Leaked MacBook Air GB5 benchmark shows score higher than 16-inch MacBook Pro; SC higher than 5950X

[saltycaramel]

8 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

no, that's pretty bad.

At 1440p it beats by 10% fps the 2018 15.4” MBPs with Radeon Pro Vega 20 with HBM2 memory and double the cooling. 

If that’s a pretty bad result for integrated graphics..

[Spindel]

38 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

At 1440p it beats by 10% fps the 2018 15.4” MBPs with Radeon Pro Vega 20 with HMB2 memory and double the cooling. 

If that’s a pretty bad result for integrated graphics..

But does it beat my GTX780M? 

[saltycaramel]

1 hour ago, Spindel said:

But does it beat my GTX780M? 

Definitely, at 1440p Aztec Ruin the M1 does 77fps vs the GTX780M in the 2013 iMac does 52fps in Metal (and 57fps DirectX under Windows anyway).

 

In general it beats the GPU of ANY desktop Mac sold before June 2017 (the AMD M395X, the fastest up to that point, does 66fps) and ANY laptop Mac sold before November 2019 (the Vega 20, the fastest up to that point, does 70fps).

 

I wonder if the M1X in the 14” MBP next spring will just double the performance cores of the CPU or also improve on the already strong GPU.

 

Whereas I have no doubt the 16” MBP will have an improved GPU.

[saltycaramel]

Cinebench:

 

 

[Dracarris]

On 11/13/2020 at 5:19 PM, saltycaramel said:

Or maybe, for such an endeavour, 1-2 years IS overnight?

Absolutely. The engineering effort to provide even decent end-user experience is insane even for a company like Apple.

 

May I attach Exhibit 1, the Surface Book X?

[Dracarris]

On 11/13/2020 at 10:32 PM, saltycaramel said:

there’s no separate GPU to be found anywhere

these are custom System-on-Chip like the Apple M1

CPU and GPU are together

plus, memory is shared by CPU and GPU, there’s no dedicated video memory, like on the Apple M1

The one thing I do not get is why everyone, including Apple, calls these designs System-on-Chip (SoC). A SoC is a clearly defined industry term and just plain wrong here. These are SiCs - System-in-Package. As soon as you have multiple dies, usually in different tech nodes, in the same package, we are not dealing with a chip anymore. The short and tightly-controlled inter-chip communication lines still offer a lot of advantages, but in the end it is still a tiny PCB with several chips on it, placed horizontally or vertically or both.

[saltycaramel]

I am under the impression everything except the RAM (seen on the right) is on the same die and 5nm node?

 

 

[Dracarris]

10 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

I am under the impression everything except the RAM (seen on the right) is on the same die and 5nm node?

Sure. That still makes it a SiP. If they integrated DRAM and the Processor on the same die, now that would truly be something. This is basically still impossible since regular CMOS circuits and DRAMs use vastly different process steps/stacks.

[saltycaramel]

I see what you mean, I think we could say we see a RAM-less storage-less SoC in the context of a SiP, and that is already pretty something that they managed to “SoC-ify” a lot with that kind of performance, compared to say a Kaby Lake G where the Vega GPU was on a separate die. (incidentally the on-die GPU of the M1 is almost as fast as the Kaby Lake G GPU, when dealing with the Metal api). 

 

I think the day of a true SoC (in the context of consumer PCs) with really the whole system (including RAM and mass storage) is far away (besides it being technically currently not feasible as you described) also because we’d need to have reached the point of a one-size-fits-all of RAM size and storage size. (or at least a-few-sizes-fit-all) Whereas for the time being it’s convenient to just fab one die and customize RAM and flash storage separately for the various SKUs. RAM on die currently doesn’t make not only technical but also commercial sense.

 

Speaking of one-size-fits-all, for these 3 machines Apple just went from 6 different Intel CPU parts o just 1 Apple part (in 3 different thermal envelopes)...that’s another cool thing...I think we’ll see the same for other “groups” of Macs...

[saltycaramel]

here we are, in all its beauty

 

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

1 hour ago, saltycaramel said:

here we are, in all its beauty

 

I really didn't think that graphical representation at the event would be the same as the real chip, but I stand corrected.

 

Did they really just put thermal compound on the RAM chips and call it a day?

 

I wonder how this whole Apple Silicon thing is going to work with the Mac Pro and the iMac Pro, I don't think they'll get rid of the sockets. It would be more trouble than it's worth to have it soldered to the board. But then will chips be interchangeable, or will it be locked out by software? And how will RAM work because for a fact they're not gonna be "unified". That would cost way too much money on systems Apple doesn't see much profit on.