They’ll just notice that their Macs are faster and cooler, get better battery life, gain machine-learning features over time-and I suppose that they can run iPhone and iPad apps, if said users aren’t picky about those apps being nice to use.
#Video card for mac mini mac
The boat is faster, it's longer lasting, it's better-and it hardly took on any water at all.īetween the move to universal apps across Apple’s entire catalog, to promised native updates from various software-as-a-service companies like Adobe, to the performance and seamlessness of Rosetta 2, the majority of Mac users may never even have an inkling that a change of architecture has occurred. I'm still not sure the Mac mini is an ideal machine in every respect because of its limited port and peripheral options, but amazingly, Apple didn't rock the boat. The Mac just had its best year of sales ever, and yet Apple couldn't possibly rock that boat harder than this. Going into this, I was ready to see some strong performance, but I was skeptical that Apple Silicon would work for me. If you thought Apple was crazy for moving away from Intel in the Mac, you weren't alone.
#Video card for mac mini pro
Now I'm left wondering something else aloud: what might an M1X designed to compete with discrete graphics in a 16-inch MacBook Pro or iMac look like? I don't know, but the Mac platform has a fascinating road ahead of it, to say the least. It's even more astonishing-though it bears mentioning that Geekbench and its ilk don't reflect sustained performance (which active cooling would most benefit), only burst. When I wrote about the iPad Pro's A12X back in 2018, I called it astonishing and wondered aloud what something like that would be like in an actively cooled machine. But just because we saw this already two days ago doesn't make it any less amazing. Intel results.Īrs writer Jim Salter already came to similar conclusions in his hands-on (and while testing the M1 against non-Mac machines, to boot), so this won't be a surprise to anyone following our coverage thus far. But these benchmarks still show Rosetta apps on the new Mac mini's CPU beating Intel apps running natively on an Intel Mac mini, MacBook Air, or 13-inch MacBook Pro, per the previous Apple Silicon vs. 3D apps that use Metal exhibit very similar GPU performance regardless of whether we're talking native or Rosetta, though. AdvertisementĪ Rosetta app definitely isn't always as performant as a native app-and as far as the browser tests go, well, you know how Chrome is to begin with. And again: the 16-inch MacBook Pro (admittedly a laptop, but the Mac mini has mostly laptop-y guts anyway) costs more than twice as much. In fact, the M1's GPU is knocking on the door of the 16-inch MacBook Pro's discrete graphics solution.
The two 13-inch Macs we're comparing against above have some of the fastest integrated graphics Intel offers, and the comparison is. This is technically an integrated GPU (though of a very different sort), and it betrays that stereotype. Intel's integrated graphics get the job done for basic productivity tasks, but they fall on their faces pretty quickly when you throw heavy-duty 3D graphics or video tasks at them. Performance-obsessed computing enthusiasts have long looked at integrated graphics with a certain amount of scorn. The biggest surprise we see here is the graphics performance.
The heavily specced-out iMac beats it pretty handily in the multi-core CPU test, but that's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison, given that the iMac draws dramatically more power and is, well, quite a bit larger-not to mention 3.5 times more expensive (albeit with a pricy high-end display built in). It also leaves its own Intel-based predecessor in the dust. A single M1 high-performance core beats all of these CPUs in the single-core test-even the iMac. The charts tell the story: the M1 Mac mini outperforms the MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and all the iPhones and iPads-in most cases by a substantial margin.
Now, let's look at some results comparing the M1's performance with Intel Macs and iOS/iPadOS devices. In other words, we're not comparing the M1 against the base spec for any of these Macs, or against older Macs, or against comparably priced Macs-we're comparing it to the nearly speediest configurations of those Macs available this year, all of which are much more expensive than this Mac mini. The important takeaway from that table is that the Mac mini and other M1 devices replace computers at the low end of Apple's lineup, but we're here comparing the M1 against the most beefed up (or close to it) configurations of each computer (iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air). But the real pitch here is performance, and it's time to look at some benchmarks. Before we go over the results, let's take a look at the specs of the different machines we're testing here: Model Okay, so iOS apps aren't the best on this Apple Silicon Mac.
0 kommentar(er)
