Notebookcheck Logo

Apple M1 8-Core GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU

Apple M1 8-Core GPU

► remove from comparison Apple M1 8-Core GPU

The Apple M1 GPU is an integrated graphics card offering 8 cores (1 deactivated core in the entry MacBook Air) designed by Apple and integrated in the Apple M1 SoC. According to Apple it is faster and more energy efficient as competing products (like the Tiger Lake Xe GPU). The peak performance of the high end variant is 2.6 teraflops and thanks to the unified memory architecture it should have fast access to the RAM.

The Apple M1 is manufactured in the modern 5nm process at TSMC and should offer an excellent energy efficiency. According to internal tools, the M1 GPU uses under load approximately 10 Watt (11.5 Watt package power including the RAM).

NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU

► remove from comparison NVIDIA NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU

The Nvidia RTX 4000 Ada Generation, not to be confused with the A4000, P4000 or RTX 4000 Turing Generation, is a very powerful professional graphics card for use in laptops that sports 7,424 CUDA cores and 12 GB of ECC GDDR6 VRAM. Brought into existence in 2023, this graphics adapter leverages TSMC's 5 nm process and Nvidia's Ada Lovelace architecture to achieve great performance combined with moderate power consumption. The Nvidia-recommended TGP range for the card is very wide at 60 W to 175 W leading to bizarre performance differences between different systems powered by what is supposed to be the same product.

Hardware-wise, the RTX 4000 is a GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop in disguise. Consequently, both make use of the AD103 chip and have little difficulty running triple-A games at QHD 1440p.

Quadro series graphics cards ship with much different BIOS and drivers than GeForce cards and are targeted at professional users rather than gamers. Commercial product design, large-scale calculations, simulation, data mining, 24 x 7 operation - if any of this sounds familiar, then a Quadro card will make you happy.

Architecture and Features

Ada Lovelace brings a range of improvements over older graphics cards utilizing the outgoing Ampere architecture. It's not just a better manufacturing process and a higher number of CUDA cores that we have here (up to 16,384 versus 10,752); under-the-hood refinements are plentiful, including an immensely larger L2 cache and an optimized ray tracing routine (a different way to determine what is transparent and what isn't is used) and other changes. Naturally, these graphics cards can both encode and decode some of the most widely used video codecs, AVC, HEVC and AV1 included; they also support a host of Nvidia technologies, including Optimus and DLSS 3, and they can certainly be used for various AI tasks.

The RTX 4000 features 58 RT cores of the 3rd generation, 232 Tensor cores of the 4th generation and 7,424 CUDA cores, making it a lot faster than the RTX 3500 Ada Generation. Elsewhere, the graphics card comes with 12 GB of 192-bit wide ECC GDDR6 memory for a very healthy throughput of ~432 GB/s. Error correction can be turned off if desired. The fact that error correction is present here proves that the RTX 4000 is indeed targeted at professional users.

Just like Ampere-based cards, the RTX 4000 makes use of the PCI-Express 4 protocol. 8K SUHD monitors are supported, however DP 1.4a video outputs can potentially prove to be a bottleneck down the line.

Performance

While we have not tested a single system featuring an RTX 4000 Ada Generation as of February 2024, we have plenty of performance data for the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop, a graphics card with very similar specifications. Based on that, we fully expect the RTX 4000 to deliver:

  • a Blender 3.3 Classroom CUDA score of around 23 seconds
  • a 3DMark 11 GPU score of around 57,000
  • at least 115 fps in GTA V (1440p - Highest settings possible, 16x AF, 4x MSAA, FXAA)
  • close to 50 fps in Cyberpunk 2077 (1440p - High settings, Ultra RT, "Quality" DLSS)

Nvidia's marketing materials mention "up to 33.5 TFLOPS" of performance which is impressive. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers a little over 42 TFLOPS, for reference.

Your mileage may vary depending on how competent the cooling solution of your laptop is and how high the TGP power target of the RTX 4000 is. One other thing worth mentioning is that enabling error correction appears to reduce the amount of video memory that is available to applications and games by up to a gigabyte.

