This is significant because the NVIDIA 1050Ti, while way slower than the state of the art, is still the meaningful practical minimum discrete GPU. There’s no 2050 or 3050 - if you go about looking for the cheapest PC suitable for gaming, you might buy a 1050Ti. It is head and shoulders above the integrated GPUs (yes, even the AMD Vega ones), and comparable in power to last-gen (as of last week) consoles, the PS4 and Xbox One S.
This in turn means that every PC and console game created up until now, and probably for the next year or so, will comfortably run on a 1050Ti, even with compromises (“medium” settings, middling resolution like 1080p).
For the first generation of Apple’s Mac GPU, running at 10W, this is a great result. This means, Apples idiosyncrasies aside, there will be no technical problems in porting games to macOS. (Metal is less of a problem than you’d think - if you use Unreal, Unity, DirectX 11/12 or Vulkan for graphics, the work needed will be on the order of a few man/months, which is small change in game development budgets.)
Really, I find that surprising. I use a GTX 1070 and it's still capable of playing a decent number of recent games at 4K with the settings turned down. Seems like the GTX 1050 Ti should still cut it for some moderate 1080p gaming.
Seriously? I run a GTX 770 and get by fine with most games I want to play. I’ll upgrade eventually but don’t feel the need right now. Maybe CPU is the bottleneck for you?
I do have one question. How did they managed to get 1050ti working with metal api? As far as I know there is no nvidia drivers for macOS big sur and macOS catalina.
Given the power draw difference, the performance is impressive. The version of the 1050 sold as a discrete GPU for laptops draws several times more power than the entire M1.
>The power consumption of the GeForce GTX 1050 is roughly on par with the old GTX 960M, which would mean around 40-50 Watts
In comparison, the mobile version of the 1080 drew between 150 and 200 Watts, with the lower clocked Max Q version getting the power draw down to 90 to 110 Watts.
It's definitely impressive performance for an ultrabook - my concern right now is external monitor support.
I use an eGPU for the sole purpose of running triple monitors. It's a docking station, and the whole setup works brilliantly with my 13" Macbook. Productive workstation setup at home, super nimble laptop on the go.
Apparantly these M1 chips don't support eGPUs and don't even support two external monitors, let alone three. I know it's asked a lot, but what's "Pro" about that?
Completely negates any of the benefits of M1, which is a shame because I really wanted one.
edit: You know, if they don't resolve this then the final round of Intel Macbooks with the non-butterfly keyboards are going to be the holy grail of laptops to a lot of people for a long time, just like the pre-butterfly ones with the ports still are.
Multiple external monitors, eGPUs and bootcamp... that's a lot to lose, man.
The M1 MB Pro is only the replacement for the 2 port MB Pro. One should assume that there will be 4 port MB Pro coming too featuring a variant/successor of the M1. That probably would be supporting more screens, more memory and storage.
It brings a fan, which makes a huge difference if you have sustained loads. It also has a larger battery than the Air. Basically, it is the Air for those who need more sustained compute power. The 4 port version will certainly be much more capable, but also more expensive.
Pro apparently means it has an extra 100 nits and forced airflow to minimize processor throttling. It only has two serial ports and a small screen, so this was made for field use, though it does have support for a single 6K display when you get (or are confined to) home.
Might be better to go for a System76 or Dell if you can find all the apps you need for them.
Those are really good points and thank you for making them.
I actually bought one of the last generation of MacBook Pros so I can continue to build an x86 based server application. Maybe these machines will command a premium on the second hand market in due course?
The multiple monitor thing is weird. The Mac Mini supports more than one, and the one display it DOES support is the Pro Display XDR, which has more pixels than two 4K monitors.
The M1 Mac Mini supports one external display on the Thunderbolt port and a second one on the HDMI display. There are probably limitations on simultaneous resolution and refresh rates. This iteration of the M1 was not designed to handle large amounts of I/O. I would expect a more advanced version (M1X/M2) sometime in the next 6-12 months. That iteration will likely support 4 thunderbolt ports, multiple external monitors and larger RAM limits. That’s the one that Apple would use in iMacs and the other MacBook Pros.
I do wish that Apple would go ahead and release a 27” 5K display for the current machines. The 6K is way overkill and there are no good options for monitors >4K. They are probably waiting for the new iMacs with a new design language to put out a matching monitor.
This in turn means that every PC and console game created up until now, and probably for the next year or so, will comfortably run on a 1050Ti, even with compromises (“medium” settings, middling resolution like 1080p).
For the first generation of Apple’s Mac GPU, running at 10W, this is a great result. This means, Apples idiosyncrasies aside, there will be no technical problems in porting games to macOS. (Metal is less of a problem than you’d think - if you use Unreal, Unity, DirectX 11/12 or Vulkan for graphics, the work needed will be on the order of a few man/months, which is small change in game development budgets.)