Game developer with a decade of experience in Unity here. The load test isn't completely apples to apples unfortunately. The primary difference coming from shader compilation. You can see at the top of the Unity window that it says for the project running on Mac. In this case when you open the project it compiles the shaders for the platform you are running on. As such it can have an impact on the load times for the project - only the first launch though. Once this process happens it creates a Library folder inside your project folder and caches those shaders, compiled scripts, etc to speed up subsequent work. From a developer's perspective the main comparison depends on build targets. If you are making a game for iOS you obviously *need* a Mac. If you are making a high fidelity game targeting any platform you would unfortunately need a Windows/Linux machine with DX12 or Vuklan support as many modern graphics features are not supported on Metal (Raytracing being a prime example). Also - I haven't tested this personally - but building lightmaps would be much faster on Windows with an Nvidia GPU due to the acceleration features it offers. But of course - if none of those features are needed then a Mac is good enough for development.
@@daveh6356 for all practical game dev purposes (which is the context here) it's not there. You can't really make a raytraced game on that sort of hardware - especially considering the fact that developing a game is way more resource intensive than running a release build of the same.
@@daveh6356 metal is the graphics API that runs exclusively on Apple hardware. They're one and the same for all practical purposes. As an example neither Unity nor Unreal support hardware raytracing on Metal - because it wouldn't make sense.
Yes Lightbaking is extremely fast with Progressive GPU on a supported Windows GPU but I was pleasantly surprised how fast a M1Pro is with Lightbaking aswell, especially because the general rendering performance in like blender or other 3D application is not very good or fast. Thats even more impressive is because I used 2020 LTS which isnt native ARM :D
Im using a 5600H ryzen cpu with a 3050 laptop gpu for unity and I don’t get sooo different loading times from the windows system. Don’t know what’s up with that. Maybe it’s on the memory bandwidth I don’t know 🤷♀️
Nothing strange. They load 100% and give you everything they can give. FPS is almost double and much more stable. And 3080 Ti is utilizing "10 nm" generation low power process Samsung 8N, while M1 Ultra utilizing "5 nm" generation low power process TSMC N5. So it's 2 generations behind. High power TSMC N5 is only getting ready this year. When dGPUs on HP TSMC N5 are release they will leave M1 Ultra far far behind.
If it weren't for the GPU performance in 3d rendering, final and real time, these Mac's would be perfect machines. Low power, no noise, optimised to work well for to r the SoC and that sweet sweet shared memory. Shared Ram for 3D is amazing.
@@DerekDavis213 It depends. I'm a professional Web, Mobile, Platform developer that work from home. In my case 10sec on build time doesn't justifity 5x power consumption.
@@EttoreEsposito A professional developer would earn $100,000 or more in USA. 5x power consumption means maybe $10 more per month on the electric bill. But faster build time makes you *MUCH* more productive in your job. Can you see why lower power consumption on the Mac means *nothing* to developers that are making good salaries?
As a software and game dev, the compilers are different on those platforms. And a compiler which has much better optimization capability can often be much slower. But the end product - the game - runs much faster. Also, need to make sure the rigs have identical NVMe SSD-s, because importing operations and large asset prepacking is often heavily disk IO limited.
The Mac builds should be set to x86 output only. A universal build will take twice as long. This will make for a better comparison when testing systems. But cross compiling to Linux should also work well.
@@edmondhung6097 we're referring to build times not execution FPS. Metal should improve FPS but an optimal Apple Silicon build should ensure the CPU doesn't throttle those tasks. It also allows high-performance SIMD & AMX functions which Rosetta translation doesn't.
Issue: Mac builds are for TWO chip sets. Intel are for just one. Change the Mac to only build for its native chip, and that would be fair. Then, later you can analyze OS and chip variances.
200 a yar is not all that mutch, considering that fine spec mac is 1.5k more expensive than a same spec windows machine... 1.5k/200 is a 7.5yars, so after 7.5 yars mac will pay of, ofc if you will keep it for that long and/or it wont break
@@racistpixel1017 with the current situation with energy contracts in Europa who the prices increases each month in the long run you probilaly better choose the Mac
@@dutchdaniel9972 well im from europe, i pay 12euros a month for electricity. I know the amount of wattage compared to Windows machine seems huge, but when you convert it to actually usage time a day the amount of money you pay is only few extra euros.
I'm planning a new Windows dev machine and disappointed to discover that we don't have proper modern HEDT chips (with 30+ cores or so). Threadripper is stuck at Zen2 and Intel have been missing in action. Really sad that the only choice is either 12900 or 5950X. And the next closest option is $10K+ Xeon/ThreadripperPRO workstations. The M1 Ultra is starting to look attractive I must say!
I think the Mac is almost double the price. You can easily afford an rtx 3090 and have 1.500€ remaining in your pocket. With the 3090 you will beat the ultra easily (there are some Benchmarks on UA-cam already) and in the comment sections several people did the calculation. You can neglect the decreased Power consumption. It is around 70 Dollars per year (depends where you live).
@@donnik7064 You won't be requiring extra stuff for mac as for windows you will have to buy a motherboard, storage drives, ram, a processor, a Cpu shell and coolents too. Some benchmarks suggest m1 ultra is beast some suggest intel and 3090 are beast, but in real world performance both are highly competitive and mac when software is optimised for metal, nails it.
@@rajnishg244 I already included Windows parts in my calculation. Now after 2months it is even more obvious since gpu prices decreased drastically. Sorry also no. Check Tech Notice's channel where he examined Apples Mac Studio chart and came to the result that it is extremely misleading or they are even lying. After tons of reviews it is clear that on gpu Power the maxed out Studio compares to an rtx3050 which is really not that much. Regarding your optimization: did you consider that Intel, AMD, nvidia are not sleeping? Right now there are already first Benchmarks of 13900k with significant Performance increase. Nvidia rtx 4090 Benchmarks with upcoming 120% Performance increase compared to 3090 (source gamermeld) and AMD with mcm Design which is actually the future of Chips. And then you remember how many people said that second Apple Chip Generation will be Great. In fact it is not. It is no big jump compared to M1. So either Apple delivers M3 immediately with at least >50% Performance increase or I dont know how they can compete... Even Performance per Watt was reviewed and Windows also beats Apple (source Tech Notice). Just Look at all the reviews and Outlooks in YT. Apple does a Great Job in designing and and absolutely Stunning Job in Marketing (as always), but now let's see if they can hold up the upcoming years...
@@donnik7064 they will hold good with foto guys that could rock a 1000$ beast editing pc buying a 4000$ future paperweight and small creators that are stuck in adobe/mac apps.
I hope for the M2 this year, Apple will introduce a major GPU architecture upgrade incl. raytracing. Nvidia RT & DLSS is kinda the only thing that makes me still consider a PC as next machine.
Same. Nvidia hardware + software is really hard to beat in creative/rendering/audiovisual productions. I'm even considering rocking two laptops and switch between them based on what I need to do
@@racistpixel1017 M2 but not M2 Pro/Max/Ultra. The M2 Pro might not have just 25% more performance, instead it will add a lot of GPU cores AND it might be done with 3nm instead of 5nm (normal M2) which would give it another big performance boost!
Good video as always. 48 core is probably akin to 3070 though which means the 64 core version should give the pc a good run for its money. We live in interesting times
@@AngryApple Only because of unoptimized software. The PCMR nerds laugh at the M1 Ultra because it only gets 25fps in some AAA game in CrossOver that is being translated from x86 to ARM and the GPU API calls are translated from DirectX to Vulkan to then Metal. Duh? Powerful hardware can only speed through so much unoptimization. In optimized tasks and benchmarks it's more akin to a 3080 Ti.
@@utubekullanicisi No in pure compute the 64GPU isnt capable of the same performance as a 3080ti. Its more of a 3070. This device is not a gaming machine so you need to compare these things with actual work stuff. Apple GPUs are so energy optimized because they lack some features. Its a similar philosophy what a RISC based CPU like the M1 does. Reduced Instructions for the general purpose. On high compute stuff like offline 3D rendering this currently holds them back. Sure you can optimize for it, but why should you convolute your software so this GPU knows more directly what to do instead of just giving in standardised instructions but the gpu has to figure it out on there own. Its not the software in this case, its the hardwares fault here. Imagine you need to change your software so you can multiply some numbers but the hardware cant have a multiply instructions so the solution is to use add instructions over and over again, which makes it slower. You can A save these kind of instructions for these kind of chips or B you can give the chip the multiply instruction and the chip does the add instruction on its own which makes it slower but easier for devs. Metal is a lackluster Graphics API, it has so many missing features, there is no feature parity between Vulkan, DX12. I have a M1 Pro and a Windows PC with just a 1070, guess which one is faster in every 3D stuff, native on both platform. Yes the 1070, there is no competition only in the power draw. And with the 1070 you not even get the benefits with OptiX
Why didn't you expand the windows to full screen to ensure that the GPU is forced to pump pixels? Unity & GPU pipeline might be clever if you set to 4k but only use a small window (not sure). You spent half the video on scene creation tests? I don't think this is very different to more coder like tests and you aren't testing the GPU at all. Perhaps you should have exported a 10+ minute 4k sequence to disk using Unity, that would have been a good test for cinematics and would also be representative of frame rate bandwidth that would be more tightly monitored that monitoring live FPS. Good that you're trying to showcase outside of Nativescript, haha, no shade. Coder here that used to code in the VFX industry and then Fintech a long time ago.
i like this ,......but is a ddr5 comparing?..........and where is the new power suply for the new intel and nvidia plugs?..........and why is not comparing the power from the monitors?a apple monitor to the apple product and a samsung for the intel product?something that looks the same?