Power consumption

Nvidia no longer divides its laptop graphics cards into Max-Q and non-max-Q models. Instead, laptop makers are free to set the TGP according to their needs, and the range can sometimes be shockingly wide. This is the case with the RTX 4000, as the lowest value recommended for it sits at just 60 W while the highest is more than two times higher at 175 W (this most likely includes Dynamic Boost). The slowest system built around an RTX 4000 Ada can easily be 60% slower than the fastest one. This is the kind of delta that we've already seen on consumer-grade laptops featuring the latest GeForce RTX cards.

Last but not the least, the improved 5 nm process (TSMC 4N) the RTX 4000 Ada is built with makes for very decent energy efficiency, as of mid 2023.

Apple M1 8-Core GPUNVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU
RTX Ada Generation Laptop GPU Series
M1 Max 32-Core GPU compare 32 @ 1.3 GHz512 Bit
M1 Max 24-Core GPU compare 24 @ 1.3 GHz
M1 Pro 16-Core GPU compare 16 @ 1.3 GHz
M1 Pro 14-Core GPU compare 14 @ 1.3 GHz
M1 8-Core GPU 8 @ 1.28 GHz
M1 7-Core GPU compare 7 @ 1.28 GHz
NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU compare 9728 @ 0.93 - 1.68 GHz256 Bit @ 20000 MHz
NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU 7424 192 Bit @ 16000 MHz
NVIDIA RTX 3500 Ada Generation Laptop GPU compare 5120 192 Bit @ 16000 MHz
NVIDIA RTX 3000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU compare 4608 128 Bit @ 16000 MHz
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU compare 3072 128 Bit @ 16000 MHz
Nvidia RTX 1000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU compare 2560 96 Bit @ 16000 MHz
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop GPU compare 2048 64 Bit @ 12000 MHz
Pipelines8 - unified7424 - unified
Core Speed1278 MHz
Theoretical Performance2.6 TFLOPS FP3233.6 TFLOPS FP32
Memory TypeLPDDR4X-4266GDDR6
Shared Memorynono
Power Consumption10 Watt150 Watt (60 - 150 Watt TGP)
technology5 nm5 nm
Date of Announcement10.11.2020 21.03.2023
ArchitectureAda Lovelace
Raytracing Cores58
Tensor / AI Cores232
Memory Speed16000 effective = 2000 MHz
Memory Bus Width192 Bit
Max. Amount of Memory12 GB
Memory Bandwidth432 GB/s
APIDirectX 12 Ultimate, Shader 6.7, OpenGL 4.6, OpenCL 3.0, Vulkan 1.3
PCIe4.0 x16
Displays4 Displays (max.), HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 1.4a
Notebook Sizelarge
Link to Manufacturer Pageimages.nvidia.com
PredecessorRTX A3000 Laptop GPU
CPU in M1 8-Core GPUGPU Base SpeedGPU Boost / Turbo
Apple M18 x 2064 MHz? MHz? MHz

Benchmarks

3DMark - 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics
280200 Points (32%)
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot (ES 3.0) Unlimited
min: 7588     avg: 10635     median: 10635 (46%)     max: 13682 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot (ES 3.0) Unlimited Graphics
min: 35978     avg: 39365     median: 39364.5 (87%)     max: 42751 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
min: 8911     avg: 9606     median: 9605.5 (48%)     max: 10300 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
25707 Points (77%)
3DMark - 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
min: 4144     avg: 4696     median: 4821 (6%)     max: 4997 Points
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit + Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Cinebench R15 - Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit
min: 88.1     avg: 89.1     median: 89.4 (5%)     max: 89.8 fps
Cinebench R15 OpenGL Ref. Match 64 Bit + Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Cinebench R15 - Cinebench R15 OpenGL Ref. Match 64 Bit
99.5 % (100%)
GFXBench - GFXBench 5.0 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
min: 60.9     avg: 74.3     median: 78.1 (14%)     max: 81.7 fps
GFXBench - GFXBench 5.0 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
min: 149     avg: 196.9     median: 206 (15%)     max: 216.1 fps
GFXBench - GFXBench Car Chase Offscreen
min: 150     avg: 167.4     median: 165.1 (19%)     max: 197 fps
GFXBench 3.1 - GFXBench Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
min: 216     avg: 248.2     median: 248.7 (5%)     max: 275 fps
GFXBench 3.0 - GFXBench 3.0 Manhattan Offscreen
min: 317     avg: 358.5     median: 345 (20%)     max: 408 fps
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 + Apple M1 8-Core GPU
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 - GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
min: 557     avg: 610     median: 588 (5%)     max: 670 fps
Antutu v9 - AnTuTu v9 GPU
min: 549301     avg: 598951     median: 598951 (75%)     max: 648601 Points
Power Consumption - Witcher 3 Power Consumption *
min: 19.6     avg: 39.4     median: 39.4 (9%)     max: 59.2 Watt
Power Consumption - GFXBench Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen Power Consumption 150cd *
min: 16     avg: 16.4     median: 16.5 (6%)     max: 16.6 Watt

