Do I need to quote your own statement to you, verbatim, again?

> Mac studio wins in memory capacity, price, perf/watt and value.

Mac Studio winning in memory capacity is just a fact. That's why I'm confused.

Yes, I agree. What about the other metrics, including performance per watt which I’ve now mentioned four times and you’ve ignored the previous three times?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwIZ5VI3Eus

This is a good video to watch.

  Yes, I agree.

Glad you agree. I was just confused why you were questioning it. The big biggest advantage for Apple Silicon is that you can get much more VRAM per $ over Nvidia cards. No controversy.

You seem to be acting deliberately obtuse.

> What about [...] performance per watt which I’ve now mentioned ~~four~~ five times and you’ve ignored the previous ~~three~~ four times?

In the video.

No, it's not in the video.

The video was not focused on performance per watt at all, and the best attempt that the video makes at measuring performance per watt actually shows the opposite: that the 5090 system is more efficient than the Mac.

When he's running the 27B model, at about 5:02, he shows that the Mac Studio is pulling 251.5W, and the PC is pulling 315.3W.

Then he shows the results:

Mac: 27.62 tok/s PC: 40.92 tok/s

Doing the math, we arrive at 0.11 tokens/W for the Mac, and 0.13 tokens/W for the PC. The PC is about 20% more efficient.

The only other time he even shows the power usage at all is near the beginning, running a 4B model which is trivially small for both systems.

So once again, I ask, what are the sources for your performance/watt claim?