The PC can be upgraded to RTX 4090 or Radeon 7950 XT when they're released later this year for even more graphical power... but the Mac Studio as impressive at it is can not be upgraded. Something to keep in mind over the life of the machine. Tradeoffs. On the one hand the Studio is small, runs cool, power efficient, compiles code quite quickly, but its GPU performance is baked in. The PC on the other hand is a power consumption beast, but can be upgraded to better GPU hardware when they're available, thanks to PCI express.
Not only that but every component can be upgrade/swapped out. Right now the Mac Studio has a better CPU performance (in multi-core) but what about late this year/early next when Intel releases their new CPUs? Just pop this one out and put that one in and you're good to go. Project filling up all your drive space? Upgrade to a larger SSD. With the Mac Studio, you now have to replace the entire machine. But yes, the Mac Studio is really cool being so small and drawing so little power. It's just a shame that in order to achieve this Apple made everything non replacable/upgradable...
@@Watchandlearn91 precisely. Apple used to be more modular I’ve upgraded a few MacBook pros back in the day with more ram and ssd storage (vs a spinning platter). Raptor Lake will slot right into z690 for an instant upgrade. I wonder if meteor lake will be supported on z690 when it comes out next year? I like what apple is doing but I also prefer modularity. as you say I like that on pc we can use stock nvme storage and upgrade when necessary. I mean with apple you can add thunderbolt storage but that is still an external solution. Hopefully apple makes some of its future macs modular again but I’m not holding my breath.
@@j340_official MacStudio is not designed to be upgraded, it caters to a specific market that don't upgrade internals and care about fan noise and power usage (i.e. me). For those wanting a Mac and expansion, you have to wait for the MacPro expected in June at WWDC. It is expected to be similar modular expandable design as most of the previous MacPros including the current Xeon based MacPro. @Alex Ziskind thanks for the great video. You've assisted my own choice.
@@lukekirkwood your money your choice. The studio has removable storage modules which means that its storage isn’t soldered down as it is in Apple’s notebooks and iMacs. Yet apple chose to not implement an m.2 nvme connector, and instead uses some proprietary connector. Also, at least for now, Apple locked down the ability to swap out the Studio’s storage for larger modules. macOS works and boots just fine from standard pcie4.0 nvme storage like say a WD Black SN850 nvme disk. Apple is purposefully preventing studio users from upgrading their storage. It’s fine that you don’t care about such things, it’s your money. But some of us prefer modularity, especially when it comes to adding storage after the fact, rather than paying the Apple tax up front for a storage size you think you’ll need. Enjoy 😊.
Well, since the player base with the top gfx cards is not that big and developers always need to aim at the mid / low segments - the FPS during gameplay testing, especially inside the Unity Editor, do not matter that much... Assets import / compilation / build times matter a lot more so I guess that's a win for the Mac Studio.
well the other key factors to consider. are you developing for pc? if so you need to test it on pc. how mutch that mac cost compared to a pc? what other tools do you use for mac, blender, maya, sketchup(they all under deliver on m1), some small 3rd party tools available only on pc, for example to generate material with all the maps, some handy vector graphics tools, audio generation engines... 98% of those tools used by devs is not available on mac or m1 and newer will and to shave of like 10-20 seconds from build time or 3 seconds from compile time is at my own as one who work with unity for 7-8 yars, is pointless... also do you have plans to future proof it? how long will you make games on it? on windows you just swap new gpu, on mac you stuck on one, after one generation you even wont be able to make intermediate graphics of that yar
@@racistpixel1017 You need to test it on pc ONCE, I wouldnt buy a windows machine just because of that. Also Blender runs INSANELY good on M1 and most windows apps run perfectly through CrossOver. But if no one is switching to Mac because XY is missing it will be a vicious cycle of no one developing tools for Mac because no one is using it for game dev. Tools are only developed for Windows because there are a lot of users in that area.
@@Andrew-tl9gk you not testing it once, you are testing it constantly. im games developer, worked on mobile, vr, pc games. you literally testing it constantly, not just that is it works but how well works, optimising, and what if it doesnt work? you fix and test again
thanks a lot for this video :) and what do u think about the vr devlpemnt using mac and for creating textures and modeling using blender and photoshop or other from adobe ?
Most impressive things is power usage, a fantastic win for Apple. Regarding testing, I would assume that SSD in that Alienware would have the greatest impact. Do you know what model it is?
I was positively destructed by the soundbed and your entertaining stuff. What was the point? 😂😂 Apple Silicon needs far more GPU and CPU cores and will be really interesting when it gets GPU 128, 60 CPU cores, all on 3 or 2.5 nanometers.
i haven’t heard this before from any macs. not super familiar with coil whine, but it doesn’t sound like the one from the LTT video i just watched. i might create a short video demonstrating this to see if anyone can identify the sound (whether it’s coil whine or not)
Metric suggestion: reset the power meter before all the tests and read the total kW consumption after all the shooting. I bet the Mac Studio is WAY better for the planet and the energy bill.
So where are the specs?, I cannot find it. I would love to see what disc you used in that tower. I find Unity building Much faster if you have 2 drives and one of them handle project, while the other do OS and Unity binaries. You want as high throughput on disc/ram/compute as you can, and Mac wins on ram, while can lose on other 2.
Also should be noted that you have the 48-core GPU M1 Ultra, not the 64-core one. The comparison bw the 64-core version and 3080 should be even closer, and at 1/5th the total system power draw.
If you raise to 64 the core in the CPU of the M1, I believe that the total power usage would be higher. By the way M1 is on 5nm TSMC and Nvidia card is on 7nm Samsung... this make a big difference!
@@webproximity5385 but still when rtx 4060 it still will consume 250-350W. So apple will technically still have an efficiency crown. But rtx 4060 will probz cost $499-$550
@@mosesdavid5536 yeah sure, but performance of rtx 40x0 will be a lot better than M1. The problem in this moment is that performance are similar (in some use case) but normal PC use 10 time the power of Apple solutions!
Thanks Alex. 53W power draw is about half the ~105W maximum for the 64c M1 Ultra so that's not really optimal. I wonder if full use would read as 200% on Activity Monitor. Also, wouldn't Universal builds take longer - double the compilation for two ISAs?
@@Andrew-tl9gk he shows 117W total power draw but power metrics shows only ~53,000mW for the GPU. I would love to see software pulling 117W from the Ultra GPU - I think the closest is GFX Bench which outperforms a 3090.
You know that it is an ARM so everything is together in one chip? I doubt the GPU cores alone will draw the full power that the full machine could max take (120W for the M1 Max)
@@Andrew-tl9gk It's an SoC (the ARM CPU ISA is irrelevant) - I have an M1 so I know how to read power metrics which shows the wattage of each silicon block (pause the video in the last few minutes to see the screen). The theoretical max consumption for the whole SoC is around 180W (60W CPU + 120W GPU). The main issue with Apple Silicon isn't hardware capability, it's software optimisation. But it's getting there - check out Resident Evil Village.
I think the Mac Studio M1 Max base model has a max of 125W total. I know about the software because I use Blender and Unity and both run INCREDIBLE on Silicon. But even tho tons of Unity games are out there the developers didnt compile the games for Mac (which would be done super easily)
The power consumption difference is huge, but don't forget that the price tag is a lot different. $4000 for the M1 Ultra 20/48 with 64GB of memory and 1TB SSD, but you can easily build a PC with 12900K - 3080 Ti - 64GB - 1TB SSD... for less than $2500, and it's upgradable
One of the things about unified memory that intrigued me was being able to access all of the memory for video ram…so essentially being able to access 64gb of video ram for very demanding tasks…I have a 3060 and frequently use all 12gb when in ue5….(I don’t do a lot of optimization)😊….so my question is….have you noticed the Mac Studio being able to do this…I would imagine you would need a very demanding scene…thanks 😊
Alex is the performance lag in the Mac related to swap? These M1 machines with unified memory do a lot more memory swap, in a game I think it will be more noticeable.
Alex have you noticed that when you compile the same app across all OS platforms the Mac one is the smallest, followed closely by Linux and Windows version is the largest. It would be interesting to see how that translates in execution size of the app (sort of wondered about that).
Considering you got the 48 GPU core machine, those numbers seems pretty good. You should get around 33% better FPS with the 64 GPU core Mac Studio. I have a question though. Were RTX capabilities used in the game on Windows ? This could be a drag on performances.
