![]() ![]() It means Apple may still have to bundle an AMD GPU with the 16" if they want to claim faster graphics performance. ![]() I'd guess that if anything, this doesn't bode well for Apple Silicon in a 16" MacBook. Based on raw numbers, M1 should be faster than Tiger Lake GPU by at least 50 - 75%.īut then again, winning against Intel here is not really. ![]() That sounds just about right.Īlthough Intel really improved their GPU performance significantly, Tiger Lake is still likely behind M1 by a good margin. By raw number, Apple can easily claim that the M1 has 6x faster graphics performance. How much faster? That remains to be seen, but I'm not surprised if Apple's M1 is not up to par compared to the 16" MacBook.Īs a point of comparison, Tiger Lake's iGPU reaches about 2 teraflops, and the Intel HD 630 that was in previous generation MacBooks? 0.4 teraflops. whatever the 16" MacBook has is still faster as far as graphics goes. The 5300M is quoted at around 4 teraflops, for instance. And Radeon's Navi is in general faster than that by a good margin. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |