this is apple's new six thousand dollar w900x professional graphics card with 32
gigabytes of video memory 5 120 stream processors over 22 teraflops of graphics
performance and this is apple's m1 mac mini coming in at 900 for not only the
graphics card but the whole dang computer today we'll see if apple's
silicon is really that revolutionary or is it just fast when compared to slow
intel processors and graphics i think that you guys might already know the
answer to most of these tests but stick around and let's have some fun this
video is sponsored by squarespace the best way to make an amazing website as
you guys know i still have my mac pro because even after nine months nobody
wants to buy it and the only person i can blame is myself for making videos
like this one now since i still have i decided to see just how powerful the new
6 000 graphics card is compared to the mini beast which under full load uses
less power than this mpx graphics card just sitting there at idle of course to
use the six thousand dollar beast you also need a mac pro which itself starts
at six thousand dollars but with that you can't just buy the base model it
will bottleneck this card like crazy so in a real world scenario you're looking
at at least 12 000 or 16 000 as my mac pro is currently configured without the
afterburner card now that does include 192 gigabytes of ram which costs 3 000
from apple or 1100 on amazon compared to just 16 gigabytes in the mac mini which
is also shared with the 8 graphics cores compared to an additional 32 gigs of
ddr6 memory for the w6900xs 80 graphic scores so with 8 times the
amount of cores and way more dedicated video memory how much faster is this
beast of a pro graphics card well in terms of raw performance we have 22.2
teraflops compared to 2.6 teraflops so it actually lines up almost perfectly
with eight and a half times the raw performance now some of you know this is
a big navi gpu so it's using seven nanometer cores with the best efficiency
from amd with the 50 performance per watt improvement
compared to the previous vega but even still in order to achieve this much
power requires 300 watts for the gpu whereas the m1's graphics max out of 5.6
watts so it takes about 53 times the power to achieve eight and a half times
the performance but that still doesn't tell the whole story you also have to
factor in efficiency once you use a graphics api and what you are doing so
using geekbench 5's metal compute test which does a bunch of different tasks we
see a massive difference of 22 000 compared to 170 000 which is about seven
and a half times faster still a huge performance difference in terms of
gaming workloads running basemark's metal gaming benchmark shows us a
difference of seven times so as you can see even after efficiency losses the
w6900x absolutely destroys the m1's graphics of course we also have other
differences like the cpus the m1 has four powerful cores and four slower
efficiency cores compared to 12 high performance cores in the mac pro which
use almost 200 watts at full load compared to just 15. running a mixed
workload the 12 core mac pro is about 60 faster than the m1 mini which is also a
big difference but it's shocking to see just how much performance apple squeezes
out of the m1 chip with only 15 watts in a single intensive rendering workload
the difference jumps to about 80 which is huge in taking a look at score
per watt we see that the m1 gets 591 points per watt compared to just 73 in
the mac pro but that is all right because the mac pro is all about maximum
performance these two machines couldn't be any more different one is about brute
force raw power while the other is about maximizing performance while having
relatively low specs so now let's see just how much better the real world
performance of this 6 000 graphics card paired with a 10 000 mac pro is compared
to the measly 890 mac mini right after i thank our sponsor squarespace if you've
been thinking about making your own website squarespace is seriously the
best way to go you can build a great looking website like we did with
literally no web making experience it doesn't matter if you want a portfolio a
blog e-commerce or anything else you simply choose a template customize
blocks of text and images and easily move them around it's incredibly simple
it's affordable and ours have been running flawlessly for over three years
bringing in tons of traffic thanks to its built-in seo tools start your free
two-week trial with no credit card required by going to squarespace.com
maxtec or by using our custom link down below and when you're ready to launch
you will save 10 off your first purchase of a website or domain now i'll be
focusing on graphics based tasks since many cpu based tasks are actually slower
on the mac pro even though it has up to 80 more performance because many of
these don't max out the cores and also rely on single core performance that is
much slower on the mac pro as you've seen before photoshop takes just three
seconds to open compared to six on the pro lightroom takes four seconds instead
of eight and the editing is actually smoother other tasks like open up wav
files are almost twice as fast and denoising them like we do daily is also
way faster opening up files and applications are also faster thanks to
the ssd now being just as fast but with better single core performance and even
web browsing is noticeably snappier the most shocking one is xcode which is cpu
based and maxes both of them out where the m1 is actually faster than the mac
pro thanks to software and hardware efficiency so where does this extra
brute power come in well let's take a look at programs that need both the cpu
and the gpu starting with final cut i tested out bruce x which shows how the
raw graphics performance translates into pure video rendering performance without