Great video, I think though, that few people get what apple is pulling off here. They have in a single chip, what is a discrete GPU and CPU and Memory on the windows machine, use a fourth or fifth of the power and still are almost matching performance. Also, What's that accent? It's nice,
My experience as a Unity Dev on booth Operating Systems. Unity gets really really slow the more you do, like adding scripts and other stuff. In my experience macs are getting slower faster and harder than windows machines and this doesnt really change how powerful the hardware is. I like my M1 Pro MacBook but working with Unity is way better on Windows, well except you need to do iOS projects. Also the Game Window Performance under Mac is sometimes limited because, I dont know. Builds are usually runs quite faster than what the Game Window gives you, and that has nothing to do with debugging because that only explains a small difference but not sometimes a different of two times 😅
For a professional developer, does wattage used by the PC matter? At all? The best tool for the job is Windows with NVidia 3080 or 3090. A few extra dollars on the electricity bill means nothing.
the electricity will pay of after like a 10 years with mac. for the price of mac you can get a 3090 and still have 1k+ left and the difference between pc and mac is 70$ a year for electricity
@@racistpixel1017 Where do you live? Because in America, 70$ a year for electricity means *NOTHING* . A powerful Windows workstation with Ryzen or 12th-generation Intel cpu, and NVidia 3080 or 3090 is *light* *years* better than a Mac for professional users, or people that enjoy games. Mac is terrible for gaming! And the PC will be much cheaper than the Mac too. There is a good reason why Windows has 90% market share. The biggest, richest corporations in America have *ZERO* interest in the Mac.
@@DerekDavis213 im from europe, poorer country, but some guy calculated where he is about 200$ a year in america, considering buying mac with reasonable spec like 64gb ram and 2tb-4tb ssd like in many wondows pc's you will pay extra 1500$-2000$ for mac (fix me on this if you know accurate numbers), so 1.5k divided by 200$ is a 7.5 years.... i hope you planing to keep your mac for 7.5k to start paying of with that electricity...
@@racistpixel1017 Let's forget about costs for a minute. Here are some HUGE problems with M1 Mac: -locked down, cannot upgrade -Mac is a dead end -Mac is a disposable computer -cannot run huge Windows software base -Boot Camp is gone -terrible for gaming -corporations ignore the Mac -corporations hate the Mac Remember, M1 processor comes from a cell phone. So WEAK.
@Kaelan M1 are power-efficient and powerful? M1 Ultra uses up to *215* *watts* . What a power-hungry pig! M1 is powerful? Remember, *software* *is* *everything* . M1 is terrible for gaming, and M1 gpu is terrible for Blender or Maya. M1 is also unable to properly run WIndows software. Intel-based Macs could run nearly 100% of Windows software perfectly. Intel-based Macs could use an external GPU box over Thunderbolt. Very easy to turbo-charge the graphics. M1 DOES NOT SUPPORT E-GPU BOXES!
arm64 built-in gpu should be compared to intel built-in gpu. Comparing it to a dedicated graphic card is not quite fair. FPS per Watt is probably 5 times better on mac?
@@AZisk the more impoart thing would be avarage use, since that is the wattage drawn from the socket mostly on normal gaming use. (play testing whatever) Peaks are short burst, the average is more realistic (longer term use)
You have a ton of data, you could definitely scatter plot the results of the benchmarks against the power draw and see how it lines up against Apple’s plot.
As impressive as the game playing performance is on the PC through Unity it’s important to keep in mind it’s not always best to bank on users having that same level of hardware. Developing a game just based on how well it plays back on a 3080 isn’t a very realistic way to develop. I’m much more interested as a developer how well I can build a game that works on a 1060, 2060, 3060 or Apple Silicon GPUs because that means my game will look and perform great for a much larger audience. The reality is Apple Silicon is not the best for gameplay and that’s perfectly fine with me. It’s a productivity system and more tests properly optimized for Apple Silicon are killing it. applications like Davinci Resolve for editing and Unity for app development. We are getting to the point where a PC is only going to have an advantage for gaming and a few niche tasks like GPU rendering in Blender. I personally consider a 3080 PC a waste of money just for gaming but that’s just me I guess. I just don’t see the value in a $3k system to play games. Not to mention that noise and power draw would drive me insane. The reality is if Apple wanted to make Apple Silicon suck 500 watts of power it would kill the 3080 in gaming right now. We can see 1/2 or better performance with 100 watts vs 500 watts so it’s a given if it could use more power it would be better. Maybe someday Apple will give us the option to add more GPU cores without all the extra CPU cores and memory to keep the cost down for more GPU focused users like gaming. I’m becoming more of a fan of the mobile approach to game development where developers have to get creative with less hardware. Considering how impressive 3D games can be on phones I think a lot could be done to make very impressive games built with Apple Silicon in mind.
While I definitely agree that Apple Silicon is incredible and the best choice for many professional workflows, saying that Apple could just decide to make their SOCs draw more power and that that would make them beat discrete graphics cards like 3080s or 3090s is unfortunately inaccurate. The problem isn’t with power draw, it’s with the cooling needed when you draw that much power. A discrete graphics card has many thermal advantages such as being able to have its own cooling solution, but one that gets overlooked a lot is that they have a much larger surface area than Apple’s SOCs. The larger the surface area, the easier it is to cool. The other problem is that because the GPUs are physically connected to the same silicon as the CPUs and the rest of the SOC, any excess heat created by the GPUs would degrade the performance of the entire system. So basically Apple isn’t just throttling power draw arbitrarily, it’s actually a requirement for this kind of architecture to work.
arm and x64 designed differently, arm does not benefit linearly by just increasing wattage. second m1 is crushing only on niche tasks like video editing not windows, and still if one make 3d based video, m1 will underperforms. the music production benefits from core count for example. then what do you mean "how well i can build a game that works...", you need to know how well it builds, how smooth is the build process? you press a build button and wait... if you want to know which system builds better quality build, it does not matter on what system it builded on, the app works the same regardless of that. all you need to do is test your unique app on all systems to see if you optimized it well.
@@racistpixel1017 1) No cpu architecture benefits ‘linearly’ by increasing wattage. ARM64 benefits just like AMD64, it just requires less power to reach the same level of efficiency. 2) The M1 IS an x64 based processor, it is not an AMD64 based processor. x64 is just shorthand for 64-bit processor. 3) All professional tasks are “niche” to the profession the task was created for. Ex. video editing my be niche when compared to all tasks done by the entire computer using public, but so is gaming, music production, and programming. That doesn’t mean it’s not valuable for a system to do those “niche” tasks well. Video editing is not niche among video editors after all. 4) It’s valuable to develop games on a lower gameplay spec system because, while the build ultimately ends up identical, the majority of dev gameplay testing shifts from being on machines that run significantly better than the average user has, to machines that perform much more similarly to the average user machine. This usually results in a better optimized game over all. Basically, your comment reveals you are pretty misinformed about the difference between the M1 series Macs and more traditional AMD64 cpu/discrete gpu systems in general, and your conclusions about it don’t make any real technical sense. If you mainly want a computer that lets you game at high frame rates and fidelity, don’t buy a Mac. If you just need a computer that performs average, everyday tasks, the M1 Mac Mini or M1 MacBook Air are more than enough than you need performance wise, and are actually priced pretty competitively with Windows/Linux machines of similar build quality and feature-set. So if you like MacOS get one of them. Otherwise Windows/Linux are just as good and your overall experience will really only be different in superficial ways. MacBook Pros and Mac Studios are not for average computing tasks. They are tools designed to be used by professionals to get work done, and they are incredibly well suited to that task. They are not gaming rigs, but if you want to get computationally heavy workloads done, they are probably the best, most cost-effective tools for the job.
@@dalmoe i did not meant to to be techinical and nowhere in your comment i see anything where i was wrong. you just spiling some info. amd64 is not 64, its amd version of 64, just like intel 64 and no x64 not o shortening of 64bit, just like x86 there no 86bit cpu... now for game developer if you need to develop on low end device so bad, just get a budget gaming laptop not m1 since average user wont play on mac, and if its so important why all developers use better machines? if you buy m1 for game dev and not developing for mac then you will still need windows machine to test it, you dont test windows builds on mac or do you? same with windows, you will need a mac to test mac build... i my self use unity for almost past 10 years and prefer beafier machine for development, then just test it on lower spec ones, optimize with mind for lowest spec target machines. it seems you not really well informed for this topic.
