main reason m3 is fast at low power consumption is because they have everything in One chip and directly soldered on to board with OS build with one specific hardware in mind unlike other and of course expensive Good for people who can afford and want the best of the best experience no matter the cost
People who want the best of the best wont buy a mac will buy a Xeon system where the GPU is more expensive than any mac. People doesnt buy windows because they cant afford a mac . The more powerful desktops money can buy are not macs.
@@Teluric2 a seen a person playing cyberpunk on mac with emulation it was not that great but it was excellent for a laptop which is working on battery and no cooling . I am not an Apple fan i would never buy an Apple product if there is a alternative but after looking at performance of m3 with only battery and no cooling i was amazed performance of m3 is no joke even if they are expensive
Good explanations of things however this doesn't cover the compute engine difference of Blender on Mac vs AMD vs Nvidia (Apple Silicon / Metal / CUDA) and while I know you can't make the render choose the same engine type across all scenes, it's a huge note to not even mention this as a caveat. 4070 or the 7900 might be the most comparable cards but it's too bad you couldn't include higher SKUs. If you do a lot of 3D work, a 4090 for example goes far beyond the results shown. You might have more VRAM for bigger scenes but my wonder is if you can easily find a scene that would exceed say, 24 or 48 GB of VRAM, does the M-Series have enough grunt to even render a scene that complex?
Nice video. would someone please tell about the Intel Arc 770, g. cards, which brand of manufacturer are better, in durability and construcction quality and preformance? Asrock. Sparkle. Acer. any other? thank you in advance
Hi TN! could you make an updated video comparing the 1080 Ti to the new option available* assuming us can get our hands on some of them for whatever reason?
A Davinci Resolve comparison on video editing would’ve been nice… oh well Yeah portability wise Apple SOLOS windows laptops low/NO DIFF! But honestly you can get good performance on a Mac Mini/Studio if you don’t need portability for cheaper than a MacBook… Anyways I am planning to build my very first PC, 4070 is nice but I’ll bump it up to the TI Super instead with an i5 13600k etc. I’ll also get whatever Apple mac mini/studio M2 or M3 around WWDC cuz I wanna try out both Windows and Mac OS. I’ll use them for gaming, video editing, YT, work/everyday usage, both are nice.
I am using the M1 max 32core GPU in a Mac studio for BOINC. But except for PrimeGrid, with permanent errors, there is no app,using this efficient GPU😢 I would compare it to a RTX3080.
Definitly no 60fps on 1440p resolution highest settings. Apple’s 40 core gpu is powerfull but not meant for gaming. Lack of support and poor game optimization.
Hard to say. It would be better to compare games that have proper support on Apple Silicon and x86. Baldurs Gate 3 and Death Stranding would be better comparison points
It will be interesting to see AMD and Nvidia's response to Windows on ARM's built in GPU performance (if that's the route they take) and if it allows for dGPU in the next few years.
Nvidia has done ARM processors before and are doing one for the upcoming Nintendo Switch successor. Nvidia isn’t new to the SoC market and I wonder what they could come up with in the future
In fact it shows me that I made good decision buying 4070... M3 MAX feels like overhyped and overpriced and energy consumption won't make for price difference even in 10 years. Of course M3 will have it's uses for people who need powerfull and power-efficient portable device, but I don't see any other cases. Also I don't really like idea of ARM. If anything broke it's hard or impossible to repair or replace it.
Bloody hell. Apples really gaining ground and fast. Grrrrr. . Gonna have to pay that bloody apple fan boy tax soon. These things are going to tear new ones in the established world order.
Can’t really compare a 7900xt with a 4070, also you should be comparing a 4090, 7900 xtx(even though it’s a gaming card) and intel isn’t even in the comparison.
I'm really confused by what this video is trying to get at, but here's my take: Apple's M3 line-up is indeed incredibly powerful and more importantly, power efficient, but you seem to compare it to desktop GPUs which tend to eat more power than a typical laptop would, and considering that performance doesn't really scale linearly with every watt, it is no surprise that the M3 managed to outdo all of them, a more fair comparison would be a laptop 4070, especially considering the theme was power efficiency.
Point is to find out how good is the laptop performance and what would be the desktop equivalent too see how much GPU power can we carry in a backpack :)
The premise of the comparison is confusing to begin with. If I'm not mistaken, A770 is only priced at $300 and 4070 is at $500 on Amazon versus a $4000 laptop. They of course consume more power since they're designed for desktop use. If you want at a near comparable test, a laptop with RTX4090 should have been used which is priced just below $4000. I was wondering if this video was sponsored by Apple =).
