What geekbench 5 fps are you talking about? Geekbench only has OpenCL and Vulkan scores for the 3090 as far as I can tell, and the M1 Ultra is less than half the OpenCL score of the 3090. And the M1 Ultra was significantly more expensive.
Find or link these workloads you think exist, please
> The M1 was (well, is) a marvel and absolutely smokes a 3090 in perf per watt.
The GTX 1660 also smokes the 3090 in perf per watt. Being more efficient while being dramatically slower is not exactly an achievement, it's pretty typical power consumption scaling in fact. Perf per watt is only meaningful if you're also able to match the perf itself. That's what actually made the M1 CPU notable. M-series GPUs (not just the M1, but even the latest) haven't managed to match or even come close to the perf, so being more efficient is not really any different than, say, Nvidia, AMD, or Intel mobile GPU offerings. Nice for laptops, insignificant otherwise
Here you go[0]. 'Aztek Ruins offscreen'. Although I misremembered the exact FPS, the 3090 is at 506 FPS.
Also note how the M1 Ultra is pushing 2/3 of the FPS of the 3090 despite 1/3 of the power budget and the game itself being poorly optimized for the M-series architecture.
And here[1] you have it smoking an Intel i9 12900K + RTX 3900. The difference doesn't look too impressive until you realize the power envelope for that build is 700-800W.
Also, the GTX 1660 (technically an RTX 2000 series, but whatever) is about 26% less efficient than an 3090[2].
> Being more efficient while being dramatically slower
That's my whole point and what you're refusing to see. The M1 is not dramatically slower than an i9 or 3090 despite having dramatically lower power use.
The proof for this will really start to come once Qualcomm and Mediatek have gotten a handle on their PC ARM chips and Valve decides they're good enough for a Steam Deck 2 or 3. You'll get to see 2-3x the battery life along a modest performance increase.
> Here you go[0]. 'Aztek Ruins offscreen'. Although I misremembered the exact FPS, the 3090 is at 506 FPS.
Oh, GFXBench not geekbench.
Realistically that 506 fps result is probably CPU bottlenecked, not that aztec ruins is all that relevant. It's a very old benchmark, released in 2018, that was destroyed for mobile GPUs, so realistically is using a 2010-ish GPU feature set.
If that's your use case, great. But it's not significant at all.
> And here[1] you have it smoking an Intel i9 12900K + RTX 3900.
Not using the GPU, so irrelevant. Also not using 700-800w
> Also, the GTX 1660 (technically an RTX 2000 series, but whatever) is about 26% less efficient than an 3090[2].
"bestvaluegpu" I've never heard of but holy AI slop nonsense batman. Taking 3dmark score and dividing it by TDP is easily one of the worst ways to compare possible.
Find or link these workloads you think exist, please
> The M1 was (well, is) a marvel and absolutely smokes a 3090 in perf per watt.
The GTX 1660 also smokes the 3090 in perf per watt. Being more efficient while being dramatically slower is not exactly an achievement, it's pretty typical power consumption scaling in fact. Perf per watt is only meaningful if you're also able to match the perf itself. That's what actually made the M1 CPU notable. M-series GPUs (not just the M1, but even the latest) haven't managed to match or even come close to the perf, so being more efficient is not really any different than, say, Nvidia, AMD, or Intel mobile GPU offerings. Nice for laptops, insignificant otherwise