@@racistpixel1017 You’re still wrong. It’s you that clearly only have a surface level understanding of computer architecture. I have development experience in not just gaming, but all kinds of software, including low-level programming with assembly. I know what I’m talking about. AMD64 is an architecture spec developed by AMD. Modern Intel chips follow this spec as well, it’s not unique to AMD. Also x86-64 is the instruction set that AMD64 uses and is separate from the the label of x64 which is NOT an instruction set but a label for 64-bit processors. Also, if you’re using Unity it’s likely your developing cross-platform, so there will be a different executable for each platform anyway the operating system you develop on isn’t really relevant. Regardless, using a Mac is an advantage, because it’s the only platform that can even build for Mac or IOS in addition to being able to create builds for every other platform.
for everyone saying apple drew less power so it's better, it does not work that way. when it comes to raw performance, apple can not come close, it literally cannot draw any power more than that
The time ticking is pretty annoying ... irritating... it's like that cricket that managed to sneak in your bedroom and you don't know where it is in the middle of night and you're already ready to transport to your dreamland :(
Mac is like the cruiser weight champion fast but not the most powerful, the Pc is more like a power house it's a little slower in some tasks but when under load it shows it's strength
I don’t really get this type of comparisons. I use both PC and Apple. I am still on Apple iMac Pro and I still love that machine. So no M1 yet. I bought a PC LAPTOP, because I could get the same type of graphics and power as an M1 Mac for less amount of Money. It also seems like people that do this tests get different results. Another thing you have to keep in mind is. The same addiction Apple has created for iPhone, they have now created with the M chips. M2 is out and it is not getting that good of reviews. Some say that the M1 chip still is faster and better. Typical Apple I would say. Another thing is, Apple is not really made for unity or 3D like blender. The majority of companies still work on PC.
That alienware system gets super hot. It doesn't have proper intake, the cooler for the CPU is tiny, and the GPU doesn't have room to breath. Your losing a ton of performance with that thing. Try another system integrator like Origin PC or something.
game not optimized for apple silicon. Im not a mac fan but the conclusion is clear: if it is optimized then is either mac or really close with 4 times the power consumption. if it is not optimized its pc/nvidia hands down. so kind of an unfair comparison if you ask me. also that cpu is not the best 64 core cpu... would be interesting to match that. I also saw a build with 2 nvidia gpus.. would be cool to measure that too!
I don’t know about it making a cricket noise, but my WinXP machine at work makes a weird squeaky noise every time I access a USB flash drive. Coincidence? 😏
At least the Studio has removable NAND modules. If they fail, the user/business can take it to a Apple to get them replaced. The PC is drawing power cause its very powerful.
If you go for hacking, there is no real alternative but linux, so Intel. There are some channels about hacking confirming this, look for yourself. The idea is that you will find tools in all OS's, but if you need mixes of complex tools, so if you want to be prepared for whatever side of hacking there is, only linux has that covered.
@Richard Simmons Yes, but without graphic acceleration and a few other things. Many drivers are not created yet, who knows how good they will be, that is if the guy working on Asahi will manage reverse engineering them. I think it is not a simple task for a one man, no matter how good that person is. And people doing hacking need good compatibility and not only that, they use (usually) Kali or some other specialized distro that comes with many tools and presets needed for hacking. That means even more work to do.
@@rohithmekala2608 Ok, team, but it will take a while until it works fine. How fine, we'll see, Apple has a lot more well paid people doing only that and it is still not perfect.
yea but the Alienware has a lot of bloatware that lowers CPU performance, also its has an offbrand 3080ti. try opening it up and youll see what i mean. always build your own pc or have a custom one built for you.
its not exactly a fair test Mac is designated for software developers, video and audio producers, designers and artists. the GPU is more so dedicated towards being a rendering pipeline for productive software that is related to the mentioned industries. since apple has no real interest in being competitive in the gaming environment, it means that their hardware will not be made in mind of that use-case. GPU's from Nvidia or AMD primarily focus on game rendering, having a TON of wattage, cores, difference technologies and optimisations for physics simulation. they also have a defined target audience for low-med-high end consumers, and that reflects in the hardware capabilities in correlation to the resolution and Frame times in modern titles, but also without compromising much of the benefits of using them as a productivity platform. unless apple designs on-chip 3D rendering focused simulations in regards to physics, lighting and shading and even having a completely more accessible games library (either by designing a new program similar to bootcamp or using a system like Wine to translate windows programs with little to no performance loss - out hopes of Mac ever being a *good* choice of gaming hardware will not be reached as apple is strictly built on being for the working class, being productive, being pretty and premium. if they ever were to make a laptop or desktop that was focused on gaming or 3D tasks, it would be considerably expensive and I doubt it would ever hold value for people who like to play games that have super high detail. especially when PC is so affordable (in comparison) and having millions or billions of games that are amazing, and especially work with so many extensions like HOTAS or wheels. being amazing for streamers and focused on flexibility in how you configure your systems. the only way apple will every have a foot in the door is making games more accessible, having an affordable computer, having plenty of storage, being powerful and non-intrusive to streaming or stable gaming experiences (which atm is not the case, since M1 is still in its infancy when it comes to games, and it stutters like crazy while also looking mediocre at best. even its library of games that are accessible are fairly poor quality in design or just the experience overall.) I do hope they open up to it, I would love to see a world where Mac + PC can work interchangeably in the experience of development and productivity, but as far as it seems, it may never be without someone forcing their hand or the world itself demanding it enough from apple.
Well, it is a fair test. Why? Because many developers have both Windows and Macs in their pipeline (thanks to iOS games). Its very interesting to see where money should be invested for them. Also for those that can only afford one machine, can the Mac do it all? And the answer is - basically yes (apart from hardware testing the Windows builds of course).
I've noticed MacOS just seems faster in general for unity, I like to stick to my iMac as much as possible but many of peers have similar or better specd PCs and I can compile/load/import things etc. all a bit faster than them. Im not sure what the big difference is other than it being a macOS vs windows thing
Game developer with a decade of experience in Unity here. The load test isn't completely apples to apples unfortunately. The primary difference coming from shader compilation. You can see at the top of the Unity window that it says for the project running on Mac. In this case when you open the project it compiles the shaders for the platform you are running on. As such it can have an impact on the load times for the project - only the first launch though. Once this process happens it creates a Library folder inside your project folder and caches those shaders, compiled scripts, etc to speed up subsequent work.
From a developer's perspective the main comparison depends on build targets. If you are making a game for iOS you obviously *need* a Mac. If you are making a high fidelity game targeting any platform you would unfortunately need a Windows/Linux machine with DX12 or Vuklan support as many modern graphics features are not supported on Metal (Raytracing being a prime example). Also - I haven't tested this personally - but building lightmaps would be much faster on Windows with an Nvidia GPU due to the acceleration features it offers. But of course - if none of those features are needed then a Mac is good enough for development.
Metal supports ray tracing.
@@daveh6356 for all practical game dev purposes (which is the context here) it's not there. You can't really make a raytraced game on that sort of hardware - especially considering the fact that developing a game is way more resource intensive than running a release build of the same.
@@Xankill3r the current hardware is lacking, Metal is the software.
@@daveh6356 metal is the graphics API that runs exclusively on Apple hardware. They're one and the same for all practical purposes. As an example neither Unity nor Unreal support hardware raytracing on Metal - because it wouldn't make sense.
Yes Lightbaking is extremely fast with Progressive GPU on a supported Windows GPU but I was pleasantly surprised how fast a M1Pro is with Lightbaking aswell, especially because the general rendering performance in like blender or other 3D application is not very good or fast.
Thats even more impressive is because I used 2020 LTS which isnt native ARM :D
Wow, 71 watts vs 500 watts how is that even possible? the Mac is doing really good, no matter what they say
@Jack Sparrow All hate Apple 🍏
Im using a 5600H ryzen cpu with a 3050 laptop gpu for unity and I don’t get sooo different loading times from the windows system. Don’t know what’s up with that. Maybe it’s on the memory bandwidth I don’t know 🤷♀️
@@mralxndr2846 loading times on modern SSD are CPU limited on the most scenarios
Nothing strange. They load 100% and give you everything they can give. FPS is almost double and much more stable. And 3080 Ti is utilizing "10 nm" generation low power process Samsung 8N, while M1 Ultra utilizing "5 nm" generation low power process TSMC N5. So it's 2 generations behind. High power TSMC N5 is only getting ready this year. When dGPUs on HP TSMC N5 are release they will leave M1 Ultra far far behind.
Both computers are plugged, no need to worry on watts usage, come on, that's only important on laptops
If it weren't for the GPU performance in 3d rendering, final and real time, these Mac's would be perfect machines. Low power, no noise, optimised to work well for to r the SoC and that sweet sweet shared memory. Shared Ram for 3D is amazing.
yes if you don't need to repair or upgrade EVEN THE STORAGE, what a joke
Incredible results from the Mac considering that the power drain is one fifth
Also 48 cores only and still not too bad in comparison.
One seventh, actually. Even more impressive.
Power drains means NOTHING, for professional users that want to get some work done.
@@DerekDavis213 It depends. I'm a professional Web, Mobile, Platform developer that work from home. In my case 10sec on build time doesn't justifity 5x power consumption.
@@EttoreEsposito A professional developer would earn $100,000 or more in USA.
5x power consumption means maybe $10 more per month on the electric bill. But faster build time makes you *MUCH* more productive in your job.
Can you see why lower power consumption on the Mac means *nothing* to developers that are making good salaries?
As a software and game dev, the compilers are different on those platforms. And a compiler which has much better optimization capability can often be much slower. But the end product - the game - runs much faster. Also, need to make sure the rigs have identical NVMe SSD-s, because importing operations and large asset prepacking is often heavily disk IO limited.
The Mac builds should be set to x86 output only. A universal build will take twice as long. This will make for a better comparison when testing systems. But cross compiling to Linux should also work well.