using encoders and we see a difference of three times in favor of the mac pro
which is interesting because the raw performance is over eight times faster
next i stabilized a one minute long 4k hevc clip and the mac pro only took
eight seconds that is almost seven times faster than real time which is crazy and
the short clips that we typically work with will be finished in basically a
second so how long did the mac mini take nine seconds
yes a whole second faster than the system that costs 18 times more money
talk about efficiency the same thing goes for exporting regular 4k footage
with multiple luts and even film grain applied the mac pro takes 2 minutes and
28 seconds which is super fast but the mini is not far behind just taking 36
seconds longer compared to the previous mini that took over 12 minutes switching
to the more efficient hevc codec the difference is even smaller in fact it is
now in favor of the m1 mini taking 2 minutes and 25 seconds compared to 2
minutes 30 seconds now i know what some of you guys are gonna say this 6 000
graphics card is overkill for this type of work while at the same time the mini
is perfectly optimized while being relatively weak in specs and
you are absolutely right so i decided to throw much harder workloads at these
systems but even then when it is slower the difference isn't as large as you
would expect looking at the raw performance and the prices the first was
four 4k files oversampled into a 4k timeline each with film grain and two
luts applied with two clips being reversed this is a test that i haven't
used in years because it was just too difficult the mac pro took 4 minutes and
35 seconds to render this intense 5 minute project while the mac mini took 9
minutes and 15 seconds being severely limited by its graphics so not eight
times faster but twice now i thought that 4k prores raw files would also be
much faster with the mac pro and this new graphics card but not really
exporting a graded five-minute project took just two minutes and four seconds
but the mini wasn't far off at 2 minutes and 55 seconds cpu and gpu being fully
utilized since the m1 is maxed out here what happens if we throw graded 4k
progress raw at it and export with the largest and highest quality codec well
it really slows down taking 35 minutes for a five minute project but it is
still only three times slower when i expected much more of a difference to
push this even further i thought of the toughest thing in video editing
something that i excluded in the past because it was just too painstakingly
slow and that is denoising 4k prores rock lips surprisingly even with the
w6900x you cannot get real-time playback so you
have to render and to render a 15 second clip takes 9 minutes and 39 seconds yeah
that is very difficult to render but the m1 mini took about 50 minutes to render
and i say about because i couldn't make myself wait for it to finish but
basically it moved one percent every 30 seconds so what about outside of video
editing well the biggest reason to buy one of these is for 3d rendering and man
is this thing much faster than the previous best single graphics card the
vega 2. rendering in octane the standard trench project takes just 22 seconds to
render compared to 51 seconds with the vega 2 and 2 minutes and 24 seconds for
the m1 and for the chess scene just 12 seconds for the w6900x
and 1 minute and 42 seconds for the m1 mini yeah 12 seconds that is an insane
difference and if we do the math that actually comes out to eight and a half
times faster performance which is exactly what we see in the raw tear
flops so this is where the 6 000 graphics card really comes in for photo
and video editing the mac pro used to be worth it but after optimizations and the
m1s unless you're doing insane stuff it just is no longer worth it for those of
you that do 3d rendering every single day that is where the brute force of
this 6 000 graphics card really comes in and where it is worth spending the money
now i'm not sure if the software can be optimized for m1 max any further just
like photo and video editing software was but until that happens this is where
people are still going to have to buy mac pros with high core counts and crazy
expensive graphics cards like these ones now of course for our work even for
high-end video editing for example 10-bit footage from the r5 or the a7s2
the mac mini is actually faster at rendering this out and not only that
it's way smoother at playing it back as well because these high-end graphics
cards still don't have the proper decoding chips built into them to handle
this footage so it is choppy and you actually have to transcode the footage
before editing and when you're transcoding it still takes way longer
about two and a half times longer to transcode i thought that with this new
graphics card the mac pro might be worth keeping if it was gonna be much faster
for a workload but as you guys see because the encoders and decoders
haven't been changed and because software being a limitation with these
codecs it really doesn't give you that much extra performance and what it
really has me wondering is how much faster are the new m1x max going to be
when they get rid of their main issue which is raw graphics performance and
keep in mind the m1 graphics the a core that's in here that is the slowest apple
graphics chip that they're ever going to be making for the m1 and it's designed
for efficiency not maximum performance so when apple starts targeting that how
insane are those ships going to be go ahead let me know your thoughts down in
the comment section below go ahead and click that circle above if you guys want
to subscribe to help us reach 1 million subscribers which would be amazing check
out one of those great videos right over there this has been max and i will see
you guys in the next video [Music]