@@louieg7676 Yeah I suppose that about makes sense, it's a weird comparison to make considering it's common knowledge that performance does not scale linearly power, so desktops choose to throw in extra power consumption for the sake of affording that little extra performance. But yes like you mentioned a valid comparison would've been a 4090 laptop, at which point you would defeat the purpose of comparing it to a PC, but then at that point, you should be comparing it to an equally priced PC, which would most likely sport 4090
@@Gokulbalram Yeah, you're right. It's silly to compare M3 Max to a Desktop anyway if you're going to put emphasis on performance per watt. When you cherry pick the aspects to test and ignoring others like the price, actually performance on applications and thermal performance, then it's no longer a fair review but a biased promotion. I read that Macbook sales dropped ~30% as of Dec2023 so this review sounded like a promotion to me.
Apple should start selling x86 compatible video cards at $499 based on M3 Graphics. They would make a killing, and put the rest of video card makers to shame. It's sad a tiny GPU m3 has, puts to shame these massive 200 times bigger cards in some respects.
I think we should wait for the M3 Mac Studios to come out. The M3 Max version will be about half this much, and much less than a 4090 PC. Once the M3 Ultra model comes out, it will be a similar price to a 4090 PC. At that point, it will be a fair desktop-to-desktop comparison, where the M3 Ultra this year will easily be able to hold its own against a 4090, and the M3 Max can go against the 4060, 4070 etc ...and apparently everything from the other brands 😂 Plus, in other tasks like photo editing, animation and graphic design, and of course video editing, Mac GPUs can already beat desktop Nvidia cards; I sold my 4080 PC because my M2 Max MBP from last year smokes it in my video and animation work.
Hey i like your content im trying to build a home studio but i got this question do i need a silent case for the Pc o is doesn’t matter ? i think you can talk about that i haven’t seen someone talking about that ( sorry if i write something wrong, i’m still learning, im from mexico by the way) 🫶
Even engineers appreciate tools that are low power, high performance, and easy to use. A nas is a tool, not a flexing object, low TCO is important in long run.
I would buy APPLE no problem if they had swappable and expendable NVME Pci E 5.0 SSDs. Understand their unified SoC architecture does not allow for expandable RAM.
Asus Rog Zephyrus G16 2024 with Intel Core ultra 9 and rtx 4090 is much much better overall package than any apple laptop. Intel Core ultra is also much much efficient and providing great battery life. Zephyrus G16 2024 has macbook pro 2023 level of speakers so G16 has no compromise. Upcoming Arrow Lake and rtx 5090 laptops in ces 2025 will be insanely efficient and powerful because nvidia will use tsmc 3nm and Intel will use intel 20A.
core ultra 185h is barely scratching binned 11core m3pro performance, more like equal to a binned 10c m2pro. Stop the BS, the m3max is on par with a 14900K smoking the shit out of a 14900hx. The mobile4090 is somewhat more powerful if given at least 130w power. So no, macbook is by far the best laptop and has no competition so stop dreaming. Arrow lake will still be slower than an outgoing m3max with much worse efficiency. I hope m4max is going to be as much of an upgrade as m2max to m3max! M3max is the absolute winner the king the best and there s nothing u can do about it. FORGET CINEBENCH!
@@Phan1hs Hp pavilion Plus 14 (68 Wh) with #AMD 7840U has 10 to 11 hours of BATTERY. Hp spectre x360 14 (68 Wh) with #Intel Core ULTRA 7 155H has 14 to 15 hours of BATTERY. 😱 Intel laptops BATTERY life is as good as MacBook M2/M3 even though Intel is using Tiles/Chiplet. Impressive🤯 💪
Pretentious junk? Do you see it beating AMD and Intel’s most powerful graphics cards? I’d hardly laugh at that in a laptop. Yes of course you can buy a 500 watt 4090 for a couple grand, and put it in a desktop. But try a 4090 LAPTOP version… uh-oh, the advantage over the M3 Max seems to be gone! Nvidia should actually be really scared right now. When the Mac Studio comes out with M3, people can get this M3 Max performance for $2,000. And for $4,000, they will be able to get the M3 Ultra, which will be two of these M3 Maxes basically fused together for double the performance... including in 3D rendering. Even the most powerful 4090 for desktop should be very scared about that.
Strange review. The most expensive Apple chip against one of the cheapest Nvidia chips, the 4070.. and the 4070 still wins. Do you realize that for the price of that Mac you could have one of the latest threadrippers with a 4090?