Was about to say that, the Mac is doing double the work here
Surely Apple Silicon target only. I also wonder if the game was running as native or under Rosetta.
@@daveh6356 Is it metal or not is a more important question related to FPS. I have no experience on unity, no idea what does the demo use
@@edmondhung6097 we're referring to build times not execution FPS. Metal should improve FPS but an optimal Apple Silicon build should ensure the CPU doesn't throttle those tasks. It also allows high-performance SIMD & AMX functions which Rosetta translation doesn't.
either way, its still EXTREMELY impressive for an SoC to keep up with a full PC.
Issue: Mac builds are for TWO chip sets. Intel are for just one. Change the Mac to only build for its native chip, and that would be fair. Then, later you can analyze OS and chip variances.
I have been using the Studio Max version with Unity since launch and that is even working great with no issues
350W of difference. 8hr/day * 25day/month * 12 months
To price of 0.25$/Kw is +200$ of extra electric cost
You can save some electric cost in winter when using Windows
200 a yar is not all that mutch, considering that fine spec mac is 1.5k more expensive than a same spec windows machine... 1.5k/200 is a 7.5yars, so after 7.5 yars mac will pay of, ofc if you will keep it for that long and/or it wont break
@@racistpixel1017 with the current situation with energy contracts in Europa who the prices increases each month in the long run you probilaly better choose the Mac
@@dutchdaniel9972 well im from europe, i pay 12euros a month for electricity. I know the amount of wattage compared to Windows machine seems huge, but when you convert it to actually usage time a day the amount of money you pay is only few extra euros.
I'm planning a new Windows dev machine and disappointed to discover that we don't have proper modern HEDT chips (with 30+ cores or so). Threadripper is stuck at Zen2 and Intel have been missing in action. Really sad that the only choice is either 12900 or 5950X. And the next closest option is $10K+ Xeon/ThreadripperPRO workstations. The M1 Ultra is starting to look attractive I must say!
Yep was wondering the same thing with a AMD build
Would be nice to have a price tag on both machines, plus an idea on how much electricity would cost for a year of usage @2000 hours. Thanks for info!
I think the Mac is almost double the price. You can easily afford an rtx 3090 and have 1.500€ remaining in your pocket. With the 3090 you will beat the ultra easily (there are some Benchmarks on UA-cam already) and in the comment sections several people did the calculation. You can neglect the decreased Power consumption. It is around 70 Dollars per year (depends where you live).
Same question but for AMD Workstations vs the Core i9 12900KF used in the video
@@donnik7064 You won't be requiring extra stuff for mac as for windows you will have to buy a motherboard, storage drives, ram, a processor, a Cpu shell and coolents too. Some benchmarks suggest m1 ultra is beast some suggest intel and 3090 are beast, but in real world performance both are highly competitive and mac when software is optimised for metal, nails it.
@@rajnishg244 I already included Windows parts in my calculation. Now after 2months it is even more obvious since gpu prices decreased drastically.
Sorry also no. Check Tech Notice's channel where he examined Apples Mac Studio chart and came to the result that it is extremely misleading or they are even lying. After tons of reviews it is clear that on gpu Power the maxed out Studio compares to an rtx3050 which is really not that much.
Regarding your optimization: did you consider that Intel, AMD, nvidia are not sleeping? Right now there are already first Benchmarks of 13900k with significant Performance increase. Nvidia rtx 4090 Benchmarks with upcoming 120% Performance increase compared to 3090 (source gamermeld) and AMD with mcm Design which is actually the future of Chips. And then you remember how many people said that second Apple Chip Generation will be Great. In fact it is not. It is no big jump compared to M1. So either Apple delivers M3 immediately with at least >50% Performance increase or I dont know how they can compete... Even Performance per Watt was reviewed and Windows also beats Apple (source Tech Notice).
Just Look at all the reviews and Outlooks in YT. Apple does a Great Job in designing and and absolutely Stunning Job in Marketing (as always), but now let's see if they can hold up the upcoming years...
@@donnik7064 they will hold good with foto guys that could rock a 1000$ beast editing pc buying a 4000$ future paperweight and small creators that are stuck in adobe/mac apps.
Super great video you made for us. Thanks Alex!
man i love your editing style so smooooth
I hope for the M2 this year, Apple will introduce a major GPU architecture upgrade incl. raytracing.
Nvidia RT & DLSS is kinda the only thing that makes me still consider a PC as next machine.
Same. Nvidia hardware + software is really hard to beat in creative/rendering/audiovisual productions. I'm even considering rocking two laptops and switch between them based on what I need to do
and how m2 so far? it seems that it only faster by 15% and by own apple charts still slower than 12th intel.
@@racistpixel1017 According to rumors the M2 will have a lot more GPU cores than the M1
@@Andrew-tl9gk m2 is already out for months, as far as i seen, it does not live up the hype, so far appealing for students more.
@@racistpixel1017 M2 but not M2 Pro/Max/Ultra. The M2 Pro might not have just 25% more performance, instead it will add a lot of GPU cores AND it might be done with 3nm instead of 5nm (normal M2) which would give it another big performance boost!
That high pitched noise from the Mac Studio might be some coil whine
MAC Studio with M1 Ultra 64Core GPU brings 110-130FPS in that test. so in this case it is comparable to 3080TI card. this makes me happy a lot
Question: How does this stack up against AMD Ryzen, Epyc, and ThreadRipper workstations in the same price range?
Maybe similar, but fivetimes the power waste as for Intel.
Good stuff! Thanks Alex!
Good video as always. 48 core is probably akin to 3070 though which means the 64 core version should give the pc a good run for its money. We live in interesting times
Naaaaa, the 64 is more of a 3070 sometimes even only a 3060
@@AngryApple Only because of unoptimized software. The PCMR nerds laugh at the M1 Ultra because it only gets 25fps in some AAA game in CrossOver that is being translated from x86 to ARM and the GPU API calls are translated from DirectX to Vulkan to then Metal. Duh? Powerful hardware can only speed through so much unoptimization. In optimized tasks and benchmarks it's more akin to a 3080 Ti.
@@utubekullanicisi No in pure compute the 64GPU isnt capable of the same performance as a 3080ti. Its more of a 3070. This device is not a gaming machine so you need to compare these things with actual work stuff.
Apple GPUs are so energy optimized because they lack some features. Its a similar philosophy what a RISC based CPU like the M1 does.
Reduced Instructions for the general purpose. On high compute stuff like offline 3D rendering this currently holds them back.
Sure you can optimize for it, but why should you convolute your software so this GPU knows more directly what to do instead of just giving in standardised instructions but the gpu has to figure it out on there own.
Its not the software in this case, its the hardwares fault here.
Imagine you need to change your software so you can multiply some numbers but the hardware cant have a multiply instructions so the solution is to use add instructions over and over again, which makes it slower. You can A save these kind of instructions for these kind of chips or B you can give the chip the multiply instruction and the chip does the add instruction on its own which makes it slower but easier for devs.
Metal is a lackluster Graphics API, it has so many missing features, there is no feature parity between Vulkan, DX12.
I have a M1 Pro and a Windows PC with just a 1070, guess which one is faster in every 3D stuff, native on both platform. Yes the 1070, there is no competition only in the power draw.
And with the 1070 you not even get the benefits with OptiX
@@AngryApple Nah 64 is more akin to rx 6800xt
i doubt 48 core gpu near 3070, as far as i see max it really struggle with intermediate level of 3D graphics and 3070 is really over kill for that.
Why didn't you expand the windows to full screen to ensure that the GPU is forced to pump pixels? Unity & GPU pipeline might be clever if you set to 4k but only use a small window (not sure). You spent half the video on scene creation tests? I don't think this is very different to more coder like tests and you aren't testing the GPU at all. Perhaps you should have exported a 10+ minute 4k sequence to disk using Unity, that would have been a good test for cinematics and would also be representative of frame rate bandwidth that would be more tightly monitored that monitoring live FPS. Good that you're trying to showcase outside of Nativescript, haha, no shade. Coder here that used to code in the VFX industry and then Fintech a long time ago.
I would realy love to see build times on M1 Classic/Max/Pro/Ultra with Android/iPhone as build target. Mobile Gaming is a very important field I guess
i like this ,......but is a ddr5 comparing?..........and where is the new power suply for the new intel and nvidia plugs?..........and why is not comparing the power from the monitors?a apple monitor to the apple product and a samsung for the intel product?something that looks the same?
The PC can be upgraded to RTX 4090 or Radeon 7950 XT when they're released later this year for even more graphical power... but the Mac Studio as impressive at it is can not be upgraded. Something to keep in mind over the life of the machine. Tradeoffs. On the one hand the Studio is small, runs cool, power efficient, compiles code quite quickly, but its GPU performance is baked in. The PC on the other hand is a power consumption beast, but can be upgraded to better GPU hardware when they're available, thanks to PCI express.
Not only that but every component can be upgrade/swapped out. Right now the Mac Studio has a better CPU performance (in multi-core) but what about late this year/early next when Intel releases their new CPUs? Just pop this one out and put that one in and you're good to go. Project filling up all your drive space? Upgrade to a larger SSD. With the Mac Studio, you now have to replace the entire machine.