Average Benchmarks Apple M1 8-Core GPU → 0% n=

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Game Benchmarks

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don't have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

League of Legends: Wild Rift

League of Legends: Wild Rift

2020
ultra
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
60  fps
Call of Duty Mobile

Call of Duty Mobile

2020
high
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
59 60 ~ 60 fps
ultra
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
59 60 60 ~ 60 fps
Genshin Impact

Genshin Impact

2020
ultra
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
59 60 ~ 60 fps
Armajet

Armajet

2020
high
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
59 60 ~ 60 fps
low 1280x720
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
30.4 52.5 54 56.7 ~ 48 fps
med. 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
20.3 30.7 32.5 33 ~ 29 fps
high 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
19 20 20.5 ~ 20 fps
low 1280x720
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
93.4 100 100 100.1 ~ 98 fps
med. 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
32.2 33 33 42.3 ~ 35 fps
high 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
20 20.3 20.6 25.5 ~ 22 fps
ultra 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
15 15 ~ 15 fps
low 1280x720
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
64 66 78 ~ 69 fps
med. 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
25 27 45 ~ 32 fps
high 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
23 25 43 ~ 30 fps
ultra 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
38  fps
PUBG Mobile

PUBG Mobile

2018
low
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
39  fps
high
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
39 39.9 40 ~ 40 fps
ultra
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
39 44 ~ 42 fps
World of Tanks Blitz

World of Tanks Blitz

2018
high
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
59  fps
ultra 1920x1080
100%
M1 8-Core GPU:
39.6  fps

Average Gaming Apple M1 8-Core GPU → 100%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 100%

Apple M1 8-Core GPUlowmed.highultraQHD4K
League of Legends: Wild Rift60
Call of Duty Mobile6060
Genshin Impact60
Armajet60
Borderlands 3482920
Total War: Three Kingdoms98352215
Shadow of the Tomb Raider69323038
PUBG Mobile394042
World of Tanks Blitz59
Rise of the Tomb Raider39.6
< 30 fps
< 60 fps
< 120 fps
≥ 120 fps

2
2
1
2

2
3
2
1
3
3






For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2024, 2023
v1.28
log 03. 23:53:57

#0 checking url part for id 10552 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 11607 +0s ... 0s

#2 redirected to Ajax server, took 1720043637 +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:16:07 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#4 composed specs +0.052s ... 0.053s

#5 did output specs +0s ... 0.053s

#6 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s ... 0.053s

#7 getting avg benchmarks for device 10552 +0.018s ... 0.071s

#8 got single benchmarks 10552 +0.007s ... 0.077s

#9 getting avg benchmarks for device 11607 +0s ... 0.078s

#10 got single benchmarks 11607 +0s ... 0.078s

#11 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.078s

#12 min, max, avg, median took s +0.014s ... 0.092s

#13 before gaming benchmark output +0s ... 0.092s

#14 Got 53 rows for game benchmarks. +0.005s ... 0.097s

#15 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s ... 0.097s

#16 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.001s ... 0.098s

#17 benchmarks composed for output. +0.004s ... 0.103s

#18 calculated avg scores. +0s ... 0.103s

#19 return log +0.027s ... 0.13s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Benchmarks / Tech > Graphics Card Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2023-07- 1)