This isn’t a comparison of desktops. When the Mac Studio comes out with this chip for half the price, then they can be fairly compared (and the M3 Max will be clocked slightly higher because it’s in a desktop). But for $4000 the M3 Ultra, which is two fused M3 Maxes, will exactly double the performance to get 3D rendering capabilities of cards like the 4090.
@@Epicgamer_Mac If it is bit a comparison about desktops, what is a 4070 doing there? and yeah, when the next gen Mac comes it will be faster than current model, but also the 5090 that is coming this year
@@Epicgamer_Mac4090 is two years old. M3 definitely is impressive but you'd be naive to think Apple can take down Nvidia so easily. 5090 is coming, yeah, but they're also building their SoCs. More competition will be great! I just hope in the end it translates to better pricing for us consumers
and you returned it. yeh they got battery life, thats all they got going for them. but still, in todays society, you going to go sit outside with your $5000 laptop, with a ssd hanging out the side? Start building Hackintosh for budget or overkill, im building one out of a few generations old parts, and i bet, it will compete just fine.
Keep in mind that you can’t run a 70b parameters LLM on a 4090. The dedicated graphics are great for gaming but not quite there for large language models. M3 won’t be as fast as 4090 but is fast enough to run some of the very large LLM due to its unified RAM. You can run 70b on the A6000 Nvidia in which case will cost the same as an M3 Max.
For blender its astonishing that 300+ watt gpu is falling behind a 70ish watt gpu that also run on battery. Also unified memory will help in vram intensive renders than any others in the list. The two main problems with Apple are price & upgradabilty.
Yeah, apple silicon is insanely efficient. but, 4000$ vs 700$ vs 600$, no upgradability of storage or RAM is no good at 4000 bucks am building a 4090 or 4080 super desktop or am getting a RTX 4080 laptop for 2K or RTX 4090 laptop for 2.6K I don't mind extra weight and "not so efficient laptop processor." with extra money I can upgrade my SSD and RAM.
@@tharunkumarp3110 exactly, there are various alternatives when you look towards windows pc. You wil surely get multiple time higher performance on windows laptops if you invest significantly lesser money than Apple . But efficiency & comparatively long battery backup than windows laptops while using as portable workstation (cpu & gpu load) is surprisingly good.
@@tharunkumarp3110, for the "little" price difference you can buy a big solar panel and battery, to run your system on free electricity. ^^ Not to forget about the Mac's SSD getting toasted by too less memory and turning the system into trash, when failing. Genius design, in the eyes of the marketing guys.
the GPU is only 35 watts and the RAM is plenty at 48GB and good luck getting a graphics card with half of that RAM. Also once M3 hits desktop it’ll be around 2k for the base M3 Max
You got to put a plus sign in front of the percentage difference. There is a huge difference between saying it's 95% of the power or it's +95%. Please get it right.
Can you try unreal engine 5 render with lumen and path tracing. Amd hip rt and intel embree are still expiremental on cycles. Metal RT on the other hand was eaily implemented, i guess that's the power of a teillion dollar company.
@@GlobalWave1 A 4090 computer is the price of an M3 Max. M3 Ultra's price will be more comparable to having 2 4090s or an HEDT setup with a workstation card.
@@JFrameManI say screw the price, we already know there’s an Apple tax. Sure it’s $4000 but it’s also 40 watts. Where else can you get that?? Alternatively, wait for the M3 Mac Studios to come out. The M3 Max version will be about half this much, and much less than a 4090 PC. Once the M3 Ultra model comes out, it will be a similar price to a 4090 PC. At that point, it will be a fair desktop-to-desktop comparison, where the M3 Ultra this year will easily be able to hold its own against a 4090 or Quadro 8000 workstation PC, and the M3 Max can go against the 4060, 4070 etc …and apparently everything from the other brands regardless of tier or price 😂 Also let’s not forget that this is a test of 3D rendering, a space that Nvidia has been king for years and had lots of experience, compared to Apple’s first attempt. In pretty much everything else, unless you’re a gamer (or your game just doesn’t work on Mac), Nvidia can be beat by much lower tier Apple silicon hardware that you’d never expect to win, simply because Apple is so optimized and great in real-world tasks. Case in point, I sold my 4080 desktop PC months ago because 1) I don’t game anymore, and 2) my previous-year MacBook Pro with M2 Max was matching it in everything else I was doing and smoking it in my video editing hobby.
@@JFrameMan The problem with 2 4090’s is software doesn’t often utilize both cards at once. I don’t often care for price point between Apple and say non Apple in that we know Apple charges a premium and if your buying an ultra chip, well money isn’t the biggest issue. Also comparing the M3 max here is using a laptop not a desktop so comparison is already much different.