But yes, the Mac Studio is really cool being so small and drawing so little power. It's just a shame that in order to achieve this Apple made everything non replacable/upgradable...
It's all just use case at the end of the day do you really need a new 5090?
@@Watchandlearn91 precisely. Apple used to be more modular I’ve upgraded a few MacBook pros back in the day with more ram and ssd storage (vs a spinning platter).
Raptor Lake will slot right into z690 for an instant upgrade. I wonder if meteor lake will be supported on z690 when it comes out next year? I like what apple is doing but I also prefer modularity. as you say I like that on pc we can use stock nvme storage and upgrade when necessary. I mean with apple you can add thunderbolt storage but that is still an external solution. Hopefully apple makes some of its future macs modular again but I’m not holding my breath.
@@j340_official MacStudio is not designed to be upgraded, it caters to a specific market that don't upgrade internals and care about fan noise and power usage (i.e. me). For those wanting a Mac and expansion, you have to wait for the MacPro expected in June at WWDC. It is expected to be similar modular expandable design as most of the previous MacPros including the current Xeon based MacPro. @Alex Ziskind thanks for the great video. You've assisted my own choice.
@@lukekirkwood your money your choice. The studio has removable storage modules which means that its storage isn’t soldered down as it is in Apple’s notebooks and iMacs. Yet apple chose to not implement an m.2 nvme connector, and instead uses some proprietary connector. Also, at least for now, Apple locked down the ability to swap out the Studio’s storage for larger modules. macOS works and boots just fine from standard pcie4.0 nvme storage like say a WD Black SN850 nvme disk.
Apple is purposefully preventing studio users from upgrading their storage. It’s fine that you don’t care about such things, it’s your money. But some of us prefer modularity, especially when it comes to adding storage after the fact, rather than paying the Apple tax up front for a storage size you think you’ll need. Enjoy 😊.
Apple Silicon just isn't ready for this yet.
Thanks Alex love your channel
thanks 🙏
Well, since the player base with the top gfx cards is not that big and developers always need to aim at the mid / low segments - the FPS during gameplay testing, especially inside the Unity Editor, do not matter that much... Assets import / compilation / build times matter a lot more so I guess that's a win for the Mac Studio.
well the other key factors to consider. are you developing for pc? if so you need to test it on pc. how mutch that mac cost compared to a pc? what other tools do you use for mac, blender, maya, sketchup(they all under deliver on m1), some small 3rd party tools available only on pc, for example to generate material with all the maps, some handy vector graphics tools, audio generation engines... 98% of those tools used by devs is not available on mac or m1 and newer will and to shave of like 10-20 seconds from build time or 3 seconds from compile time is at my own as one who work with unity for 7-8 yars, is pointless... also do you have plans to future proof it? how long will you make games on it? on windows you just swap new gpu, on mac you stuck on one, after one generation you even wont be able to make intermediate graphics of that yar
@@racistpixel1017 You need to test it on pc ONCE, I wouldnt buy a windows machine just because of that. Also Blender runs INSANELY good on M1 and most windows apps run perfectly through CrossOver. But if no one is switching to Mac because XY is missing it will be a vicious cycle of no one developing tools for Mac because no one is using it for game dev. Tools are only developed for Windows because there are a lot of users in that area.
@@Andrew-tl9gk you not testing it once, you are testing it constantly. im games developer, worked on mobile, vr, pc games. you literally testing it constantly, not just that is it works but how well works, optimising, and what if it doesnt work? you fix and test again
Lot's of love from India brother... very nice video... exactly what am looking for... thank you
thanks a lot for this video :) and what do u think about the vr devlpemnt using mac and for creating textures and modeling using blender and photoshop or other from adobe ?
i haven’t tried that myself- not a game dev here, but it sounds quite doable from other’s vids i’ve seen
Would've liked to see performance when not running through unity but standalone because inside unity the builds are most likely debug builds
no would be interesting because that isnt really what the test is for.
Its for Devs and not for Gamers 😉
yah most of the time, like 99% of development you spend inside unity and rest 1% is testing done either by you or game testers.
thnks bro it was awseome :)
Most impressive things is power usage, a fantastic win for Apple.
Regarding testing, I would assume that SSD in that Alienware would have the greatest impact. Do you know what model it is?
I was positively destructed by the soundbed and your entertaining stuff. What was the point? 😂😂 Apple Silicon needs far more GPU and CPU cores and will be really interesting when it gets GPU 128, 60 CPU cores, all on 3 or 2.5 nanometers.
The high pitched cricket sound is probably coil whine.
i haven’t heard this before from any macs. not super familiar with coil whine, but it doesn’t sound like the one from the LTT video i just watched. i might create a short video demonstrating this to see if anyone can identify the sound (whether it’s coil whine or not)
Metric suggestion: reset the power meter before all the tests and read the total kW consumption after all the shooting. I bet the Mac Studio is WAY better for the planet and the energy bill.
It consumes less Power, but you cannot swap components and Upgrade. So think about this when considering sustainability ;)
Can you do a video like this one but this time with Unreal Engine 5.3.0 ?
Wonderful!!! Thanks.
So where are the specs?, I cannot find it. I would love to see what disc you used in that tower. I find Unity building Much faster if you have 2 drives and one of them handle project, while the other do OS and Unity binaries. You want as high throughput on disc/ram/compute as you can, and Mac wins on ram, while can lose on other 2.
Also should be noted that you have the 48-core GPU M1 Ultra, not the 64-core one. The comparison bw the 64-core version and 3080 should be even closer, and at 1/5th the total system power draw.
If you raise to 64 the core in the CPU of the M1, I believe that the total power usage would be higher. By the way M1 is on 5nm TSMC and Nvidia card is on 7nm Samsung... this make a big difference!
@@webproximity5385 8*
@@webproximity5385 but still when rtx 4060 it still will consume 250-350W. So apple will technically still have an efficiency crown. But rtx 4060 will probz cost $499-$550
@@mosesdavid5536 yeah sure, but performance of rtx 40x0 will be a lot better than M1. The problem in this moment is that performance are similar (in some use case) but normal PC use 10 time the power of Apple solutions!
I can build 2080ti pc for half the price with 12gen i7.
what mouse did you use for the M1 Ultra?
The fact the Mac is compiling to both architectures faster then the windows computer compiling for just x64. Impressive
Thanks Alex. 53W power draw is about half the ~105W maximum for the 64c M1 Ultra so that's not really optimal. I wonder if full use would read as 200% on Activity Monitor.
Also, wouldn't Universal builds take longer - double the compilation for two ISAs?
He had 105W usage in the end
@@Andrew-tl9gk he shows 117W total power draw but power metrics shows only ~53,000mW for the GPU. I would love to see software pulling 117W from the Ultra GPU - I think the closest is GFX Bench which outperforms a 3090.
You know that it is an ARM so everything is together in one chip? I doubt the GPU cores alone will draw the full power that the full machine could max take (120W for the M1 Max)
@@Andrew-tl9gk It's an SoC (the ARM CPU ISA is irrelevant) - I have an M1 so I know how to read power metrics which shows the wattage of each silicon block (pause the video in the last few minutes to see the screen). The theoretical max consumption for the whole SoC is around 180W (60W CPU + 120W GPU). The main issue with Apple Silicon isn't hardware capability, it's software optimisation. But it's getting there - check out Resident Evil Village.
I think the Mac Studio M1 Max base model has a max of 125W total. I know about the software because I use Blender and Unity and both run INCREDIBLE on Silicon. But even tho tons of Unity games are out there the developers didnt compile the games for Mac (which would be done super easily)
The power consumption difference is huge, but don't forget that the price tag is a lot different.
$4000 for the M1 Ultra 20/48 with 64GB of memory and 1TB SSD, but you can easily build a PC with 12900K - 3080 Ti - 64GB - 1TB SSD... for less than $2500, and it's upgradable
yas and cost for electricity between mac and pc is like 70$ a year, so mac will pay of like in 10 years while underdelivering a performance.
One of the things about unified memory that intrigued me was being able to access all of the memory for video ram…so essentially being able to access 64gb of video ram for very demanding tasks…I have a 3060 and frequently use all 12gb when in ue5….(I don’t do a lot of optimization)😊….so my question is….have you noticed the Mac Studio being able to do this…I would imagine you would need a very demanding scene…thanks 😊
Alex is the performance lag in the Mac related to swap? These M1 machines with unified memory do a lot more memory swap, in a game I think it will be more noticeable.
the mac studio ultra comes with MINIMUM 64 GB of unified memory i don't think he came anywhere near hitting the swap at this point
Alex have you noticed that when you compile the same app across all OS platforms the Mac one is the smallest, followed closely by Linux and Windows version is the largest. It would be interesting to see how that translates in execution size of the app (sort of wondered about that).
Considering you got the 48 GPU core machine, those numbers seems pretty good. You should get around 33% better FPS with the 64 GPU core Mac Studio.
I have a question though. Were RTX capabilities used in the game on Windows ? This could be a drag on performances.
