Apple’s M1 Ultra GPU vs. Nvidia RTX 3090 Comparison Called ‘Disingenuous’

Apple’s comparison of its latest M1 Ultra GPU to the nearly top-of-the-line graphics card from Nvidia, at its recent March event, has been called ‘disingenuous’ by Macworld.

Earlier this month, Apple pulled the wraps off the M1 Ultra chip at its Peek Performance event. The company compared the chip’s GPU performance to NVIDIA’s most capable GPU at the time, the RTX 3090. However, reports suggest Apple’s scientific-looking graphs and comparison data could be somewhat misleading.

According to Macworld, while the Cupertino company’s comparison chart and quote were technically true, they didn’t paint a full picture.

Apple compared the M1 Ultra’s graphics performance to the NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU at the launch event. It compared the performance using the graph below, accompanied by a quote with very carefully chosen words.

Image: Apple

“For the most graphics-intensive needs, like 3D rendering and complex image processing, M1 Ultra has a 64-core GPU — 8x the size of M1 — delivering faster performance than even the highest-end GPU available while using 200 fewer watts of power.”

From the graph, it is evident that the M1 Ultra is significantly more power efficient than the RTX 3090.

However, Macworld reports Apple’s “faster performance” claim is incorrect. It says Apple’s graph only shows the performance plot for the RTX 3090 until where it is convenient when, in reality, the curve stretches farther. This means Apple did not compare the “Peek Performance” (pun intended) of the RTX 3090 to the M1 Ultra GPU.

On top of that, Nvidia just released the RTX 3090’s successor, the RTX 3090 Ti, which draws 450W of power — nearly twice that of the M1 Ultra, which will only widen the sheer performance gap between the two cards.

Read more about the comparison over at Macworld.

Want to see more of our stories on Google?

Add iPhone in Canada as a Preferred Source on Google

P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
It's Me
It's Me
4 years ago

So, the entire complaint is that Apple clearly and obviously focused on the power efficiency of the Ultra, where it undeniably dominates, but that they should have instead focused on peak performance? In order to hit that peak performance, the nvidia would draw 450w compared to a max draw of 215w for the Ultra. I should hope that the nvidia would have higher performance at that very high power draw.

Was someone confused when they saw a graphic comparing power efficiency to performance and thought it was a peak performance graphic?

LoveTruth
LoveTruth
Reply to  It's Me
4 years ago

I guess you missed that Apple called this their “Peek Performance” event? You’d think they’d show a graph of, oh I’d not know, maybe Peak Performance when comparing chips at such an event? Lol

It's Me
It's Me
Reply to  LoveTruth
4 years ago

Actually, it is likely exactly why they did not call it “Peak Performance”. I guess maybe the specific play on words wasn’t obvious for everyone.

LoveTruth
LoveTruth
Reply to  It's Me
4 years ago

Everyone’s understanding of the play on words:

“Peek Performance” is a play on “Peak Performance.”

Your understanding of the play on words:

“Peek Performance” is a play on “Peek Performance”

lol Ok.

It's Me
It's Me
Reply to  LoveTruth
4 years ago

And yet some are still struggling with understanding why they didn’t say “Peak”.

By not using “peak”, they must have meant “peak”, seems to be the argument.

I asked a rhetorical question in my first post, but I suppose it wasn’t so rhetorical.

13
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x