20-Core Apple M1 Ultra Supercharges Mac, 64-Core GPU Rivals RTX 3090

M1 Ultra
(Image credit: Apple)

Apple is ready to take Mac performance to the next level with Apple Silicon, and the end result was hinted at late last year. While the general consensus was that Apple would introduce an all-new M2 chip to leap ahead of the M1, M1 Pro and M1 Max, what we got was something that is not only more powerful but also quite familiar: M1 Ultra.

The M1 Ultra is Apple's latest flagship SoC that will make its way into the all-new Mac Studio desktop. When Apple introduced the M1 Max last year, it didn't tell us that it had a hidden feature: a silicon interposer that allows two M1 Max SoCs to be joined together, delivering interprocessor bandwidth of 2.5 TB/sec.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Brandon Hill
Senior Editor

Brandon Hill is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware. He has written about PC and Mac tech since the late 1990s with bylines at AnandTech, DailyTech, and Hot Hardware. When he is not consuming copious amounts of tech news, he can be found enjoying the NC mountains or the beach with his wife and two sons.

  • peachpuff
    Rivals 3090? Right....
    Reply
  • Akindabigdeal
    Articles like this are why apple has a lawsuit against them for misrepresenting the speed of the m1 processors. They never live up to the hype. Apple products are never worth the cost.
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    Intel and/or AMD need to hire these CPU designers away from whomever, if any of this hype is true...!
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    I'm inclined to believe Apple that the M1 Ultra's GPU can achieve RTX 3090 performance if we had more data to compare it with. Apple claims they used "Industry standard benchmarks", but failed to mention which ones specifically.

    Looking at Notebookcheck's entry on the M1 Max, it certainly beats out the competition... in GFXBench. No 3DMark, no SPECviewperf, or anything else that may be considered "Industry standard." Plus I looked back on this a while ago and GFXBench is Metal for Apple in all of its tests, but only some of the tests have DirectX 12 or Vulkan, rendering the comparison even more moot.

    Plus the whole "perf/watt" chart makes no sense to me if taken at face value. Why should I care about anything other than the performance at the part's maximum performance rating? If I wanted to consume less power, I'd look for a part specifically designed to consume less power.
    Reply
  • jacob249358
    Idc how good it is as long as it comes with a ridiculous premium, and mac os. Make these good power efficient cpus, pair them with NVIDIA laptop gpus and make a great gaming laptop with windows 10.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    jacob249358 said:
    Idc how good it is as long as it comes with a ridiculous premium, and mac os. Make these good power efficient cpus, pair them with NVIDIA laptop gpus and make a great gaming laptop with windows 10.

    Are you that scared of macOS and other Unix/Linux based operating systems? These days the OS's are all basically the same with just a different GUI slapped on top from a feature point of view. Other than games, Windows really doesn't offer anything over any of the other operating systems. I haven't seen a productivity/developer tool made for Windows only in about a decade.
    Reply
  • gargoylenest
    either Apple is greatly inflating its numbers and prowess, or the other specialized company (intel, nvidia, amd) with lot of experience and years of upgrading and investing in their chips are underperforming a lot or especially incompetent...I tend to believe that Apple sell clouds to their followers. from afar, they look huge...
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    Kind of hard to say how good it is when they do not giving any information on how much power it uses.
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    thisisaname said:
    Kind of hard to say how good it is when they do not giving any information on how much power it uses.
    It's in the x-axis of this chart:

    JamesJones44 said:
    Are you that scared of macOS and other Unix/Linux based operating systems? These days the OS's are all basically the same with just a different GUI slapped on top from a feature point of view. Other than games, Windows really doesn't offer anything over any of the other operating systems. I haven't seen a productivity/developer tool made for Windows only in about a decade.
    I would argue on the Linux side, it depends. For one thing, I really don't like most Linux based OS's default app management and distribution system. I tried installing a specific version of Python and it took me like 6-7 steps to get it to a point where I could finally type in "python" in the command line and get going. On Windows? Download installer, install, done.

    But if you strip it down to the kernel level stuff, then yeah, I'd agree that for the most part, Windows and UNIX have enough similarities that arguing anything is purely academic.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    Even Intel would be ashamed by the amount of nonsense in those slides.

    "Our integrated graphics are faster than a 3090 while drawing 100 watts!"
    "Oh wow! What are they faster at?"
    "You know... things. <_< "

    No doubt they could be faster at certain workloads that utilize specific baked-in hardware features, like if their chip has hardware support for encoding a particular video format, while another does not have the same level of support for it, and must utilize general-purpose hardware to perform the task. But I really doubt we're going to see overall graphics performance anywhere remotely close to 3090 in that chip.
    Reply