Great video, I think though, that few people get what apple is pulling off here. They have in a single chip, what is a discrete GPU and CPU and Memory on the windows machine, use a fourth or fifth of the power and still are almost matching performance. Also, What's that accent? It's nice,
well fps shows that nvidia gpu is in another league really, same when it comes do blender
Thank you!!!
Alex, any plans to do ML/DL benchmarks for M1Ultra ????
yes , should be coming soon
My experience as a Unity Dev on booth Operating Systems.
Unity gets really really slow the more you do, like adding scripts and other stuff.
In my experience macs are getting slower faster and harder than windows machines and this doesnt really change how powerful the hardware is.
I like my M1 Pro MacBook but working with Unity is way better on Windows, well except you need to do iOS projects.
Also the Game Window Performance under Mac is sometimes limited because, I dont know. Builds are usually runs quite faster than what the Game Window gives you, and that has nothing to do with debugging because that only explains a small difference but not sometimes a different of two times 😅
Very helpful，thanks a lot
My question is, Price of both Desktops as tested.
Ahaha "shut up and DO IT"....i love your video a lot of info and they make me laugh :D!
For a professional developer, does wattage used by the PC matter? At all?
The best tool for the job is Windows with NVidia 3080 or 3090. A few extra dollars on the electricity bill means nothing.
the electricity will pay of after like a 10 years with mac. for the price of mac you can get a 3090 and still have 1k+ left and the difference between pc and mac is 70$ a year for electricity
@@racistpixel1017 Where do you live? Because in America, 70$ a year for electricity means *NOTHING* .
A powerful Windows workstation with Ryzen or 12th-generation Intel cpu, and NVidia 3080 or 3090 is *light* *years* better than a Mac for professional users, or people that enjoy games. Mac is terrible for gaming! And the PC will be much cheaper than the Mac too.
There is a good reason why Windows has 90% market share. The biggest, richest corporations in America have *ZERO* interest in the Mac.
@@DerekDavis213 im from europe, poorer country, but some guy calculated where he is about 200$ a year in america, considering buying mac with reasonable spec like 64gb ram and 2tb-4tb ssd like in many wondows pc's you will pay extra 1500$-2000$ for mac (fix me on this if you know accurate numbers), so 1.5k divided by 200$ is a 7.5 years.... i hope you planing to keep your mac for 7.5k to start paying of with that electricity...
@@racistpixel1017 Let's forget about costs for a minute. Here are some HUGE problems with M1 Mac:
-locked down, cannot upgrade
-Mac is a dead end
-Mac is a disposable computer
-cannot run huge Windows software base
-Boot Camp is gone
-terrible for gaming
-corporations ignore the Mac
-corporations hate the Mac
Remember, M1 processor comes from a cell phone. So WEAK.
@Kaelan M1 are power-efficient and powerful?
M1 Ultra uses up to *215* *watts* . What a power-hungry pig!
M1 is powerful? Remember, *software* *is* *everything* . M1 is terrible for gaming, and M1 gpu is terrible for Blender or Maya. M1 is also unable to properly run WIndows software.
Intel-based Macs could run nearly 100% of Windows software perfectly.
Intel-based Macs could use an external GPU box over Thunderbolt. Very easy to turbo-charge the graphics.
M1 DOES NOT SUPPORT E-GPU BOXES!
the m1 ultra power consumption is amazing, but still can deliver great performance! Good job apple! 👏🏻
The fans on that tower is so damn loud 😂
Metal on the Mac or no? That would have an impact on rendering, presumably.
Very good video!!
arm64 built-in gpu should be compared to intel built-in gpu. Comparing it to a dedicated graphic card is not quite fair. FPS per Watt is probably 5 times better on mac?
Which SSD was used in Windows PC? I think this is the point!
is that 117w and 535w average or peak? If it is average, then you can easily pay $200 extra every year for the PC. That is quite substantial.
it’s peak - the highest I’ve noted so far in my testing
@@AZisk well peak wattage does not mean anything...
@@super_hero2 it means peak wattage
@@AZisk the more impoart thing would be avarage use, since that is the wattage drawn from the socket mostly on normal gaming use. (play testing whatever) Peaks are short burst, the average is more realistic (longer term use)
How does the M1 Max on the MacBook pro compares to the Ultra with Unity programming ?
I guess it is exactly half the performance? For programming you wouldnt need the Max tho as it only has more GPU cores than the Pro.
@@Andrew-tl9gk thanks for the awesome and useful content.
I am crossing my fingers for 3 nanometers in the next MacBook pro :)
May take until Q1 2023 but yeah me too haha. Otherwise for programming even the normal M1 is insane and the CPU isnt much less than the M1 Pro/Max
You have a ton of data, you could definitely scatter plot the results of the benchmarks against the power draw and see how it lines up against Apple’s plot.
What about fan noise? Which one was quiter, or close to no noise?
Thanks
The Studio was quieter.
As impressive as the game playing performance is on the PC through Unity it’s important to keep in mind it’s not always best to bank on users having that same level of hardware. Developing a game just based on how well it plays back on a 3080 isn’t a very realistic way to develop. I’m much more interested as a developer how well I can build a game that works on a 1060, 2060, 3060 or Apple Silicon GPUs because that means my game will look and perform great for a much larger audience.
The reality is Apple Silicon is not the best for gameplay and that’s perfectly fine with me. It’s a productivity system and more tests properly optimized for Apple Silicon are killing it. applications like Davinci Resolve for editing and Unity for app development. We are getting to the point where a PC is only going to have an advantage for gaming and a few niche tasks like GPU rendering in Blender. I personally consider a 3080 PC a waste of money just for gaming but that’s just me I guess. I just don’t see the value in a $3k system to play games. Not to mention that noise and power draw would drive me insane.
The reality is if Apple wanted to make Apple Silicon suck 500 watts of power it would kill the 3080 in gaming right now. We can see 1/2 or better performance with 100 watts vs 500 watts so it’s a given if it could use more power it would be better. Maybe someday Apple will give us the option to add more GPU cores without all the extra CPU cores and memory to keep the cost down for more GPU focused users like gaming.
I’m becoming more of a fan of the mobile approach to game development where developers have to get creative with less hardware. Considering how impressive 3D games can be on phones I think a lot could be done to make very impressive games built with Apple Silicon in mind.
While I definitely agree that Apple Silicon is incredible and the best choice for many professional workflows, saying that Apple could just decide to make their SOCs draw more power and that that would make them beat discrete graphics cards like 3080s or 3090s is unfortunately inaccurate.
The problem isn’t with power draw, it’s with the cooling needed when you draw that much power. A discrete graphics card has many thermal advantages such as being able to have its own cooling solution, but one that gets overlooked a lot is that they have a much larger surface area than Apple’s SOCs. The larger the surface area, the easier it is to cool.
The other problem is that because the GPUs are physically connected to the same silicon as the CPUs and the rest of the SOC, any excess heat created by the GPUs would degrade the performance of the entire system.
So basically Apple isn’t just throttling power draw arbitrarily, it’s actually a requirement for this kind of architecture to work.
arm and x64 designed differently, arm does not benefit linearly by just increasing wattage. second m1 is crushing only on niche tasks like video editing not windows, and still if one make 3d based video, m1 will underperforms. the music production benefits from core count for example.
then what do you mean "how well i can build a game that works...", you need to know how well it builds, how smooth is the build process? you press a build button and wait... if you want to know which system builds better quality build, it does not matter on what system it builded on, the app works the same regardless of that. all you need to do is test your unique app on all systems to see if you optimized it well.
@@racistpixel1017 1) No cpu architecture benefits ‘linearly’ by increasing wattage. ARM64 benefits just like AMD64, it just requires less power to reach the same level of efficiency.
2) The M1 IS an x64 based processor, it is not an AMD64 based processor. x64 is just shorthand for 64-bit processor.
3) All professional tasks are “niche” to the profession the task was created for. Ex. video editing my be niche when compared to all tasks done by the entire computer using public, but so is gaming, music production, and programming. That doesn’t mean it’s not valuable for a system to do those “niche” tasks well. Video editing is not niche among video editors after all.
4) It’s valuable to develop games on a lower gameplay spec system because, while the build ultimately ends up identical, the majority of dev gameplay testing shifts from being on machines that run significantly better than the average user has, to machines that perform much more similarly to the average user machine. This usually results in a better optimized game over all.
Basically, your comment reveals you are pretty misinformed about the difference between the M1 series Macs and more traditional AMD64 cpu/discrete gpu systems in general, and your conclusions about it don’t make any real technical sense. If you mainly want a computer that lets you game at high frame rates and fidelity, don’t buy a Mac. If you just need a computer that performs average, everyday tasks, the M1 Mac Mini or M1 MacBook Air are more than enough than you need performance wise, and are actually priced pretty competitively with Windows/Linux machines of similar build quality and feature-set. So if you like MacOS get one of them. Otherwise Windows/Linux are just as good and your overall experience will really only be different in superficial ways.
MacBook Pros and Mac Studios are not for average computing tasks. They are tools designed to be used by professionals to get work done, and they are incredibly well suited to that task. They are not gaming rigs, but if you want to get computationally heavy workloads done, they are probably the best, most cost-effective tools for the job.
@@dalmoe i did not meant to to be techinical and nowhere in your comment i see anything where i was wrong. you just spiling some info.
amd64 is not 64, its amd version of 64, just like intel 64 and no x64 not o shortening of 64bit, just like x86 there no 86bit cpu...
now for game developer if you need to develop on low end device so bad, just get a budget gaming laptop not m1 since average user wont play on mac, and if its so important why all developers use better machines?
if you buy m1 for game dev and not developing for mac then you will still need windows machine to test it, you dont test windows builds on mac or do you? same with windows, you will need a mac to test mac build...
i my self use unity for almost past 10 years and prefer beafier machine for development, then just test it on lower spec ones, optimize with mind for lowest spec target machines.
it seems you not really well informed for this topic.
@@racistpixel1017 You’re still wrong. It’s you that clearly only have a surface level understanding of computer architecture. I have development experience in not just gaming, but all kinds of software, including low-level programming with assembly. I know what I’m talking about.
AMD64 is an architecture spec developed by AMD. Modern Intel chips follow this spec as well, it’s not unique to AMD. Also x86-64 is the instruction set that AMD64 uses and is separate from the the label of x64 which is NOT an instruction set but a label for 64-bit processors.
Also, if you’re using Unity it’s likely your developing cross-platform, so there will be a different executable for each platform anyway the operating system you develop on isn’t really relevant. Regardless, using a Mac is an advantage, because it’s the only platform that can even build for Mac or IOS in addition to being able to create builds for every other platform.
"High pitch cricket sound" is coil whine it's nothing to worry about
for everyone saying apple drew less power so it's better, it does not work that way. when it comes to raw performance, apple can not come close, it literally cannot draw any power more than that
Nice & Thanks :)
Do both machines at spec cost $4 grand each? I think that's what the apple studio with Ultra costs. Not sure about the Intel w/ 3080.
the pc was $3500
The time ticking is pretty annoying ... irritating... it's like that cricket that managed to sneak in your bedroom and you don't know where it is in the middle of night and you're already ready to transport to your dreamland :(
What I'm interested in is how much both systems cost.
mac $4k, pc $3.5k
Please compare about Unreal Engine between PC and Mac
Thank you!!
Mac is like the cruiser weight champion fast but not the most powerful, the Pc is more like a power house it's a little slower in some tasks but when under load it shows it's strength
Thanks, very informative! Please do UE5! Please please please :-)
i haven’t done any Unreal tests yet, but check out the “atom lab x” channel - he’s got a bunch
i think when you hit play you should try it on full screen to get the full power
Try building lightmap and check what happens
Next time, install linux on the pc and run the same test. Windows sometimes doesn't push all of the hardware power.
Windows doesnt push anything
I don’t really get this type of comparisons. I use both PC and Apple. I am still on Apple iMac Pro and I still love that machine. So no M1 yet. I bought a PC LAPTOP, because I could get the same type of graphics and power as an M1 Mac for less amount of Money. It also seems like people that do this tests get different results.
Another thing you have to keep in mind is. The same addiction Apple has created for iPhone, they have now created with the M chips. M2 is out and it is not getting that good of reviews. Some say that the M1 chip still is faster and better. Typical Apple I would say. Another thing is, Apple is not really made for unity or 3D like blender. The majority of companies still work on PC.
Hello Alex, great content really appreciated. Would you consider doing the same tests for blender use? That would help us immensely! Many thanks
there are blender tests on youtube m1 ultra is 4 to 5 times slower than a 3090 and 25% slower than a 3060.
Blender is running incredibly fast on M1
That alienware system gets super hot. It doesn't have proper intake, the cooler for the CPU is tiny, and the GPU doesn't have room to breath. Your losing a ton of performance with that thing. Try another system integrator like Origin PC or something.
Do u stream test?
Does Defender Antivirus play role in slower build time?
yes
I've forgotten whether you got the 64 core m1 ultra or 48, can you add it to the description please? Also the title says 3080, description says 3080ti
He said he had the 48 core.
The native build on mac actually compile for both M1 and intel, that likely explains why it seems slower compared to the windows build.
game not optimized for apple silicon. Im not a mac fan but the conclusion is clear: if it is optimized then is either mac or really close with 4 times the power consumption. if it is not optimized its pc/nvidia hands down. so kind of an unfair comparison if you ask me. also that cpu is not the best 64 core cpu... would be interesting to match that. I also saw a build with 2 nvidia gpus.. would be cool to measure that too!
I don’t know about it making a cricket noise, but my WinXP machine at work makes a weird squeaky noise every time I access a USB flash drive. Coincidence? 😏
i think not 😆
That Mac is bloody close to that pc in gameplay at a 5th of the power draw, and faster at compiling that is amazing.
Can you do it with unreal engine??
I cant stand PCs drawing so much power and simultaneously cant stand Macs lacking modularity.
At least the Studio has removable NAND modules. If they fail, the user/business can take it to a Apple to get them replaced.
The PC is drawing power cause its very powerful.
Please, how do I choose a good laptop for ethical hacking, do I go for intel or M1
If you go for hacking, there is no real alternative but linux, so Intel. There are some channels about hacking confirming this, look for yourself. The idea is that you will find tools in all OS's, but if you need mixes of complex tools, so if you want to be prepared for whatever side of hacking there is, only linux has that covered.
@Richard Simmons Yes, but without graphic acceleration and a few other things. Many drivers are not created yet, who knows how good they will be, that is if the guy working on Asahi will manage reverse engineering them. I think it is not a simple task for a one man, no matter how good that person is. And people doing hacking need good compatibility and not only that, they use (usually) Kali or some other specialized distro that comes with many tools and presets needed for hacking. That means even more work to do.
Thank you, currently I’m running Linux on intel but I thought M1 could be even more faster
@@FlorinArjocu He has a team working on Linux on M1 macs.
@@rohithmekala2608 Ok, team, but it will take a while until it works fine. How fine, we'll see, Apple has a lot more well paid people doing only that and it is still not perfect.
Thanks!
Hey mom … im on youtube ❤️✌🏻😂XD
What ssd on intel machine?
That window machine is known to have very poor thermal.
yea but the Alienware has a lot of bloatware that lowers CPU performance, also its has an offbrand 3080ti. try opening it up and youll see what i mean. always build your own pc or have a custom one built for you.
its not exactly a fair test
Mac is designated for software developers, video and audio producers, designers and artists. the GPU is more so dedicated towards being a rendering pipeline for productive software that is related to the mentioned industries.
since apple has no real interest in being competitive in the gaming environment, it means that their hardware will not be made in mind of that use-case. GPU's from Nvidia or AMD primarily focus on game rendering, having a TON of wattage, cores, difference technologies and optimisations for physics simulation. they also have a defined target audience for low-med-high end consumers, and that reflects in the hardware capabilities in correlation to the resolution and Frame times in modern titles, but also without compromising much of the benefits of using them as a productivity platform.
unless apple designs on-chip 3D rendering focused simulations in regards to physics, lighting and shading and even having a completely more accessible games library (either by designing a new program similar to bootcamp or using a system like Wine to translate windows programs with little to no performance loss - out hopes of Mac ever being a *good* choice of gaming hardware will not be reached as apple is strictly built on being for the working class, being productive, being pretty and premium. if they ever were to make a laptop or desktop that was focused on gaming or 3D tasks, it would be considerably expensive and I doubt it would ever hold value for people who like to play games that have super high detail. especially when PC is so affordable (in comparison) and having millions or billions of games that are amazing, and especially work with so many extensions like HOTAS or wheels. being amazing for streamers and focused on flexibility in how you configure your systems.
the only way apple will every have a foot in the door is making games more accessible, having an affordable computer, having plenty of storage, being powerful and non-intrusive to streaming or stable gaming experiences (which atm is not the case, since M1 is still in its infancy when it comes to games, and it stutters like crazy while also looking mediocre at best. even its library of games that are accessible are fairly poor quality in design or just the experience overall.)
I do hope they open up to it, I would love to see a world where Mac + PC can work interchangeably in the experience of development and productivity, but as far as it seems, it may never be without someone forcing their hand or the world itself demanding it enough from apple.
Well, it is a fair test. Why? Because many developers have both Windows and Macs in their pipeline (thanks to iOS games). Its very interesting to see where money should be invested for them. Also for those that can only afford one machine, can the Mac do it all? And the answer is - basically yes (apart from hardware testing the Windows builds of course).
@@MichaelGGarry I'm going with a MBA M1 for general use and occasional mobile dev and a desktop windows machine for Unity/.Net and gaming.
It looks like mac studio is an option for those who makes builds a lot.
I've noticed MacOS just seems faster in general for unity, I like to stick to my iMac as much as possible but many of peers have similar or better specd PCs and I can compile/load/import things etc. all a bit faster than them. Im not sure what the big difference is other than it being a macOS vs windows thing
When it comes to actually playing games though there's not comparison, macOS just ain't it
better at making games, worse at playing them
Well Unity started as a macOS app. I'm not sure how it was ported to Windows but maybe there is some overheard there?